Occasionally, Christians in Reformed Evangelical churches are challenged that they are possessed by demons or may be in danger of demon possession. They are told that demon possession of confessing Christians is a reality Christians must be prepared to meet.
The reasons why this question arises are many. The influence of well-resourced, organized and institutional Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity in our situation is real. None of us live in a bubble. Large Pentecostal churches in Australia have gained the attention of wider society, with impressive ‘worship’ services, conferences and social action programs. Within Pentecostalism, there is evidenced a concurrent downplaying of traditional distinctives—such as speaking in tongues—at the point of the Pentecostals’ engagement with other denominational Christians. However, this does not mean that they have jettisoned traditional Pentecostal teachings.
Individual Reformed Evangelicals and Pentecostals properly interact in all sorts of ways. In our current situation of aggressive secularism, and the high visibility of non-Christian religions in modern Australia, a reaching out from members of either the older Protestant denominations or the newer Pentecostal megachurches is understandable. Individual Anglican, Baptist and Independent Evangelical churches and leaders have sought to humbly learn from Pentecostal successes, particularly in the areas of music, church growth and evangelism. Pentecostal growth has invited imitation. At the same time, Pentecostal megachurches have sought a place of leadership of other Protestant Christian denominations and sought to move into the mainstream of Protestant Christian life.
Evangelical churches frequently use music from Pentecostal publishers, and Pentecostal songwriters are increasingly drawing from traditional evangelical hymnody and even ancient creeds for inspiration. The appropriation of well-known phrases from Evangelical hymns is feeding more Pentecostal music into mainstream Evangelical churches who are seeking to have more modern music. In parachurch ministry, there is also noticeable penetration of Pentecostalism. Pentecostal-sponsored schools educate Evangelical children. In the professional Christian counseling space, forms of counseling and prayer ministry operate on the supposition that professing Christian clients might be subject to demonization, and interventions are developed accordingly. I have experienced this anecdotally. The self-consciously hybridized ‘Reformed Charismatic’ movement in the US and Australia expresses a more theological expression of friendly co-operation, rather than competition, between Reformed and Pentecostal Protestantism.
All of this has arguably led to cross-fertilization—or cross-contamination, depending on your viewpoint—in other ministry areas also. For some, this has been a welcome change: it has brought a healthy ecumenism, a humble confession of weaknesses and a fruitful sharing of strengths and contributed to mission-inspired change in certain outward forms of doing church. However, it has also led to questions drawn from traditional Pentecostal emphases such as that in the title above: ‘Can Christians be possessed by demons?’ This question arises among Christians in our context for five very understandable reasons.
Firstly, those who ask the question agree with the Bible, in that they believe that Satan and demons exist, that they are powerful malignant spiritual beings, and that they hold sway over humanity in some way.[1]
Secondly, they rightly see that the bible has not said that Satan and his demons have stopped working against humans after New Testament times. Indeed, according to the New Testament, Satan is the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit now at work in those who are disobedient (Eph 2:2).
Thirdly, people who ask this question are concerned for fellow believers and wish to rightly find a solution to a presenting problem. Correction of the problem requires correct diagnosis. Those who suggest demon-possession may be a factor in human suffering, at one level, are simply trying to find an effective means of alleviating that suffering. They want to help.
Fourthly, the identification of demonization generally serves an apologetic and pre-evangelistic purpose, in that it might show that the God of the Bible exists and is the true God who works in the world. Identifying demon possession in the present then might serve to confirm the world view and testimony of the Bible and encourage Christian belief.
Fifthly, and probably the most important factor standing behind the issue, is this: some believers ask this question because they—or others whom they trust—have had experiences that suggest to them that demons do possess fellow Christians. ‘Demon possession’ is an explanation that they find in the bible for something they or those they respect have experienced. For them, ‘demon possession’ provided a convincing explanation for what they witnessed.
It is always fraught to argue against someone’s experience. After all, it was their experience, not mine. In our culture, it verges on arrogance to do so. Who can argue against another person’s experience? ‘Well, you weren’t there. You didn’t see what I saw. Your pontifications are from ignorance and from afar. But I was there.’ Challenging another person about what they saw is necessarily a challenge to a witnesses’ credibility. The implication is that the witness is either dishonest or mistaken as to the events they saw or the explanation they attribute to it, and thus ‘stupid’. This is a high-stakes conflict situation, which at the beginning shuts down an investigation into the bible as to whether Scripture makes such occurrences of demon possession of Christians as possible or likely (‘Well, I’ve seen a Christian demon possessed, so that settles it’). A subtle shift has been made from recounting the events and acts witnessed (e.g. words spoken, voice used, apparent loss of bodily control) to providing an explanation (demon possession) which excludes other explanations (e.g. mental illness, medical symptoms, willful deception for a variety of reasons, suggestibility).
It is important to define our terms. The English term ‘demon’ has arisen from a transliteration of the Greek word ‘daimon’. In ancient secular Greek works, a daimōn (δαίμων) denotes an inferior god, goddess or divinity, some sort of power superior to humans. A daimōn can be good or evil. This is not surprising, given the polytheistic pantheon of the Graeco-Roman world.
In the Gospels, there is only one instance of the masculine daimōn (Matt 8:31). The Gospels most frequently (over 60 instances) attest to the neuter diminutive daimōnion (δαιμόνιον), ‘little demon’. In the New Testament, in every instance except one, it denotes an evil spiritual being. In Acts 17:18, Paul uses daimōnion to refer to heathen gods. Again, this is not surprising, because of the universal biblical teaching of only one true God (e.g. Deut 6:5).
‘Demons’ in the bible are created supernatural spiritual beings. They are also called ‘unclean spirits’ (Mark 1:23-27; 5:1, 8, 6:7, 7:25, 9:25; Luke 4:33[2], 8:29; Rev 16:14, 18:2; cf. Matt 8:16). It seems fitting that the ‘demons’ and ‘unclean spirits’ are a parallel description of ‘the devil and his angels’ (Matt 25:41; Luke 11:18; Rev 12:9). The demons, also known as uncleans spirits or the devil and his angels, are a part and subset of the unseen spiritual which also consists of created angels who retained their place, which likewise are spirit beings. Of course, the eternal and everlasting triune God is the creator and governor of them all, and including us humans as material beings. But God still governs the ‘devil and his angels’, albeit in a different way that God governs the elect angels. That is, while they rebel against God’s revealed will, they still serve the sovereign God’s purposes, and nothing they can do is outside God’s permissive will.
It is a popular idiom to say of someone struggling with an addiction, trauma or mental illness that ‘he is wrestling with his demons’. But this is a metaphor for psychological turmoil and the well-known struggles common to humanity. What we are talking about here is something different. We are speaking here of real and existent though normally undetectable spiritual beings. They are created, because they are not eternal: only God is eternal. They are also fallen, because God made all things good. However, the demons are not ‘good’. They are unclean. So what we have in the demons is something ‘fallen’ from God’s original good creation. This fallenness of course occurs within God’s permissive will and according to his over-riding sovereignty.
It is clear that I am inferring that, like Satan, demons are fallen angels, created good but through their own sin have become evil. The strongest arguments for this are the logical ones in light of the description ‘the devil and his angels’ used above. That is, the demons are not eternal but created, and that they fell because God made all things good originally, and the co-location of ‘the devil’ and ‘the angels’ condition each other, such that both should be seen to be supernatural spirit beings, unless context determines otherwise. Whatever other hypothesis about Satan and demons is adopted, these two premises must be adopted as non-negotiables for theological reasons. To maintain consistency in interpretation of the demons with the whole of biblical revelation, we must say that they are created and fallen. Scripture points us to the fact that they are ‘angels’—meaning not just messengers, but angelic in being and origin.[3]
Some doubt might be cast on this working hypothesis—that the demons are ‘fallen angels’—because it is quite true that ‘angel’ in the New Testament can simply mean ‘messenger’, and refer to human messengers.
However, most frequently in the New Testament, the Greek ‘angelos’ means a spiritual and non-human messenger from God. It denotes a supernatural but created figure of a different genus to God from whom he is sent, often conveying authoritative commands and possessed of super-human knowledge and power. These figures appear to humans to reveal salvation historical messages in dreams (cf. Matthew 1:20, 24, 2:13, 19; John 12:29; Acts 10:3-8, 22, 23:8-9) and through visions and appearances (Luke 1:11, 13, 18-19, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 2:9-15, 21; John 1:51, 20:12-13; Acts 7:30, 35, 38, 53, 8:26, 11:13, 12:7-11; Gal 1:8, 3:19; Col 2:18).
The reference to the angels as supernatural figures in contradistinction to the devil with beyond human powers commanded by God to do his bidding is found in Matthew 4:6, 11, 26:53, 28:2, 5; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:10-11; Luke 16:22, 22:43; Acts 5:19-20, 6:15, 12:23; 2 Corinthians 11:14. The eschatological agents of Christ’s salvation and judgement in contradistinction to the devil are most likely angels as spiritual beings in Matthew 13:39, 41, 49, 16:27, 24:31, 36, 24:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Romans 8:38; 2 Thess 1:7. They are also the court before whom Christ vindicates or judges his people in Luke 12:8-9. They are beings who reside in the presence of God in heaven in Matthew 18:10; Mark 13:32; Luke 1:18-19, 15:10 and cf. v. 7; Acts 27:23; they are those who do not marry in heaven in Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25. They are clearly in contradistinction to men, and thus almost certainly spirit beings, in 1 Corinthians 4:9, 13:1, cf. 6:3.
The word refers to the devil’s angels, that is, demons, in Matthew 25:41.
While there is a possibility that the reference is to human evangelists and messengers in Mark 13:27, it is more probably a reference to angels as spiritual beings. The references in Hebrews and the catholic epistles are to angels as spiritual beings that minister to the human heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1-2, 12:22, probably 13:2, 1 Peter 1:12, 3:22; 2 Peter 2:4, 11; Jude 1:6). The Apocalypse of John uses ‘angel’ to frequently refer to spirit beings (e.g. Rev 1:1, 5:2, 11, 7:1, 2, 11, 8:2-13, 9:1, 11, 10:1, 5, 10:10, 12:7, 9, 14:17-19, 15:6-8, 18:21 etc.), though it is perhaps possible though less likely that it might in chapters 2-3 refer to human messengers (e.g. Rev 1:1, 2:1, 8, 12, 18, 3:1, 5, 7, 14, ). However, even the angel that proclaims the eternal gospel to all the inhabitants of the earth is clearly a spirit being—he ‘flies directly overhead’. That is not a human messenger.
Regarding the ‘devil and his angels’ in Revelation 12:9, it is almost certain that these ‘angels’ are a reference not to human messengers but to spirit beings, demons.
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
It is almost certain that the process described as Satan ‘being thrown down to earth’ and that whereby ‘his angels were thrown down with him’ was the same and identical. If, as seems almost certain, the devil and his angels were located in heaven and thrown down to earth, then these angels almost certainly are not human messengers but angelic in the sense of spirit beings—in which case what is described is a temporal judgement of Satan and his angels consequent on the incarnation and ascension the Messiah. ‘Satan and his angels’ were evicted from the presence of God in heaven to roam the earth, until the final judgment where they are thrown in the lake of fire.
The word angelos refers to a human messenger from God in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27 (John the Baptist citing Mal 3:1), Luke 7:24 (messengers sent from John the Baptist), Luke 9:52 (Jesus’ disciples as messengers to the Samaritans). The reference might mean ‘human messengers’ sent to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 11:10, but it might also mean spirit beings. It quite possibly means human messengers in 1 Tim 3:16, as the order then of salvation historical events, except for the last item, then becomes chronological:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh (incarnation), vindicated (lit. justified) by the Spirit (resurrection), seen by angels (possibly human messengers, that is, the apostles), proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
The messenger or angel of Satan in 1 Corinthians 12:7-9 could either be a demon, or a metaphorical use of the idea of an angel to speak of God sovereignly sending a thorn in Paul’s flesh, some painful affliction, to keep him humble in the midst of surpassing visions. If the ‘angel of Satan’ is a demon, it is not an example of possession but of demonic ‘pestering’, an affliction of a similar nature to that of Job 1-2.
The phrase ‘elect angels’ (1 Tim 5:21)—almost certainly spiritual beings mentioned alongside ‘God and Christ Jesus’ and before whom Paul and Timothy minister—is pregnant with meaning of the converse. If there are ‘chosen angels’, it is reasonable to assume that in Paul’s cosmogony there are also ‘reprobate’ ones.
There appears to be no unambiguous biblical passage that narrates the pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan or demons into a sinful nature.
We must discount both Isaiah 14:1-23 and Ezekiel 28 as texts which might provide a seat for the doctrine for the pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan or any angels.
Isaiah 14:1-23 explicitly refers to the ‘King of Babylon’ (v. 4) and calls him a ‘man’ (v. 16). If there is any reference to the fall of Satan is to be found in the passage, it would be derived from the fact that Isaiah’s prophecy alludes to a tradition about the fall of Satan (not otherwise found in the Old Testament or other ancient sources now lost to us), but that has been used intertextually in Isaiah 14:12-14 in reference to the King of Babylon. However, such a hypothesis cannot be proved on the current state of our knowledge. We have no antecedent to Isaiah 14:12-14 which might make this argument any stronger than what it is—an unverifiable hypothesis that is consistent with a tradition of the pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan, but does not prove it. However, the passage as it stands would tend to slightly strengthen the likelihood of the hypothesis of a pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan, rather than weaken it, because of that possibility. So still the pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan is the best working thesis that we have, slightly strengthened by the possibility of this vorelage hypothesis. But it cannot be said that Isaiah 14:12-14 establishes the teaching of Satan’s pre-Genesis 3 fall.
Regarding Ezekiel 28:11-19, it is undeniable that this reference is to the King of Tyre and is a prophetic denunciation of him for his pride in claiming divinity (v. 12, and cf. 27:1-3, 8, 32; 28:1-10). The reference to ‘Eden, the garden of God’ (v. 13) is again part of a sharp prophetic criticism which uses hyperbole based on the account of Genesis 1-2 and the trade, wealth, and geographic features of Tyre. However, while Ezekiel 28 cannot be used to establish the pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan, the passage does tend to strengthen the hypothesis rather than weaken it. That is, the denunciation of the King of Tyre is strengthened, not weakened, by hypothesizing a story of the pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan. The hypothetical vorelage would give the ironic polemic against the King of Tyre great rhetorical power. The King of Tyre is in fact like Satan in the greatness of his fall into sin and thinking himself divine, and the King of Tyre’s fall into judgment and punishment will be just as dramatic.
The main biblical passages that potentially describe a fall of angels and thus explaining Satan or the demons are Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell (Lit. cast into tartarus) and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment (2 Peter 2:4)
And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day (Jude 6)
These two New Testament passages provide an interpretation of the famous and puzzling Genesis 6:1-4 passage, where the sons of God come to the daughters of men and take in marriage whomever they choose. Their unions produce the nephilim—the fallen ones—sometimes erroneously translated as ‘giants’.[4]
The correct understanding of the Genesis 6:1-4 passage is highly contested. However, one point is uncontestable. Genesis 6:1-4 cannot refer to a pre-Genesis 3 fall of anything, for the simple reason that the ‘fall’ there mentioned (whatever it may be) occurs in Genesis 6! It is almost certainly a distinct fall to that of Satan, as we see Satan sinning in Genesis 3—and he either thereby ‘fell’, or had ‘fallen’ at some time before.
It is clear that the Old Testament teaches the existence of created supernatural spiritual beings. As David Jackson says:
There certainly is a “host of heaven” (1 Kings 22:19), including spiritual beings that are not human. There are beings called “angels” and “spirits” (Zech 6:5) or “watchers/guardians” (Dan 4:13, 17, 23).[5]
In principle, then, there is no necessary impossibility that some of these beings fell. The pre-Christian Enochic Judaism view—which has some similarity to the post-Christ Patristic understanding of Genesis 6:1-4— was in essence that some angels fell by lusting after human women, in some way had sex with them, and produced the nephilim. We might call this the ‘supernatural’ view. Partly because of the difficulty of the idea of fallen angels having sex (are they not spirit beings without bodies?), Calvin popularized what we might call a ‘non-supernatural’ or ‘natural’ view that can be generalized as that the ‘sons of God’ were a righteous or powerful line of men (one possibility is that they are of the line of Seth), and the daughters of men were the women of the wicked line (most probably the daughters of Cain), and these two groups intermarried. The essential elements of Calvin’s view indeed have a long pedigree, which stretch back to Jewish exegesis before Christ, and continues to this day.[6] On this understanding, Genesis 6:1-4 gives us yet another example of the danger of being unequally yoked with unbelievers in marriage, rather than a fall of spirit beings into cross-species lust.
While the ‘natural view’ has the advantage of dealing with the problem of human-angel sexual relations, I think that 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 make most sense on the ‘supernatural’ view—with all its difficulty and weirdness—that Genesis 6:1-4 narrates illicit unions between fallen angels and men. ‘Sons of God’ can mean angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7).
The term ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:2, 4 MT (bene 'elohim) is translated as οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ in the LXX. It is possible that the ‘sons of God’ in Job 1:6, 2:1 might refer to ‘the spirits of righteous men made perfect’ (Hebrews 12:23). This interpretation would be consistent with Satan being the accuser of the brothers. Thus, David Jackson writes,
The satan’s challenge is in fact not just a charge against Job, but against all the sons of God present in that assembly. Job is simply the test case. The satan is challenging the right of every son of God to stand before the throne of God.[7]
However, Job 38:7 is describing a time when God created the earth (e.g. v. 4: ‘where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?’), and thus it is unlikely that the ‘Sons of God’ were ‘the spirits of righteous men made perfect’ in that passage. Righteous men were not at the creation to have seen it and rejoice. Jackson seems to suggest that because the ‘stars’ aren’t created till Day 4 in the Genesis 1 account, that Job is borrowing from pagan mythology as part of a polemic against those who feared the power of the sky and sea.[8] In other words, Job is referring to non-real things—pagan deities—as worshipping the one true God. An analogy would be to say that Jesus is greater than a fictional character like ‘superman’, and that ‘superman’ in fact worships ‘Jesus’.
But a more straightforward understanding has gained the majority of support, and that is the ‘sons of God’ are angels and are truly existent creatures, which were there at the creation of the world. I think this is more likely. The ‘sons of God’ in Job 38:7 is most likely a reference to ‘angels’, as many commentators hold, and that the presence of the Satan among them points to the presence of a like being among like beings. That is, it tends to suggest that Satan is of the same type as an ‘angel’ (though fallen) whom he is ‘among’ (Job 1:6, 2:1). The LXX takes this approach, translating ‘sons of God’ as ‘angels of God’ (οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ: Job 1:6, 2:1LXX) and ‘my angels’ (ἄγγελοί μου: Job 38:7LXX). In this regard, D A Carson states what almost certainly appears to be the situation:
[I]n the Bible “son(s) of God” can refer to a diverse range of beings […] a handful of entries clearly refer to angels. “One day the angels [Heb.: ‘the sons of God’] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them” (Job 1:6; see also 2:1; 38:7). “Sons of God” is found in the original of Psalms 29:1 and 89:6; both NIV and ESV render the Hebrew “heavenly beings” rather than “sons of God.” Unfallen angels, one supposes, reflect God’s character in many ways. In various passages they take on revelatory roles and carry out God’s purposes. The carefully worded comment—that Satan also came with them—suggests both proximity and distance : it is not too much to infer that he should have been one with them, but at this juncture must be mentioned separately, for his purposes are malign.[9]
[S]atan could be included among the “sons of God” who are angels, even though he was not living up to his calling […][10]
It is likely that ‘Sons of the Most High’ in Psalm 82:6 refers to human judges (cf. v. 7), although the fact that God renders judgment among the ‘gods’ in the great assembly (Psalm 82:1) suggests a heavenly court room with the angels present, and that v. 6 as a description of human judges receives its power because the human judges are like the ‘angelic beings’ in that they are involved in the ‘godlike’ process of judgement.
Psalms 29:1MT and 89:7MT refers to ‘sons of the mighty’ (bene 'elim), and Psalms 28:1LXX and 88:7LXX translate it with ‘υἱοὶ θεοῦ’ (sons of God). Many take it to refer to angels, but this cannot be conclusively proved inductively. Daniel 3:25MT regards the fourth man in the fire as ‘like a son of God/the gods’ (Aramaic lebar-elahin, and cf. ὁμοίωμα ἀγγέλου θεοῦ in Dan 3:92LXX).[11]
Good angels in the Old Testament wrestle, eat food, fight, walk, and appear in bodies—things not normally associated with purely ‘spirit’ beings. While it would be astounding to consider that fallen angels might find a way to have sex with humans, that fact alone does not make it impossible. After all, we believe that God himself, a pure spirit being, became truly human, and added human nature to his divinity in the person of Jesus Christ the Mediator. Of course, God is omnipotent and the angelic beings are not. But we simply do not know enough about the angels, demons, or other spirits, to say whether the siring of offspring in some way was impossible for them. The only way we can know about whether it is possible is whether Scripture tells us—and that is the very issue we are attempting to determine.
It might be said that according to the New Testament, it is impossible for an angel to be called a ‘son of God’, because the author to the Hebrews specifically declares it impossible when he says:
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son (υἱός μου εἶ σύ), today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son (αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν)”? (Hebrews 1:5)
However, Hebrews 1:5 probably is not making a general statement about whether the angels can be called ‘sons of God’, but a specific statement of the identity of the recipient of the blessedness there described. That is, this is most likely simply a statement that the dignity of Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14—that the Messiah is to be the unique Son of God—is to be applied to a human Son of David who is also God, and to no angel. That is, Hebrews 1:5 doesn’t say that angels are not ever referred to as a class called ‘sons of God’ in the Old Testament—and thus consistency of biblical interpretation requires the Christian to limit his or her interpretation of instances of that phrase in the Old Testament; rather, it says that no angel was ever called ‘Son of God’ as intended by Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7. Again, Carson expresses the position of the majority of exegetes when he says:
The superiority that is claimed does not turn on the mere word “Son,” as if the text were saying, “Jesus is called the Son, but angels are not so described in Scripture, so that proves Jesus is superior.” Anyone as well versed in Scripture as the writer to the Hebrews cannot possibly be ignorant of the fact that sometimes Scripture does refer to angels as sons of God[.][12]
The teaching is not so much that the Old Testament does not call angels ‘sons of God’ as a class, but that no angel is the Messiah, the Son of David, and no angel received those distinctive promises of Sonship, Rule, and worldwide dominion. This also seems to be the import of Hebrews 1:13, quoting Psalm 110:1: ‘And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?’ That is, Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 only apply to the unique Son of God, the Son of David, who is God himself, and not to any created angel.
The singular ‘you are my Son’ may be important here. That is, the reference to ‘Son of God’—and not ‘sons of God’ as a class—indicates that the Messiah occupies a unique position of a different qualitative order to any angel. No angel is said to have been ‘begotten’ by God, and only Christ is the only begotten of the Father (e.g. John 1:18). The privileges and prerogatives of Psalm 2 only apply to the Son of God and not angels. And just as in the New Testament the fact that humans are called ‘sons of God’ does not contradict the fact that Christ is the unique Son of God, the monogenes theos, the only begotten Son who is God, so also in the Old Testament the fact that the Messiah is referred to as the unique Son of God (Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 7) does not mean that the reference to ‘sons of God’ cannot be to the angels if that best fits the context.
Jesus did say that the final human state is not to be married ‘like the angels in heaven’ (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25; cf. Luke 20:35-36), but that does not necessarily mean it is impossible for spirit beings to marry, have sex or sire offspring. It may simply mean that the ‘elect angels’ (1 Tim 5:21), the angels that never sinned but kept their place, do not marry. Of course they don’t marry—they kept their place! If they marry, they have not kept their place. Jesus point is that the redeemed humans will be like the angels—that is, the elect angels, not the demons—in that the elect angels did not marry, and neither will redeemed Christians in the new heaven and the new earth. Indeed, such an understanding could reinforce the view that the fall of at least some angels was the result of sexual lust, because while the elect angels do not marry, perhaps the implication is that there are some reprobate ones that did!
There is an affinity between my reading of Genesis 6:1-4 and both the Graeco-Roman myths concerning demi-gods, and the Qumran and Enochic Judaism’s view of the nephilim. Dr David Jackson, an expert in Enochic literature and its interaction with the canonical Scriptures, summarizes the view of the Essene cult as follows:
The Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls cult) believed in fallen angels who they said had sex with women and produced giant babies who, when they had finished killing each other, left spirits on the earth who are the demons who rule everyone who was not a member of their cult.[13]
While there is some overlap here between the Essenes on the one hand, and the Patristic view that I have adopted, this fact alone neither proves nor disproves the ‘fallen-angels-having-sex-with-women’ thesis. Such co-incidences and similarities could be characterized and criticized as pagan polytheism influencing and detracting from Jewish monotheism within fringe Jewish sectarian cults. But they just as soundly could be characterized as cultish corruption of a common history of angelic-wife-taking for which the biblical account provides the original and trustworthy record.
There are methodological questions that come to the fore here. For example, comparing the biblical account of the Noahic flood with the Epic of Gilgamesh, on merely historical principles, one could posit a common source for both accounts, and certainly that each provides independent testimony to a great widespread flood from which a small number of humans and animals were saved by building a boat. One without Christian presuppositions could posit that the Epic of Gilgamesh disproves the biblical account where they disagree, but must concede there is corroborated testimony for an ancient extensive flood. Christian presuppositions just as soundly would lead to the hypothesis that the biblical account has retained the accurate account, while the Epic of Gilgamesh provides a partial but corrupted corroboration. Neither hypothesis could be proved or disproved on purely historical principles, with our current evidence. So saying that the Hellenistic and Enochic Jews believed some highly unlikely things (like fallen angels siring giants) does not of itself show that the ‘crazy stuff’ did not original arise from surprising and unusual biblical accounts.
One might argue that the statements in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 are ad hominem arguments which do not necessarily accept that the fallen angels spoken of in those passages actually exist. One might say that both Peter and Jude are using their opponents’ documents (in this case, those of Enochic Judaism) to show the superiority of Christ over Enochic Judaism’s non-existent false ‘minor deities’ or ‘demigods’. That is, in the same way that someone might cite a fictitious character from modern comics well known to children to make a theological point—Jesus is more powerful than Marvel’s ‘Iron Man’, for example—without conceding that ‘Iron Man’ actually exists in real life, so, it is argued, Jude and Peter quote and allude to 1 Enoch not so as to accept the truth, claims, history and authority of Enochic Judaism, but simply to communicate that Jesus Christ supercedes whatever saviours or heroes are found in their documents.
An analogy would be the case where Paul says that false gods ‘are nothing’ and that there is no God but one (1 Corinthians 8:4), but nevertheless Paul still speaks about many gods in the world (1 Corinthians 8:5) who are obviously ‘false gods’ and really do not exist as God in the proper sense. Paul later says that an idol or a sacrifice to it is nothing (1 Corinthians 10:19), and yet it is still a sacrifice to ‘demons’ and not to God (1 Corinthians 10 :20-21).
In fact, this is the suggestion of Plumbtre when he considers the Epistle of Jude’s use of the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses:
What strikes us most, in some sense, as an unexpected difficulty, is the reference to narratives and prophecies which we find nowhere in the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament and which are found in spurious and unauthentic Apocrypha. Had he [Jude] read, we ask, the Book of Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses, or some similar book? (See notes on Jude verses 9 and 14.) It can scarcely be doubted that, but for antecedent prepossessions in favour of an arbitrary a priori theory of inspiration, we should answer this question in the affirmative. We can scarcely think it probable that he and his fellow-workers read no books but those included in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. […] And if we once admit the possibility of an acquaintance with the then current literature of Palestine, we know that such books as those referred to may well have been within his reach, and, if so, it was not strange that he should use them, without critically examining their historical trustworthiness, as furnishing illustrations that gave point and force to his counsels. The false teachers against whom he wrote were, we know, characterised largely by their fondness for "Jewish fables" (Tit. i. 14), and the allusive references to books with which they were familiar were therefore of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. He fought them, as it were, with their own weapons.[14]
The first point to raise is that an ad hominem argument does not require the falsity of the proposition which it cites in its protasis, or initial premise. An ad hominem argument of itself says nothing about whether such statements are true or false. The form of the argument is ‘If X be true, as you hold, then Y follows’. The form of the argument might indeed be based on true statements.
The second problem with this ad hominem view applied to 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 is that there are no indicators in the text that Peter or Jude do not accept as true the propositions about the angels which they articulate. As Witherington observes:
The example of Jude 6 is sandwiched between two clearly historical examples in Jude 5 [Jesus and the exodus] and Jude 7 [Sodom and Gomorrah]. This suggests that Jude saw the story of the fallen angels as historical (he handles Genesis 6:1-4 with restraint, unlike its use in 1 Enoch). Jude 9 [archangel Michael disputing with the devil about Moses’ body], however, is separated from the first three examples by Jude 8 [these false teachers rely on their dreams and sin sexually and rebel against authority], which may suggest that Jude saw this illustration as different and that he was now turning to fictitious or legendary examples to condemn the false teachers (a good debater would use all kinds of examples to make his case). Since, however, Jude 11 contains more biblical and historical examples (Cain, Balaam, Korah), it could be that Jude viewed all of the examples alike.[15]
It seems to me that Witherington is correct but has understated the effect of the evidence. The fact is that there is nothing in the text—except the fact itself of that the quotes are from apocryphal sources—that would indicate any doubt as to whether the event narrated occurred. It is simply listed among other biblical references universally accepted by Jude and his co-religionists as historical. And there is nothing in principle to suggest that everything in non-canonical writings is untrue. ‘Non-canonical’ does not mean ‘untrue’. It means that it is not recognized by a certain human group to be divinely inspired, and thus it is not to be used as a yardstick for doctrine. Neither does the fact that a writing is ‘apocryphal’ or ‘pseudipigraphic’ mean that of necessity every fact to which it attests is fictitious.
Conservative Christians such as myself hold to Jude and 2 Peter being divinely inspired. There is no reason in principle why Jude should not have, under the inspiration of the Spirit and according to the concursus of God, chosen from any given source whatever words, propositions, or principles which themselves are agreeable with the truth, and were also appropriate and apposite to his purpose in writing. In verse 14, Jude says that Enoch ‘prophesied’. So too did Caiaphas the High Priest truly prophesy concerning Jesus Christ (John 11:49-53), but we do not admit that necessarily everything that Caiaphas said was therefore prophecy or that he was a prophet, but only that which John quotes in his Gospel was true prophecy. While Tertullian (c. 200) argued for the plenary inspiration of the whole book of Enoch on the basis of Jude’s attestation[16], strictly all that the inspiration of Jude requires is the factual accuracy and truth of the words and propositions that Jude himself quotes or to which he alludes. This is similar to the approach of Bede (c. 672-735), who says of the quote from 1 Enoch 1:9 that Jude uses in vv. 14-15: ‘this passage which Jude takes from Enoch is not in itself apocryphal or dubious but is rather notable for its clarity with which it testifies to the true light’.[17]
Paul says that the ‘many gods in the world’ are nothing and there is only one God. Their sacrifices are made not made to gods but demons. Jude and Peter could easily have said that such ‘fallen angels’ are ‘nothing’ and do not really exist, as Paul does of false gods. But neither does—they in fact state them in the same context as other historical figures. The manner in which they have made their statements is completely consistent with their belief in the historical truth of the propositions that they utter.
Similar hermeneutical devices have been used to sidestep the meaning of clear Pauline texts. I think in particular of Douglas Campbell’s diatribe device, which places the Pauline denunciations of homosexual sin in Romans 1:18-32 in the mouth of a hypothetical interlocutor—the Jewish Teacher—a legalistic, moralistic contractualist. In Campbell’s view, this dialogical reading frees the church from both the homophobia of twenty centuries of Bible teaching as well as what he calls Justification Theory. Essentially, we need not be homophobes and continue to think homosexuality is criticized by Paul—because Paul never did—he was only quoting the false teacher. On Campbell’s view, Paul is merely reciting the false teachers arguments, which Campbell’s Paul rejects.
Not only is the novelty of this reading troubling (no one had thought of this for 2000 years, and only with the Western Campaign for GLBTIQ rights has this insight been adopted), but it could conceivably be applied to anything in Scripture that someone objected to. If there is something that you don’t like, put it in the mouth of the Bible writer’s opponent as a quote, and it is no longer the word of God to be obeyed, but false teaching that the Bible writer refutes. This is extremely clever, but has the smell of sulfur about it. The perspicuity of Scripture is thereby compromised.
Take Campbell’s device regarding Romans 1:18-32. No one prior to Campbell’s Deliverance of God thought to read the Bible that way. It puts the Bible into the hands of experts, because until Campbell, no one thought that this was the way to read Paul. The same criticisms apply to a reading of Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4. We can never be sure when the bible is to be believed, because we don’t know whether the bible writer is merely citing something ad hominem, or because he actually believes it to be true.
Seeing sarcasm and irony as the hermeneutical key turns God’s ‘yes’ into ‘no’ and his ‘no’ into ‘yes’. This does not seem consistent with God as a truth teller wanting us to know him, and accommodating to our capacity. Yes, in the Scriptures, occasionally we find sarcasm (so that the yes actually means no), and more frequently we find irony. But the onus is on the one claiming that the Scriptural ‘yes’ actually means ‘no’ to demonstrate the claim.
Though the ‘supernatural’ or ‘patristic’ understanding is, in my opinion, the best understanding available, it is difficult if not impossible to identify the demons of the Gospels and Acts with the fallen angels bound in tartarus. The demons in the Gospels and Acts are not locked up or bound at all, but seemingly active on the earth, possessing humans or even animals. In what sense are they bound if they are roaming the earth terrorizing humans or going into pigs? In fact, in the Gospels, the demons beg Jesus not to send them into the abyss (Luke 8:31). This suggests that these particular beings are not in tartarus at the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, and that these demons look to their ultimate punishment in the ‘abyss’ as future (Matt 8:29).
Positing that Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 teaches the origin of the demons in the Gospels for this reason does not seem tenable. According to Plumbtre, both Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 ‘seem to indicate a distinction between the angels who were thus punished, and the “demons” or “unclean spirits” with Satan at their head, who exercise a permitted power as the tempters, accusers, and destroyers of mankind […] It is possible that St Jude recognised such a distinction.’[18]
Perhaps recognizing this, the apocryphal book of Jubilees states that God granted ten percent of the disembodied spirits of the nephilim to remain after the flood, as demons, to try to lead the human race astray until the final judgement.[19] Again, this cannot be proved from the canonical scriptures, and the words of the above mentioned canonical scriptures testify against it—that indeed these nephilim have remained bound in chains awaiting judgement.
On my reasoning, the nephilim are a category of spiritual being that have remained bound in tartarus since their fall into sin, and they are ‘bound’ there until they will be punished in the lake of fire. That does not mean that other evil spirit beings—demons—have not been free to roam the earth. It is just those particular ‘fallen ones’ of Genesis 6:1-4 cannot be the same reprobate spirits as the demons of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.
But isn’t tartarus a non-existent pagan concept? It certainly is found in pagan secular sources, Greek and Roman. Nevertheless, we do not know the direction of influence, whether it is was the Hebrew sources influencing the Graeco-Roman, or vice versa, or independent attestations to a common source. The pagan account may well be derived from the biblical account, and particularly Genesis 6:1-4. Moreover, just because something is a pagan concept, that does not necessarily mean it is false, fictitious, or non-existent. Bible writers elsewhere quote pagans and affirm the truth of their statements (e.g. Acts 17:28). The fact remains that Peter uses the Greek verb ταρταρόω, meaning ‘throw to tartarus’ (2 Peter 2:4), without contradicting or casting doubt upon it, nor giving any indication that he speaks sarcastically. Peter is aware that some use ‘cleverly devised myths’, but he in contrast speaks as an eyewitness of the things he saw (2 Peter 1:16). Peter believes himself and Paul to be in the line of the prophets, as men who speak from God (2 Peter 1:17-21, 3:15-16). Peter believes himself to be testifying to what God has done in history in the same way that Peter accepted that Noah and Lot were history. It is highly unlikely that Peter would be saying something he knowingly knows to be untrue in the sense of factually incorrect and only a myth or fictional story when he says, ‘if God did not spare angels when they sinned but cast them into tartarus’ (2 Peter 2:4). Likewise, of course Jude believes that the angels who left their place about whom he speaks really did exist and do the things that he says they did—just as Jude believed in a literal Exodus, a literal destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, a literal Cain, Balaam, Korah, Archangel Michael, Moses, and Enoch. Jude incorporates by reference one line of the pseudipigraphic Book of Enoch and gives his imprimatur necessarily to only those lines of teaching he quotes or alludes to. Whatever we might say about the books of Enoch, Jude’s use of the quote affirms the truth of that quoted text just as Paul’s use of the pagan Poet affirms the truth of that proposition. We do not know the basis on which Jude made that affirmation, but we trust him as an inspired writer of Scripture to the extent of his quotation, but not necessarily any further.
In terms of other passages conceivably recounting the fall of Satan, we also have the passage in Luke 10:17-20 where Jesus speaks of the fall of Satan to the seventy-two, in the context of their successful casting out of demons:
17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” 18 And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. 20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
It was a common patristic interpretation that a pre-Genesis 3 fall of Satan is referred to here, but many recent commentators take the imperfect ἐθεώρουν as pointing to Jesus seeing the fall of Satan in the contemporaneous work of the seventy and their Christ-given ability to cast out the demons. The balance of probabilities in this case lies with a casting down of Satan caused by and concurrent with the mission of the seventy, and against the common patristic interpretation. If this is the correct characterization, then this passage does not relate a ‘fall’ of Satan in the sense of a fall into sin, but a ‘casting out’ in the sense of a judgment of expulsion of Satan from the heavenly court, of which the casting out of demons by the seventy was an earthly expression.
Another passage referring to a ‘fall’ of Satan occurs in Revelation 12, but again, the casting out of Satan in Revelation 12:9 occurs in association with both the birth and the ascension of the Messiah (Rev 12:4-6). Likewise, this is a fall of expulsion, the sinful nature of the devil having been demonstrated as being chronologically prior to the said ‘fall’.
In John 12:31, Jesus says that ‘now will the ruler of the world be cast down’, but this statement occurs chronologically at a different time to that of Luke 10:17-20, after the mission of the seventy and during the Passover week before his death. Moreover, verse 32 gives a clear context of Christ’s death being the action that will cast Satan down. It would appear that both the mission involving casting out demons, and Christ’s death, can be described as Satan being cast down. Again, this is not a fall into sin, but a casting out in the sense of judgment.
In what way Christ saw Satan fall is a question that we cannot answer, but is not that much different to the question of how Satan appeared to Christ when he tempted him in the desert. But at this stage, we are still left with the hypothesis of the demons being Satan’s ‘angels’ who must have fallen because they were created good.
While we cannot posit a time that the devil and the demons of the Gospels and Acts fell into sin, we can say (1) Satan is in the Garden tempting the first human pair to doubt and deny God. This strongly suggests a pre-Genesis 3 fall in Satan’s nature, as God created all things good; (2) The demons could have fallen pre-Genesis 3, although this is not clearly narrated in Scripture, and none of the passages can unambiguously be said to describe it; (3) the demons almost certainly cannot be identified with the nephilim, as the nephilim were bound in tartarus because of their sin, whereas demons are loose on the earth; (4) some identify them with the spirits of the rephaim—the descendants of the nephilim’s offspring. But there is no clear corroboration of the idea that the spirits of men (if the rephaim can be called men) and descended from nephilim are the demons in the New Testament.
While the snake of the Garden is not explicitly and unambiguously identified till the New Testament as Satan or the Devil (Rom 16:20; Rev 12:9, 20:2), that does not mean that we should not identify Satan in the Old Testament as anything less than personal. From Christian presuppositions, the revelation of Satan as personal in the New Testament enriches our understanding of the Old Testament and provides a hermeneutical key when different interpretative options are available for Old Testament texts. If from the Old Testament alone we are made aware of an ‘enemy’ and an ‘accuser’ in the courtroom of God, why should we be surprised that the New Testament reveals this as ‘Satan’, or ‘the Devil’, or by other names derived from other aspects of his foul and obnoxious character? More information revealed to and through the apostles by the Spirit of God in light of the coming of Christ is available to us. Just as Christians properly understand the Spirit of God in the Old Testament as fully personal—given the Lord Jesus Christ’s revelation of his divine name, the Holy Spirit, in Matthew 28:19—so also Christians properly read the Old Testament accounts of the Satan or the Devil with the wisdom of the New Testament informing those interpretative decisions.
The phrase ‘the devil and his angels’ points to ‘fallen angels’ as the identity of demons. These demons as ‘sinning angels’ who in some way aligned themselves with Satan as their prince and leader, who fell into sin possibly pre-Genesis 3, after their creation but before the fall of humans. The demons joined the devil in his rebellion against God and his enmity towards humanity.
Individually, the devil and his angels are malignant spiritual beings, only ever harming the humans they afflict (e.g. Mark 5:1-20, 9:14-29). Satan and his demons, unlike the omnipotent and omnipresent God, are limited in power and location. They can only do what they are allowed to do by the triune God, who is sovereign over their activities.
Corporately, the ‘devil and his angels’ constitute a kingdom of darkness. Satan is in some sense the ‘prince of demons’ (Matt 9:34, 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15), ‘the ruler of this world’ (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), and the ‘ruler of the kingdom of the air’ (Eph 2:2). I say ‘in some way’ because we must not assume that the ‘kingdom of darkness’ is well-ordered. It may well be chaotic. Two characteristics of Satan are that he is a liar and a murderer (John 8:41-44). He is the enemy (hence ‘Satan’), the accuser (hence ‘devil’, diabolos), the tempter and the evil one.
Let us define ‘Christian’ as not just a nominal Christian, but as a Spirit-filled, regenerated person with Christ Jesus as truly Lord and Saviour.
Let us define the activity of ‘possession’ or the verb ‘to possess’, as a supernatural ‘takeover’ or ‘invasion’ of a human by a demon, such that the person’s will is overruled or overpowered that makes some of the things the person does not reflective of their human will.
At first glance, the bible does not give an immediate answer to this question, ‘Can demons possess a Christian?’ Indeed, when we look at the Gospel accounts of demon possession, we are not strictly looking at the situation of a ‘Christian’ host to the demons at all. Prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, the baptism of the Spirit had not come. The outpouring of the Spirit did not occur until the risen Christ was seated at the right hand of God.[20] The Gospel accounts of ‘demonization’ occur in a unique time and situation in salvation history. That is not to say that the Holy Spirit was not operative during that time, nor that he didn’t work in God’s people before Pentecost. Indeed, the Holy Spirit has been busy and active in every era of humanity and in every one of God’s people throughout the ages. And the Gospels themselves bear witness to the fact that the disciples are able to drive out demons, which presumably was empowered by the Holy Spirit (e.g. Mark 3:15; Matt 12:28). However, given the timing of the baptism of the Spirit which occurred after the time of the Gospels and awaited the Day of Pentecost, we must recognize the unique epoch in salvation history that the Gospels narrate.
The uniqueness of the period that the Gospels narrate is also suggested by the amazed statement of Christ’s contemporaries: ‘never was anything like this seen in Israel’ (Matt 9:33). Nothing in the Old Testament was like the teaching and authority that Jesus brought to Israel. In casting out demons, Jesus was bringing to Israel something profoundly new. This is unsurprising, as Christ was the incarnate Creator of the demons breaking into this present evil age. Consequently, the uniqueness of the situation during Christ’s earthly ministry means that we cannot immediately equate the situation of the Gospel accounts with our situation. If we do make this step, there will need to be good reasons for so doing.
The Bible gives us true but very limited knowledge of the demonic world. For this reason, some Christians have said that we need to supplement the knowledge that the bible gives us with the knowledge from experience. But despite the frustration we might feel about not knowing what we would like about the realm of Satan and the demons, attempting to supplement Scripture with our experiential knowledge of demons is a mistake. It is doubtful that we would know anything true about demons apart from what God reveals about them in the bible. All sound knowledge of demons is derived from the bible, and if anything true is said about demons, it can be demonstrated from the bible, which makes every other form of information unnecessary.
Western science has not been able to discern the existence of Satan and the demons. That is understandable. Science looks at the natural, not the supernatural. Satan and the demons are created but ‘supernatural’ beings. Human scientific endeavor, it seems, simply does not have the tools to discern them. The spirits or the demons are apparently sentient spiritual beings without fleshly bodies. Even if sometimes in Scripture the spiritual beings such as angels do appear bodily, it would appear that they are not bound to fleshly bodies. They are also in some sense stronger and more powerful than humans (2 Peter 2:11[21]; Ps 8:6LXX; Heb 2:7, 9). They also seem to have access to knowledge that humans do not.
Psalm 8 is a Psalm extolling the greatness of God for his creation of the cosmos and humans. Verse 6a English/LXX (v. 5a MT) is pertinent to our enquiry. The MT of Psalm 8:5a reads מאלהים מעט ותחסרהו. This is literally translated, ‘And you made him a little less than God’ (me-elôhim; מאלהים). The word elôhim can mean either singular ‘God’ or plural ‘gods’. Here the most straightforward translation is ‘God’. Humans have therefore been made only a little lower than Yahweh, the God of Israel. While the Targums and some versions read ‘angels’ here, and perhaps ‘angels’ is a possible meaning of elôhim, we must hold to the straightforward meaning, ‘God’. Some say that ‘elôhim’ means ‘angels’ in Ps 82:1 and while this is possible, there are other possibilities, such as the spirits of righteous men, on analogy with Psalm 82:6. Others cite Psalm 138:1 (although it seems to mean ‘idols’ there), and Psalm 97:7 (though v. 9 and the context suggests again that the ‘false gods’ of the nations are on view).
Thus, the reference to ‘a little lower than God’ in Psalm 8:5MT is most likely to the function of humans as ‘God-like’ on earth (cf. Psalm 82:6). This is quite consistent with the Genesis account, where humanity is made in the image of God to rule the world. Of the word מעט, though it is almost certainly correct to take it to refer to ‘little in degree or nature’, it can also mean of ‘short duration in time’ (Psalm 37:10MT).
The LXX of Psalm 8:6a renders the verse as it is found in Psalm 8:5a MT in a substantially different way to what we would expect. It reads:
You made him a little lower than the angels || ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾽ ἀγγέλους.
Immediately noticeable is the translation of ‘angels’ for elôhim. However, a second issue is the meaning of βραχύ τι. The Greek phrase is βραχυ τι can mean a little amount (of honey: 1 Samuel 14:29, or food: John 6:7). It originally referred to rank in Psalm 8:6LXX. However, βραχυ alone means ‘short time’ in Acts 5:44 and cf. a similar phrase in Luke 22:58. But the meaning in Psalm 8:6aLXX is most likely that of condition, thus, made a ‘little lower’, rather than for a ‘short duration’. It is true that the phrase ὄλιγος παρὰ θεόν would mean ‘lower in degree than God’ and this translation was used by subsequent translators correcting the LXX, probably in reaction to the Christian use of the LXX. However, that doesn’t mean that βραχύ τι cannot mean ‘lower in rank’ in the context of Psalm 8:6.
The MT should undoubtedly be preferred in the normal instance, but this situation is changed because of the appropriation of the LXX by Hebrews 2:7, 9, which for Christians is received with the authority of divinely inspired Scripture. Conservative Christian presuppositions would seek to understand and apply both the MT and the NT—which incorporates this section of the LXX—as divinely inspired, in both their words and propositions, unless the NT author comments that the MT alone is Scripture—which no New Testament author does.
That is to say, the author of Hebrews, by affirming the LXX rendering here, and particularly the statement that Christ is made a little lower than the angels, affirms the express and implied statements in Ps 8:5LXX as true, that Christ was made indeed a little lower than the angels. It is necessary to understand how he does so.
The author to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 8:6aLXX in Hebrews 2:7, and expounds it in v. 9. In Hebrews 2:8, the author points out a tension. Psalm 8:7b says that all things are under ‘man’ (Ps 8:5). But now we do not see all things subjected under him, according to Hebrews 2:8b. This probably refers to humanity. At this stage in salvation history, everything is not subjected to humanity—the created order rebels against our rule, and rises up to bite us. The pronoun in 8:8 probably does not refer to Jesus but the anthropos of Psalm 8:5LXX. Then in Hebrews 2:9 we read:
But we see Jesus, the one made a little lower than angels because of the suffering of death being crowned with glory and honour, in this way by the grace of God he might taste death on behalf of all || τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.
The issue is what part of the sentence does the prepositional phrase διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου qualify? Does it attach to that which precedes it (τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον) or that which follows it (δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον)? Both of course agree with Ἰησοῦν, to whom they refer.
Was Jesus made lower than angels by enduring the suffering of death? The logic would be that apart from death, which angels are not subject to, he would be higher than the angels—obviously as God, but also as a human. This is because angels are ministering spirits, sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14)—and therefore the angels are in terms of their created order lower than humans.
Or does the phrase ‘because of the suffering of death’ attach to the phrase ‘being crowned with glory and honour’? The arguments in favour of the latter is that the verbal participle governing each participial clause is at the end of each clause—and in the case of the exposition of Psalm 8:6LXX, the author to the Hebrews has moved the participle to the end of the clause when it was originally at the beginning (cf. Heb 2:7 word order = Psalm 8:6a: ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους). This stylistic argument suggests that there is a chiasm at the centre of which is βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν, with a participial phrase before and after it, each with a participle agreeing with Ἰησοῦν, its antecedent. In this case, then, becoming lower than the angels is not a reference to Christ’s death but incarnation. That being the case, angels are a little higher than humans according to their order in creation. I think that this reading is preferable to the former. Whether they are lower or higher than humans in the new creation is a different question.
Since demons are the fallen angels that sinned with or in some way are in league with Satan, then we should expect them to have a residue of that power, in the same way that we humans, who remain in the image of God, still rule the earth as God intended prior to the fall and despite our fallenness and sin. Of course, God might subsequently limit the power of fallen angels, for which we thank God. Or there might be limitations that come with fallenness even for the demons. We cannot be sure. However, we have in Scripture many examples that God is both able and willing to limit the scope and power of Satan and demons.
There is another very important reason why we cannot know about Satan and the demons apart from biblical divine revelation: Satan is a liar—worse than that, a deceiver (Gen 3:4-5; Matt 24:24; John 8:44; 2 Cor 11:14; 2 Thess 2:9-10; 1 Tim 2:14; Rev 20:3). So are those spirit beings that are part of his kingdom. The demons are 'deceitful spirits' (1 Tim 4:1)[22]. If a liar is someone who tells untruths, a deceiver is someone who tells a mixture of lies and truths to deceive. A deceiver acts in such a way to deceive. A mere liar is more easily discovered than a deceiver. Given that this is the nature of the spiritual beings about which we are thinking—that in a sense they are stronger, that they have knowledge that we don’t have, and that they are deceptive—we cannot trust anything that they might reveal about themselves, either by word or deed. They are permitted access to our world, according to Scripture (e.g. Eph 2:1-3). We do not have access to theirs, apart from what the bible says. It follows that information about the demons and their world sourced from observation of and interrogation of the demons cannot be relied on. It assumes that we as humans—even with the Spirit of God—will be able to discern the truthful from the false, and will not be deceived. But that is the nature of deception. It is, well, deceptive!
Even the Lord Jesus Christ, who possesses exact knowledge about and dominion over the powers and the spirit world as both their creator and Lord (e.g. Luke 9:1), in the Gospel accounts silenced the demons time and again, even though they rightly knew that Jesus is the Christ (Mark 1:25, 34, 3:11-12; Luke 4:34-35, 41). Christ silencing them is consistent with one who loves utter truth silencing a damaging deceiver. Paul did the same thing in Philippi (Acts 16:16-18). Jesus and Paul apparently did not want the testimony of the demons concerning their identity. While Christ’s silencing of the demons might be explained by him wanting to continue the Messianic secret for his own reasons, it seems that Christ only once enquired of a demon, to find out the name ‘legion’ (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30). We are not told why Jesus asked this question. Perhaps it was because of the unusual nature of the possession. Most frequently, Jesus rebuked and silenced demons as part of casting them out (e.g. Matt 17:18). Christ’s lack of interaction with and silencing of demons suggests that we should not listen, interrogate or otherwise interact with any demon.
Not only are the demons’ self-articulated revelations about anything not to be trusted, but if Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14; cf. Gal 1:8), then nothing about the appearance of or our experience of him or his angels can in any way be trusted. We simply do not know concerning any experience of Satan or the demonic what is true about them and what is a lie. They are cunning supernatural beings who have power over those humans held in their thrall without those poor humans even knowing. It is very much like the Matrix movies. Nothing about our situation, when it comes to these spiritual beings, can be taken at face value, because there is a fundamental reality that we just cannot access through our experience as humans or through empiricism.
The Old Testament has little to say directly about ‘demon possession’. The Hebrew word for ‘demon’, shedim (שֵׁדִים), occurs only twice in the Hebrew OT (the MT), in Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37.
Deuteronomy 32.17 is the section in Moses’ song, delivered prior to their entry into the promised land, where Moses reminds Israel that they sacrificed to demons rather than to the God who loved and cared for them:
They sacrificed to demons (לַשֵּׁדִים) and not to God, to gods they had not known || ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ, θεοῖς, οἷς οὐκ ᾔδεισαν.
It is almost certain that Deuteronomy 32:17 stands behind 1 Corinthians 10:20:
But that which they sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God; so I do not want you to become partners with demons ||ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν· οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι.
Paul’s dependence on Deuteronomy 32:17 is clear, and as an inspired interpreter of the Old Testament we can accept his understanding as trustworthy. Jackson takes the view that “it is possible that the concept of a demon or ‘evil spirit’ in the sense of a self-conscious spirit is absent from the tanak” and thus he regards considering them to be ‘demons’ is at best ‘anachronistic’.[23] Unfortunately, he does not consider 1 Corinthians 10:20—because it is beyond the scope of his work. However, others have made the point that for Paul, while the idols do not exist as ‘gods’, the demons that stand behind them certainly do.
In doing so he [Paul] seemingly involves himself in a certain self-contradiction. The reason lies in the argumentation of his opponents, and in the tradition in which Paul himself stands: for [in?] the polemic literature of Hellenstic Judaism, the “gods” are nonexistent. Paul, on the contrary, regards them as real beings (see on 8:5), namely, demons. To be sure, he denies “that they are anything,” but this is not to say that they do not exist at all. The expression is not meant in a metaphysical sense, but anthropologically: “by nature” they are not gods (8:5; Gal 4:8). […] The presupposition of vv 19-20 is the same as of 8:5: behind the gods there lurk demons. Paul bases this view on Deut 32:17.[24]
The word demon provides Paul, as it had provided other Hellenistic Jews before him, with a convenient shorthand way of expressing a truth which otherwise would not have been easy to put into words. He was convinced that the image used in idolatrous worship was a block of wood or stone and nothing more; it was not anything in the world. At the same time he believed in the reality of an unseen spirit-world (the evidence is to be found in chapter after chapter; eg ii. 6, 8; iv. 9; v. 5; vi. 3; viii. 5), and that idolatry was not merely meaningless but a positively evil thing. It was evil primarily because it robbed the true God of the glory due to him alone (cf. Rom. i. 23), but it was evil also because it meant that man, engaged in a spiritual act and directing his worship toward something other than the one true God, was brought into intimate relation with the lower, and evil, spiritual powers. Thus the harmful effect of idolatry was not the eating of food contaminated in a quasi-physical sense, but in the worshiper’s committing himself to an evil though subordinate power.[25]
Two different emphases may be found within ancient Jewish thinking about false gods. An apocalyptic Jewish tradition tended to affirm the reality of demons as spiritual enemies of God’s people, while a Hellenistic Jewish tradition (reflecting an emphasis in the prophets) tended to reject them as nongods (or perhaps nonentities). Some have seen a tension in Paul’s thought that reflects his acceptance of elements of both Jewish traditions. He does use the language and rhetoric of both traditions, but it is important to recognize that they are not ultimately in conflict. The prophetic and Hellenistic traditions ridicule the preposterous idea that there could be more than one God and point to the weak and powerless nature of the idols, which are human artifacts. The apocalyptic tradition recognizes that there is some spiritual reality behind the human tendency to worship those things which were not God.[26]
Thus, with Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:20, we affirm that the Old Testament teaches the existence of the shedim, demons, in Deuteronomy 32:17.
Psalm 106:37, in a similar recitation of Israel’s sorry history, refers to Israelites, probably in the promised land, sacrificing their sons and daughters to the shedim (לַשֵּׁדִים|| τοῖς δαιμονίοις: LXX 105:37). They are also described as ‘the idols of Canaan’ (v. 38).
Leviticus 17:7 refers to the sacrifices the Israelites made prior to the Exodus to the se`irim (לַשְּׂעִירִם). The se`irim probably refers to either ‘hairy beings’ or ‘goat idols’, and is sometime translated ‘satyr’. The LXX translated it with ματαίοις, vanities, indicating that what is worshipped is an idol.
While these evidences make it clear that the Old Testament taught that demons exist, none of these passages refer to what we might call as ‘demon possession’, but rather refers to the idolatrous service of demons by sacrificing to idols.
It is thought that two specific demons are referred to in the Old Testament. ‘Lilith’ (Isaiah 34:14) has been identified as a female demon, and some regard ‘Azazel’ in Leviticus 16 as wilderness demon to whom the scapegoat is sent[27]. However, there are other possibilities for those two passages. Further, some readings of Genesis 6:1-4 see demon possession as a partial explanation of the unusual account of the nephilim, but the Old Testament vocabulary of demons is not used, and it is almost certain that the beings there mentioned are not the demons referred to in the New Testament.
Frequently, it is not clear whether the Hebrew ‘ruach’ should be taken as ‘wind, breath’ or an hypostasized ‘spirit’ in the sense of a personal non-corporeal sentient being. In Judges 9:23, God sends an ‘evil spirit’ between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, so that Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech. It is possible that the reference to the ‘evil spirit’ is simply a way of speaking about a conflict or fight. Colloquially, we might say that God sent a ‘stink’ or a ‘foul wind’. Ruach can simply mean a ‘wind’ or ‘breeze’. It would be like the English idiom of ‘bad blood’. However, the phrase might also be hypostasized, as is common. This is especially so in the light of other hypostasizations such as are evident even in the Old Testament. We are considering possibilities and likelihoods.
The two circumstances closest to demon possession in the Old Testament are the situations where Yahweh sent the ‘evil spirit’ to King Saul and the ‘lying spirit’ to King Ahab.[28]
In the first case, the Spirit of Yahweh had rushed upon Saul for certain purposes related to his ministry as Israel’s king. As in the case of the Judges, the Spirit enabled Saul to perform the tasks of fighting for Israel. However, the Spirit of Yahweh also rushes on David from the day Saul was rejected by God as Israel’s King (1 Sam 16:13). The Spirit of God then leaves Saul, and an ‘evil spirit’ from God torments Saul (1 Sam 16:13-23, 18:10, 19:9). The only source of relief for Saul was the ministry of David the new Messiah. This relief is temporary, and very different to the relief Jesus provides his supplicants. When David plays the harp, the ‘evil spirit’ leaves Saul, but does come back after intervals. The spirit is apparently not addressed at all, but music is played. Thereafter, one situation is recounted where the Spirit of Yahweh once again came upon Saul and his servants, and they prophesied (1 Sam 19:20, 23). It seems that there are three ‘states’ for Saul: rushed upon by the Spirit of God; without the evil spirit and without the Spirit of God; and with the evil spirit.
What is narrated for us is that Saul as King had received the Holy Spirit at least for certain purposes. The Spirit rushing on Saul and David is part of the complex of divine and human actions that verify and delineate who God has chosen to be king of Israel. The receipt of the Spirit is clearly related to Saul’s office as king, and does not address the sorts of concerns that arise in the New Testament, such as regeneration and sanctification. This itself makes Saul’s situation unique and distinct from that of the Christian. That is, as far as we are told, Saul received the Spirit specifically for the purposes of being king of the theocratic nation of Israel as a type of the Messiah to come. At that point in the history of salvation, the Spirit had not been poured out on all flesh more broadly.
It is possible Scripture is personifying or hypostasizing an impersonal affliction. However, against this characterization is (1) the parallel description of the Spirit of God, who is revealed in the New Testament as personal; (2) the fact that in the Scriptures the affliction of insanity is expressed in other forms of speech (Daniel 4:32-34; 1 Samuel 21: 12-14; John 10:20; Mark 3:21; Acts 26:24-25)
In the account in 1 Samuel 16, it is clear that the Spirit of God goes to David when he is anointed by Samuel and has left Saul. That movement of the Spirit is clearly related to God’s rejection of Saul as king and David’s election as the true king. It certainly does not imply that the Spirit can only work in one person at a time. Rather, the account is emphasizing that there is only one king of Israel—the man approved by the Spirit, and enabled by the Spirit to perform the tasks of kingship. This is the context of David’s statement in Psalm 51, ‘do not take your Holy Spirit from me’ (v. 11). Having seen what God did to king Saul when he sinned, David the adulterer and murderer asks that God show him even more mercy than he already has by not visiting the same punishment on him that he saw God deal out to Saul.
The Spirit’s ministry in the accounts of Saul and David is a particular and specific subset of God’s general work by the Spirit. God by his Spirit is identifying and approving the particular person that God has chosen to be Israel’s King. That is, we should not think that this passage gives us guidance about the Spirit’s work in the new age of salvation after Pentecost in all believers. Rather, what is being described is, in the great scheme of things, a specific work of the Spirit at that point in salvation history. The story makes no comment about the broader work of the Spirit either in sustaining the world, in revealing God’s word, or regenerating the elect at that time.
These circumstances require us to hesitate before we assert that the ‘evil spirit’ which afflicted Saul was a precursor to the demon possessions in the Gospel, and that Saul is a type of a Christian being demon possessed. It may have been a demon that afflicted Saul. But we cannot say that Saul is a type for the Christian. At least as far as the narrative is concerned, Saul did not receive the ‘indwelling’ of the Spirit that every post-Pentecost New Testament believer receives, but a more limited bestowing of the Spirit for a particular purpose. Perhaps Saul is to be likened to Judas Iscariot in the New Testament, rather than the New Testament believer. We would be badly mistaken for taking Judas as an example which informs us of what we should expect is normal for Christians and the demonic.
Regarding the second case, the lying spirit goes from Yahweh to deceive sinful King Ahab of Israel by inspiring the prophets of Yahweh’s false preaching (1 Kings 22:19-23; 2 Chron 18:20-23). The prophets may indeed have been possessed by the ‘lying spirit’, but it is possible also that they were deceived by the lying spirit that likewise deceived the king. The action of the spirit may have been external to the prophets and using their wills, and not internal to the prophets and not by-passing their wills. It may have been spiritual deception, rather than spiritual possession. The spirit’s activities as described were certainly external to king Ahab, whom the lying spirit was sent to deceive.
In the New Testament, the verb that we might gloss as ‘to demonize’[29] is used exclusively in the Gospels. The nouns translated ‘demon’ occur predominately in the Gospels.[30] The regular synonyms for ‘demon’ are ‘unclean spirit’ (frequently in Mark and Luke) and less frequently ‘evil spirit’ (e.g. Matt 12:45), and again is used predominantly in the Gospels.
Regarding the later New Testament, it is difficult to see that there is any case of demon possession at all, and certainly not of Christians. That is not to say demons aren’t mentioned or alluded to. It is simply a recognition that the particular affliction of ‘demonization’ as it occurs in the Gospels is not a feature at all in the letters. In the Acts of the Apostles there are two accounts of demon possession, and other cases are alluded to.
While not denying that Christ and the apostles’ actions to free people from demonization were clearly works of love and mercy, the casting out of demons also had a purpose to show the uniqueness and identity of Jesus Christ in the history and plan of God saving his people.[31] Jesus cast out demons and healed the sick ‘to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: “He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.”’ (Matt 8:17). Jesus thereby showed himself as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. So Jesus’ casting out of demons by the Spirit and finger of God showed that the kingdom of God had indeed come to Israel (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20).
It is most likely that the coming of Christ in the flesh acted as a ‘lightning rod’ for demonic behaviour in salvation history. It is not surprising that God’s frontal assault on the kingdom of darkness might bring out more overt works of opposition from Satan and the demons. This may at least partially explain the relative infrequency of mentions of demon possession in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, or the later New Testament.
A synonymous phrase that explains what ‘demonize’ means is ‘to have a demon’[32]. Occasionally the demon is described as having ‘entered’ the person (Matt 12:45; Luke 8:30) or pigs (Luke 8:33). Frequently in the Gospels, the Lord Jesus bids the demon to ‘come out’ of the afflicted person. The demon is—or the demons are—then ‘cast out’, and they leave the person[33]. More than occasionally, someone is said to be ‘healed’ from an evil spirit or demon (e.g. Matt 4:24, 15:28; Luke 8:2, 36, 9:42).
Jesus’ disciples, too, cast out demons in a similar way as their Lord (Mark 3:15, 6:13; Luke 10:17), although not always with the same effectiveness (Mark 9:28).[34] Others, too, are said to cast out demons in the Gospels (Matt 12:27; Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49; 11:19). The disciples expand Jesus’ ministry of casting out demons during Jesus’ earthly ministry (e.g. Matt 10:8 Mark 3:13-19, 6:7-13, Luke 9:1-2), and after the risen Jesus returns to heaven, the apostles Peter and Paul, as well as Phillip the Evangelist, all cast out demons (Acts 5:16, 8:5-8, 16:16-18).
Matthew 12:43-45 is possibly the clearest explanation that we have of demon possession and casting out in the Gospels, though it comes to us in the form of a similtude to describe the contemporary hearers of Christ:
When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation. (ESV, cf. Luke 11:24-26)
Here we see ‘demonization’ as the evil spirits finding a house empty (i.e. with no spirit indwelling) and put in order. The spirit then ‘enters’—better, re-enters—and ‘dwells’ in that a person to horrible effect. At the expense of the human host, the spirit finds ‘rest’. The passages suggests there are two states for the demonized human: firstly, empty of demons, swept clean, and put in order; and secondly entered and indwelt by demons and tormented (Matt 12:43-45).[35]
This ‘demonization’ is accurately translated in English as ‘demon possession’. People are described as ‘having’ a demon, which connotes possession. ‘Possession’ suggests indwelling. There is entry, the human host is a ‘house’ or residence of sorts, where the spirit finds ‘rest’ inside the person.
The results of demon possession are that the demonized human then says and does things at the behest of the demon that they would not otherwise do. Demonized humanity is dehumanized. Demonic possession involves some sort of internal 'hostile take-over' or ‘aggressive invasion’, in which the demon overrides the human host's will and personality. The people apparently would equate demon possession with insanity (John 10:20), expressed by the person’s words and actions.
There are eight specific and incontrovertible examples of demonization in the Gospels and two in Acts. This is in addition to the more general references of Christ’s and the apostles activities against demons. There are also two other cases not referred to as demon possession, but which conceivably might be characterized as such (Judas Iscariot, and Ananias and Sapphira). I look at each case below to ascertain the nature of ‘demonization’. The ten incontrovertible examples confirm the finding that ‘demonization’ properly involves possession, an internal takeover negating the human personality and will, expressed in various destructive behaviours which reflect the demon’s will and the person’s torment. I reflect on the possibility that the person possessed was a Christian at the time of possession for each situation.
Firstly, there is the demon-possessed man in the Capernaum synagogue (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37). Mark says he had an ‘unclean spirit’, Luke ‘the spirit of an unclean demon’. The man cries out as a result of the demons, and they spoke with knowledge and fear about Jesus’ real identity (Luke 4:34; cf 4:41). Jesus addresses the demon, telling it to be silent and come out. The man convulses and was cast down by the demon before coming out of him (Luke 4:35). The man clearly did not have control of his actions or words when he was demonized. The evil spirit obeyed Jesus because Jesus has authority over the demons. There is no evidence either way about how or why this man was demon-possessed, nor of whether he was a faithful Israelite believer.
Secondly, there is the case of the mute (and blind)[36] man who was demonized in Galilee, after which Jesus speaks about the folly of thinking that he drives out demons by the prince of demons (Matt 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23; cf. Mark 3:22-27). After Jesus casts out the demon, the muteness (and blindness) was removed. This case is interesting because elsewhere the demons cry out and Christ silences the demon. Here, the demon silenced the man. The operation on and affliction of the human host was therefore different: not crying out, but silencing. This demon had power to make blind and mute. Nothing can be said of the circumstances of the man’s possession. Moreover, there are other instances of persons suffering muteness and blindness which are not said to be caused by demon possession (e.g. Mark 7:31-37, 8:22-26)
Thirdly, the Gerasene demoniac[37] (Matt 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-21; Luke 8:26-40) was almost certainly a non-Jew, a gentile of the Decapolis. He was driven away from his family and lived among the tombs. He had great but uncontrollable strength. He could break chains and escape his captors. However, he was naked, cried out continually, and self-harmed, cutting himself with rocks (Mark 5:2-8; Luke 8:26-30). Many times he had been ‘seized’ by the demon and ‘driven’ by it into the desert (Luke 8:29). Jesus asked the demon his name, and then Christ cast the ‘legion’ of demons resident in him into the pigs, who drowned themselves, demonstrating how tormented the man was. Once the demons were cast out, he was calm, seated, ‘in his right mind’ and thankful to Jesus his Saviour (Mark 5:15-20; Luke 8:35-39). We don’t know whether he was a believer in God or not before his affliction. He certainly was after, if his obedience to Jesus’ command to speak to the Decapolis is any indication. That he was a gentile makes the improbability of him being in any sense a ‘believer’ (I use the term anachronistically) before his demonization even greater.
Fourthly, there is the demon-possessed man who was mute (Matt 9:32-34). It is a similar but separate incident to the second case mentioned above.
Fifthly, the Syrophonecian woman’s young daughter whom Jesus healed with a word and without seeing her (Matt 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30). Jesus has gone into the gentile territory of Tyre and Sidon. The mother was a woman of ‘Canaan’ (Matt 15:22), a ‘Greek’ (Mark 7:25). Jesus in somewhat abrupt fashion says he was not sent to her, but the lost sheep of Israel. But the woman’s persistence and faith brought a positive response from Jesus. Because of his bodily limitation, and the fact that demons are not omnipresent (but Christ is), it is unlikely that Jesus spoke to the demon. (At least, we are not told that Jesus spoke long distance to the demon). Rather than suppose the incarnate Christ addressed the demon (he was geographically distanced from it), the narrative tells us that Jesus declared the state of being which he wanted, and the demon came out. The young girl was found lying in bed and the demon gone, suggesting rest and calmness. Undoubtedly, the mother had great faith when she approached Jesus. But we do not know enough about the circumstances of the demonization of the girl. That the woman was a Greek Canaanite points away from the precedent we are looking for to suggest that Christians can be demonized. But in the end we just don’t know, and this account cannot be used as a precedent.
Sixthly, the boy or young man Jesus’ rescued from the demon on coming down the mount of transfiguration (Matt 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43). This demon also caused him to be mute (Mark 9:17). The poor victim, the only child of his father, was tormented since childhood and abused by the demon. It continually ‘seized’ him, threw him on the ground, into the fire and water, and brought about convulsions and foaming at the mouth. It sought to destroy him. The demon ‘shattered’ him and he cried out because of the demon (Matt 17:14-20; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43). Again, we do not know why the child was possessed by a demon. The disciples were unable to cast it out. The account cannot be used to support the proposition that believers can be demon possessed.
Seventhly, Mary Magdalene is recorded to have been possessed by seven demons before Jesus sent them out of her (Luke 8:2). It is possible, but not certain, that Mary was one of the women who anointed Jesus (John 12:3). But it cannot be proven. Again, there is not enough evidence to give any relevance to our specific question.
Eighthly, Jesus’ alleviated the eighteen-year-long oppression of a woman in the synagogue who had a disabling spirit (Luke 13:10-17). We are not told she spent eighteen years in the synagogue, but that she had been oppressed for eighteen years. She might never have been a synagogue regular: that might explain the synagogue ruler’s harsh statement about coming for healing during ‘business hours’. She was a ‘daughter of Abraham’, but that might simply mean that she was a Jewess. She was their genetic ‘sister’, and that fact should evoke the onlookers’ mercy—despite the fact that she was demon-possessed. On the facts of this situation, we cannot assert that this is a precedent for a Christian being demon possessed. We are just not told enough about the woman with a disabling spirit to make any informed inferences.
The ninth example of demon possession is the slave girl in Philippi with a spirit of divination (Acts 16:16-18).[38] Thereby, this unfortunate girl had ability in fortune telling. She accurately described Paul and his mission. This ‘skill’ was a great earner for her masters. This suggests that it is possible for those who are ‘demon possessed’ to have the ability at least to deceive others into thinking their prognostications have value. We do have one example of her demon-inspired divinations. It is a true one, and that is the girl’s statement about Paul. Except for the fact that Paul initially ignored the annoying behaviours and words, Paul’s actions in silencing the spirit and casting it out are very similar to those of Christ, and re-inforce that Paul is continuing the mission of the risen Christ. After the demon was removed, her powers of divinization likewise ceased.
The tenth example is in Acts 19:11-16. Even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched Paul’s skin would serve to cast out demons and heal the sick. Then narrated for us is an unsuccessful exorcism by the seven sons of Sceva in Ephesus. Again, the demon possessed man with the evil spirit in him overpowered the seven, so that they fled naked and bleeding. Yet again the demon knew about Jesus and Paul, and not about the interloping would-be exorcists. It is possible to assume that the seven sons of Sceva were not Christian believers and did not have the Spirit. This of course is possible, but it is an assumption which we cannot prove. They were beaten by the demons, but there are many examples in the New Testament where Christians are beaten: though this would be the only case where Christians are beaten by a demon possessed man. Again, we must not give the demons the right to determine who the true Christians are. Just because the demon didn’t know the sons of Sceva, does not mean they were not Christians. They may have been Christians exceeding their brief, or they may have been opportunistic interlopers plugging into the most current source of power. It would be remarkable if Luke recorded Christians actually being defeated by demons, but then again, Luke records two of his heroes fighting so seriously that they can no longer work together, Christian believers being put to death by the Spirit for lying, the Christian church neglecting its widows, and Christian apostles being beaten by men. These are aspects of the new Christian movement that might be thought of as ‘weak’. Moreover, demons are not omniscient. We don’t know what they know. They don’t necessarily know what we know. We must not assume that they can discern whether someone truly knows Christ, or know the human heart, simply because they know who Christ and Paul are. My own assumption is that the seven sons of Sceva were probably not believers.
The event resulted in the believers confessing and repenting of their magic arts, and burning their valuable occultic books. Implicit is a link between the magic arts they had previously practiced, and their newfound fear of the name of Jesus Christ. It is probable that their fear has been inspired by the demon’s testimony of Christ. In that sense, this too is an exception. However, the testimony of the demons to Christ in the Gospels is recorded in the Scriptures for us. This fact alone shows that the Gospel writers are prepared for their readers to hear this aspect of the demon’s testimony, even if Jesus and Paul silenced them.
There are two further cases that might be thought to be precedents for the demon possession of Christians: firstly, the instance of Judas; and secondly, the case of Ananias and Sapphira. Nowhere are these said to be cases of demon possession—indeed, the evidence points the other way—but we shall deal with them here.
The eleventh case to deal with is that of Judas Iscariot, at the last supper, whom Satan is said to have entered (Luke 22:3; John 13:27).[39] But in John 13:2, another description is used: ‘During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him’. This seems to be Satanic involvement something short of possession. We might regard this as Satanic inspiration, influence and temptation, which addresses—and not overcomes and bypasses—the human will. Judas is not ‘out of his mind’, but is consciously, deliberately, reasonably and cleverly betraying his master. That this is the case is suggested by Jesus’ indirect warning to Judas in Luke 22:22, ‘woe to that man by whom he is betrayed’. This addresses Judas’ will—for Judas was in the room listening and had formed the plan. This is also clear from Judas’ own remorseful words, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt 27:4). All this suggests that there is a clear Satanic role, but also Judas’ will is fully operative.
But even if Satan did ‘enter into’ Judas in the sense of possession, there are other factors that might give us pause before we use Judas as a general archetype for Christian possession by demons. We have no sound basis to suggest that Judas ever was indwelt by the Spirit. Judas is spoken of as ‘the son of perdition’, or the one doomed to destruction (John 17:12), in a similar way that the man of lawlessness, the anti-Christ, is also described (2 Thess 2:3).[40] Judas moreover had long been a thief (John 12:3-6). This must call into question the bona fides of his faith in Christ. Added to this is the reality that this all occurred before the day of Pentecost and the promised outpouring of the Spirit. This is hardly a good basis to make Judas the archetype for the Christian believer.
So we need to allow Judas to be an anomaly, a unique case, and not a model for the Christian believer. He is in fact a type of the anti-Christ, in the line of that tragic king, Saul. We don't know that the Holy Spirit ever dwelt in him. It is true that Judas was a member of at least the twelve who cast out demons. But casting out demons is not necessarily a guarantee of salvation (Matt 7:21-23), and thus it is not necessarily an evidence of having the Holy Spirit. It is probable that sadly Judas Iscariot never had real faith in Christ—that he was empty without the Spirit of God—but that he used the band of disciples for his own greedy purposes, while putting up the appearance of discipleship. It is also probable that Jesus Christ chose him knowing all this, so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
The twelfth case arises from the fact that Satan ‘filled’ Ananias and Sapphira's heart (Acts 5:3), so that they lied to the Holy Spirit. Again, we do not know the state of their conversion before this, although they were part of the visible church. It may be that they are sadly like the probable situation with Judas, and were never really converted and had the Spirit, as far as we know. The example of Simon Magus tells us that there were false conversions in the early church (Acts 8:5-25). So again, it is possible that Ananias and Sapphira were never truly converted and never had the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that Ananias and Sapphira were held responsible for their deception, and this itself distinguishes the case of Ananias and Sapphira from the truly demon possessed.
However, I wonder, but cannot prove, that Ananias and Sapphira were possibly true but sinful believers who believed the lie that Satan suggested to them, that they could both look impressive to the church and keep back some of the money. Will we see them in heaven? Just because they were disciplined by God with premature death doesn’t mean that they won’t receive eternal salvation. Moses, Aaron and Miriam and their whole generation were disciplined by being excluded from the promised land, but that doesn’t mean they will miss out on the better country of heaven. On this reconstruction, that Satan ‘filled’ Ananias and Sapphira’s heart, means that they believed the lie of Satan. A heart ‘filled’ by Satan here is a shorthand way of speaking of the envy and deceit that Annanias and Sapphira showed. On this analysis, Acts 5:3 is a similar case to Romans 1:29, which speaks of unregenerate humanity being ‘filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness’ (Romans 1:29). This would then not be demonic possession, which overrides and bypasses the will, but the sense of temptation and influence leading to deception which deceives the human will.
The behaviour of Judas, and Ananias and Sapphira, seems much more consonant and consistent with deliberate sin and forethought rather than demon possession as we’ve seen it in the Gospels.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 speaks of a powerful delusion that God sends on unbelievers so that they believe they lie and become confirmed in unbelief. While it is possible that this may refer to demon possession and God’s sovereign control of everything in his world, it is more likely a reference to the hardening of heart that the sovereign God works in the non-elect.
Nowhere are we informed why any given demon possession has occurred. Sometimes it is asserted that involvement in the occult has opened the way up for demonic. This may be true, but the connection is simply not made in Scripture. Saul did not dabble with the occult—he banished the mediums and spiritists—yet the LORD sent an evil spirit to him. Some might draw an inference from Acts 19:11-16 that perhaps there was dabbling with the occult that opened the way for demon-possession. This, of course, is an unprovable supposition, an example of co-incidence assumed to be causal. None of the new Ephesian Christians are said to have been possessed by demons, though some had been involved in the occult. Moreover, the man possessed by the demon who beat up the seven sons of Sceva is not said to have become a Christian. He is not even said to have been exorcized. All we have is an example of a demon possessed man overpowering some would-be Jewish exorcists in a particular city, and then the new Christians in that city realize that they need to burn their occult books, since Jesus is Lord of all. Many hypothetical scenarios, all unprovable this side of glory, could explain this situation.
It is well known that some teach that if ancestors were involved in the occult, or were Masons, then there may be intergenerational spirits afflicting Christians. Again, there is nothing that we have seen so far that gives a hint of this. As we consider what may be the causes of demon possession, it is worth remembering Jesus’ answer to the disciples question concerning the man born blind:
As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.” (John 9:1-3 ESV)
In other words, Jesus is saying regarding the affliction of blindness from birth, that in that case the fact of blindness is not a karma-like divine response to intergenerational sin. Why is it not possible that the same principle applies to those unfortunate people who were demon possessed? In fact, given that the point of our lives is to glorify God and Christ and find our satisfaction in him, why can’t it be that God gave permission to the demons to enter those ten supplicants? God’s sovereignty requires that these possessions occurred within his permissive will. God would have his good purposes in so doing: that the work of God might be displayed in their lives too, just as blindness for 38 years would turn out for good into eternity. There would be, through this suffering, much joy for humans and glory to God. God’s ways are not our ways. But we always knew that. We would then be better served to focus not on searching out secondary causes—such as the reason a person is demon possessed—but to wrestle wholly and solely with the sovereign God as the one who ultimately gives permission to Satan and the demons to do what they do for God’s own good purposes. Just as Job ignored the secondary cause, Satan, and wrestled with God, so we likewise must not ‘blame the victim’ when we see demon possession but instead wrestle with God and seek to understand how God is both unlike us, and is free, sovereign, good, and holy in bringing about whatever comes to pass.
Sometimes the demon-possessed person might be thought to have something that could be thought ‘beneficial’ (e.g. great strength, divination, knowledge of people). Someone might think demon possession is a way to having super powers—the way to becoming a real life superhero. But in each case, these ‘abilities’ are self-destructive and enslaving for the human host. The people afflicted by the demons are truly healed and restored after the demon is driven out. There is no benefit for the unfortunate person possessed, although others might profit from their misery, as is typical in our world.
Whatever hypothesis we put forward about the characterization and attributes of demons is pure supposition and unverifiable. We don’t know enough about the demonic to draw any inferences from the abilities of demons to make mute or to give people strength: all we know is that the demons did those things to the person in these instances, and Scripture has faithfully recounted them for us. We cannot generalize to say that demons have one predominant ‘characteristic’, i.e., a demon of divinization, a demon of strength, a demon of silence, a demon of self-destruction. Perhaps all demons have all those qualities. Perhaps they have no ‘abilities’ inherent to themselves, but whatever ‘abilities’ evidenced are delegated by the prince of demons. And everything the demon is able to do is subject to and subordinated under the permissive will and sovereignty of God, just as human abilities are.
None of these ‘demons’ are described in terms of the sins that they might outwork through their host, except the lying spirit sent by God to Saul (1 Sam 16), and the spirit of divination in Ephesus (Acts 16). That is, we have no solid ground for diagnosing that someone is afflicted by a demon of any particular sin: e.g, a ‘demon of anger’, a ‘demon of lust’, or a ‘demon of lying’ or a ‘demon of divination’. Let me explain.
In the first situation, the lying spirit is specifically chosen and sent by God to achieve God’s good purposes through the evil of lying.[41] It was a ‘lying spirit’, not necessarily because it is better at lying than other demons, or it was the only lying spirit, but because it made the offer of assistance, and God took up that particular offer and mode of operation to bring about his own purposes. So it was with the Satan and Job. The destruction Satan wrought does not limit or define Satan’s powers. In both cases, we can rightly discern that Satan and his demons lie and destroy human life. But the events reveal very little about the wider scope of demonic powers, character or attributes.
Of the second situation, the description of a ‘spirit of divination’ recorded in Acts, we can say that ‘divination’ is always a sin when humans exercise it. However, it seems that this girl’s acts were not free or according to her own will—once the demon was cast out, she ceased her annoying divining behaviour. But we don’t know how the slave girl originally became possessed by the demon. She may have done nothing out of the ordinary, and the demon overtook her regardless—God, of course, being sovereign over the whole event. It is fruitless speculating the secondary cause. If we say she was involved in occult practices, we potentially fall foul of Jesus’ correction of his disciples in John 9:1-3. We fall foul of the book of Job, which makes it clear that suffering may not be sent because of our sin at all.
Humans in Scripture are urged by command and example not to engage in divination or any other occult practice (Deut 18:10, 14; 1 Sam 15:23, cf. 28:8; 2 Kings 17:17; Jeremiah 14:14; Ezek 13:9, Micah 3:11; Zech 10:2). Divination is a sin precisely because it purports to involve us in interaction with demons and the spirit world. It seeks knowledge about that world apart from God and his revelation. This is always a sin, like that of Adam and Eve which occurred in the garden of Eden. This slave girl had a spirit of divination which in some way nullified her own will and gave her at least the ability to deceive (it appeared she had some divination powers when she didn’t), or at most the actual ability to divine information (empowered, of course, by the demon). There is no necessary connection between the fact that God addresses our will as humans by urging us to avoid the sin of divination, and this girl being enabled to practice divination by the demon. There are no dots to join the two types of passage. Every attempt to link them is pure speculation.
Human sins or sinful propensities are not attributed in the Gospels to demon possession, but to the sinful human heart. While demon possession is clearly affliction akin to sickness, sinfulness is in a different category. The former are conditions in which the human will has been hijacked or has diminished responsibility, the later is a situation where the human will has been persuaded and deceived, and co-operates with the evil, and is thus fully responsible. There is no biblical basis for saying ‘the devil made me do it!’ That too applies to demons. Instead, Jesus lays the blame for human sin with the human heart.
And [Jesus] said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:20-23)
The mode the Gospels give us of dealing with these real human failings—which might beset Christians also—is repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ. The solution to sin is not exorcism but repentance.
Nor can we draw any conclusions from the fact that the demon-possessed people correctly identified Jesus and Paul. We cannot infer that Satan and the demons are omnipotent or omnipresent. They are clearly not. Only God has those characteristics. All we can say is that in those instances the demons recognized the identity and work of the Messiah. We can also say that in every case the recognition, though correct, is not welcomed, nor is it used as confirmation of the gospel preaching. Neither Christ nor Paul say, ‘Look, even the demons accept what I am saying! So should you.’ In all cases, the demon is cast out so that the demonic ‘testimony’ ceases. In several cases, the demon is explicitly said to be rebuked and silenced. This is so even if the demon is speaking the truth about God and the way of salvation.
It is true that the Gospels and Acts themselves recount the demons’ ‘testimony’ to Christ. And it is clear that those ‘testimonies’ are true from other things the Gospels teach. In the context of those books, the ‘testimonies’ of the demons are presented to the reader as confirming the truth that the Gospels’ as a whole are conveying—that Jesus is the Christ. However, the Gospels do so with the benefit of hindsight, after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Gospel writers have the benefit of the explanation that the risen Jesus Christ gave to his chosen witnesses before his ascension. As readers of the Gospels, we are not in the same position as those who actually heard the demons.
When we hear the demons’ testimony to Christ in the Gospels, we are not actually believing the demons at all. We are believing the bible. It is the Gospel writers’ testimony that we are trusting. In so doing, we have the benefit of the sifting of accounts and selection of materials by the Gospel writers, guided by the Holy Spirit. We do not accept the demons’ testimony on the authority of the demons themselves. Instead, we accept that Jesus is the Christ on the basis of his life, death, resurrection and ascension, and we notice that the demons in fear recognized who Jesus was when they saw him.
While Jesus or Paul often commanded the demons to be silent and come out, this is not always the case. In Acts 19:11-12, in the account of the handkerchiefs and aprons which had touched Paul’s skin casting out demons, it would seem that no words were necessary to cast out the demons. Christ did not address the demon, as far as we can tell, in the case of the Syrophonecian women’s daughter. Such miracles served the dual purpose of relieving suffering, and demonstrating that the risen Christ had authority over demons. In every other case specifically related, some form of words was used by Christ or his apostle, addressed to the demon. The example of Christ and his apostles is to rebuke, which seems to mean a command for silence (be quiet), and a command to come out, but the example in Ephesus with the things Paul touched shows words are not necessary.
Without prejudicing the question of whether a Christian can be so possessed, can we say that Christians today, if ever faced with such demonization, should address the spirit to cast the demon out of the person?
On one hand, mercy and compassion suggests that we should do whatever lies within our power to relieve human suffering and defeat the kingdom of darkness. This suggests that if it lies within our power, we should likewise silence and command a demon to come out. When Jesus was told that a man apart from his disciples was casting out demons, he said the disciples should not prevent him:
John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49-50)
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward. (Mark 9:38-41)
The basis on which Jesus advised the disciples to allow the non-authorized exorcist to continue was whether it was likely the exorcist would be against them. Jesus does not articulate that so doing meant that someone would be saved from demon possession. It may have been his concern, but Jesus didn’t say that. The fact is, we don’t know whether this unknown man was successful in driving out the demons. We don’t know whether the disciples correctly identified what they were seeing. Jesus simply gave the disciples a principle of non-intervention.
Yet, we have seen that when non-authorized people, such as the seven sons of Sceva, attempt to cast out a demon in Jesus’ name, they were spectacularly unsuccessful (Acts 19:11-16). It was a risky thing for them to attempt. Indeed, at least once the apostles themselves were unable to cast out a demon, because in some way they did not pray (Matt 17:14-20; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43). Jesus said to them, ‘This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer’ (Mark 9:29). It is hard to know what to infer from these two accounts, except that one should not be satisfied with second-hand faith in Christ for the power to cast out demons, and that some demons were commanded out, and others required prayer as well.
On the other hand, the example of Paul in Philippi was that he did not immediately cast out the demon from the girl as she continued to follow them around and cry after them. He waited. We are not told what he did while he endured her behaviour—whether Paul quietly prayed about the situation or not. But it was when he was sufficiently annoyed that he acted:
And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour. (Acts 16:18)
The only reason we are given for his action is because Paul was ‘greatly annoyed’. We are not told Paul acted to relieve the slave girl of her suffering. Perhaps Paul knew that the consequence of casting out the demon would be his arrest and the cessation of his ministry in Philippi, which he did not want to occur. We cannot know. The only reason we are given is Paul’s annoyance. Does this mean that we should only cast out a demon, or attempt to do so, when we are sufficiently annoyed by it? I don’t think anyone would say so—Luke more likely is just recording things as they happened, and not necessarily prescribing anything. It shows the difficulty of looking for prescription in description.
Added to this is the teaching of Christ, that either the claim or reality of casting out demons in Jesus’ name does not guarantee salvation:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)
It seems that it is possible to use an experience like casting out demons to give oneself a false assurance of salvation. Casting out demons and prophecy are not the good fruit that distinguish Jesus’ true disciples from those he calls ‘workers of lawlessness’. Jesus elsewhere urged his disciples not to rejoice that the demons submitted to them, but that the disciples’ names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20).
The text of the longer ending of Mark 16:17-18 suggests that ‘these signs will accompany those who believe’ which firstly enumerates ‘in my name they will cast out demons’ as well as ‘they will pick up serpents with their hands and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them’. However, the fact that the earliest manuscript does not contain this section suggests it was not original and was added later. It should not be considered to be part of the text of Scripture.
Scripture gives us the example of Christ and the apostle Paul silencing and casting the demons out. But it is not clear that we should do the same. It is possible that Jesus intended this authority for his apostles (and the seventy, and Phillip the Evangelist) as his witnesses and for a particular period of salvation history. Again, it is instructive that the New Testament letters never speak of ‘demonization’ or the casting out of demons. The ultimate test, of course, is whether the demon is cast out—but Jesus himself gives us warnings against making inferences from success, including whether the one so doing is saved and really a Christian at all. But if the apostles and disciples in the Gospels and Acts were acting as witnesses in a unique salvation-historical context when they were casting out demons, we have even less grounds for using their ministry of exorcism as a paradigm for our own.
It seems to me that there is an option short of addressing the demon that is open for Christians who aren’t apostles (that’s all of us) and who cannot be absolutely sure that God has authorized us to address demons (that is all of us), if they are ever confronted by a person who is demon possessed (I hope that is never any of us). That is, the Christian can pray that God would cast the demon out—and not address the demon directly at all. Jesus indicated that at least some demons come out by prayer. It is probable that if the harder cases come out by prayer, so too do the easier cases. That is, it is probably the case that all demons come out by prayer, if the harder ones come out by prayer. The demons that came out by aprons and handkerchiefs presumably did not need to be addressed. We don’t know if those who carried these artefacts to the sufferers prayed for them, although it would be surprising if they did not pray.
But there is another reason that prayer is the default response of the Christian. The fact is that all demons can come out by prayer because it is not we who ultimately cast them out at all. God is the only one who ultimately casts out demons, even if he condescends to use human prayer or words as a secondary instrument. The efficacy of prayer lies in the omnipotence of God and his willingness to hear us. The prayer addresses the one who has the power.
A further argument against directly addressing the demon is provided by Peter Bolt from the nature of Christ’s defeat of Satan and the demons: that Jesus himself ultimately defeated Satan indirectly:
Jesus defeated the devil well and truly, but he did so by neutralizing his power over us. There was no head-to-head. There was no cosmic clash of the titans. Jesus defeated the devil by dealing with our sin and God’s wrath against it. … Jesus defeated the devil resoundingly and completely but in a sense indirectly. It was not as if there were two equal princes, arrayed against each other, slugging it out. The Son of God was above all that kind of thing. He defeated the devil by removing the problem that had enslaved us to him in the first place. He took away our guilt; he bore our punishment; he dealt with God’s anger; he brought justification, that great declaration of innocence before the courtroom of God. And if God has looked at what his dear Son has won for us, and declared us to be ‘not guilty’, then the devil no longer has any hold over us. He has been defeated once and for all, without the Son of God ever having to stoop to direct confrontation with him at all.[42]
If Christ wins the victory indirectly on the cross and through the tomb, then Christian victory is likewise found indirectly, by overcoming him with the blood of the lamb. This suggests prayer to the one who defeated the demonic, rather than direct address to the demon. Bolt also directly deals with the question of whether the accounts of exorcisms in the New Testament are descriptive or prescriptive: they are exclusively descriptive, and were limited to the apostolic era as part of the apostolic witness.
So how do we know which aspects are unique to Jesus and the apostles, and which aspects we should consciously repeat or imitate? That’s what the epistles of the New Testament are for. … And in the epistles we find absolutely no expectation or command that Christians should be doing exorcisms. Not a mention. Not even a hint that this is something the apostles expected Christian churches to be involved in. This shouldn’t surprise us. The apostles were a select, specially chosen group (as were the 72 in Luke 10), and they had a special foundational role in the Christian movement. They performed various extraordinary deeds as an indication that they were, in fact, specially authorized as Christ’s apostles—“the signs of a true apostle” as Paul calls them. … The New Testament gives absolutely no encouragement to Christians to directly engage with the devil or demons through such practices as exorcism or deliverance or praying against territorial spirit. This must be stressed, because over the last 40 years or so a number of movements have arisen within the Christian orbit urging exactly this kind of direct engagement with the devil and his minions. … Please forgive me for speaking strongly, but love requires that a clear message be heard: these ‘ministries’ are not Christian ministries in the New Testament sense. They are profoundly misguided, and should be shut down, never to be re-opened. One very important clue that these ministries are not truly Christian ministries is that they reintroduce the fear of the underworld that Jesus died to banish.[43]
Proceeding more closely to an answer to the question at hand, we can now turn to the nature of conversion to see whether the work of salvation is consistent with a Christian being possessed by a demon.
Christians are those who have been transferred from the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of the Son he loves (Col 1:14). This transfer is typical of the before and after structure of Christian salvation: before we were subject to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient (Eph 2:2). After the exercise of faith in Christ and repentance towards God, we are saved, redeemed, rescued, raised up and seated in the heavenly realms. So Paul says that believers are transferred into the realm of the Spirit and are no longer in the realm of the flesh (Rom 8:9-11). Everyone in the realm of the Spirit, which is the kingdom of the Son and of God, has the Spirit. If they do not have the Spirit, they cannot be members of the realm of the Spirit. And if they do not have the Spirit, neither are they members of God’s kingdom. So if they do not have the Spirit, they are not Christ's—they are not Christian in any saving way (Rom 8:9).
Now, because we live in the overlap of the ages, we still have indwelling sin and the flesh. Our bodies are dying because of our sin (Romans 8:10), which salvation in Christ does not remove. The wages of sin is still death, even after faith in Christ and regeneration (Rom 6:23). We experience the frustration of all of creation in ourselves, in our sufferings (Rom 8:15-23). Moreover, we still have concupiscence, or the pre-cognitive lusts or biases towards sin that cause us to grieve (Rom 7:14-25; cf. 1 John 1:8-2:2). This is the result of original sin. God allows this sin to still indwell us, presumably because he has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on them all (Romans 11:32).
Someone might respond that, since according to Reformed theology, indwelling sin or concupiscence still exists in truly regenerate persons, then if God can tolerate indwelling sin alongside the Spirit’s indwelling, why in principle could God also not tolerate a demon indwelling a Christian?
But indwelling sin existing in Christians is a very different thing from demons or evil spirits possessing Christians. All the examples in the Gospels and Acts suggest that the demon takes over the human will to some extent, so as to subvert the human will. The Christian, however, has the mind of the Spirit (Rom 8:6) and the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16). This is not the case with human concupiscence and sin, whereby either an aspect of the believer wills to commit the sin, or if the concupiscence is pre-cognitive, it is our fallen flesh that wrongly and sinfully lusts after something God has prohibited, or wants the good the wrong way. A reason why God has allowed concupiscence as sin to remain in the regenerate (a fact taught by Scripture and confirmed by experience) is that God is seeking to train our wills through the suffering of us resisting temptation. God allowing his Spirit filled people to be possessed by demons cannot serve that huristic and sanctifying purpose for the believer, as the human will is in some way overcome by the demon.
The closest we get in the New Testament to a passage dealing with whether a demon can possess a Christian is 1 John 4:1-5. When discussing evil spirits, John gives a test to distinguish the spirit of false prophecy: do they confess that Christ came in the flesh? This spirit of false prophecy is the spirit of anti-Christ in the world. He then lays down some general propositions about Christian identity:
Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:4-6)
Believers have the Spirit of God indwelling them. They are removed from the realm of the ‘world’ and are ‘from God’, on account of the Spirit of God dwelling in them. The one ‘in them’—the Holy Spirit—is greater than the one ‘in the world’—Satan. That is, the place the false spirit lives is not in the believer but in the world. The place where the Spirit of God lives is not in the world[44] (there is another spirit that occupies that place) but in the believer. It is fitting therefore, that God not allow a person in whom his Holy Spirit resides to be host to another, contrary unclean spirit or demon.
Paul's letter to the Colossians 2:8-10 shows the sufficiency we as believers have in Christ. It would seem that some sort of worship of angelic beings and fascination with the spirit world is part of the Colossians’ problem. Yet Paul indicates that the Colossian Christians are filled by Christ:
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Colossians 2:8-10)
The benefit of having the Spirit in Romans 8:9-11 is that Christ dwells in the believer. Being indwelt and filled by Christ presumably means that there is no space to be filled by any other spirit. Christ is Lord over all of these spirits, as shown in Colossians 1:16: ‘For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.’ It is difficult if not impossible to accept that the Christ who fills not only the whole world, but every believer, would tolerate any other spiritual occupants in his people, given his Lordship over the spirits. If we were to suppose a true Christian was possessed by a demon, we would have to say that Christ wanted in some way that spirit to indwell the person of his followers. But the fact that there is no agreement between Christ and Belial (2 Cor 6:15) suggests that the Spirit and the indwelling Christ would keep God’s people safe from demon possession. The fact that we are the temple of the living God—individually and corporately—likewise suggests that God the Holy Spirit is the exclusive spirit who inhabits the Christian. It is fitting that God is willing and able to dwell in a Christian person, without being roommates with an evil spirit or demon. It is difficult to swallow that Christ is tenant-in-common with Satan or the demons.
We are not bound to believe that any particular person is possessed by any particular demon, except for the Scriptural examples above. Others cannot be proved from scripture. We do not have the authority or knowledge to say of any incident ‘this is demon possession’, no matter what it is that we see. There is such a thing as psychosis, epilepsy, mental disturbance, illness and breakdown, the effects of stress, grief, and drug use. There is human suggestibility. Sometimes people are mistaken or dishonest about what they themselves experience. There may well be other explanations for the phenomena or behaviours apart from demon possession. We are not bound to believe that demon possession is the explanation of any phenomena we witness.
Regarding some specific passages which might be thought to teach demon-possession of Christians, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 doesn't actually say that those with the Spirit can be invaded or possessed by an evil spirit. Paul in that passage tells the Corinthians not to partake in idolatory, because, whether this is known or unknown to those who partake in it, idolatory is the worship of demons. It is an issue of lies. Once again, the demons deceive humans by lies. Human religion is used by demons to deceive humans. Paul doesn't actually say what happens if a Christian goes to the idol feast and partake in the food, although Christians are not harmed in eating meat sacrificed to an idol if there is no religious significance in it and they happen to buy it at the market or are offered to it by a pagan friend. Christians remain unharmed because an idol is nothing, and the earth is the Lord's, and the food is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. But Paul doesn't raise, let alone solve, the issue of demon possession of Christians. He simply issues a command not to do something (eat at an idols temple), and the reason given is not that you will or might become possessed by a demon if you do it, but that you belong to another and you attend at his table and no others. Implicit is exclusiveness. If you belong to Christ, you cannot attend the table of demons.
1 Corinthians 12:1-3 doesn't say what the nature of ‘being led astray to mute idols’ is. The fact that they are ‘mute’ does not suggest possession by a demon (though we have seen above that some demons are ‘mute’); rather, it points to the folly of idolatory, the worshipping of idols of stone and wood. This is folly because that which they worship does not and cannot speak, unlike God, who speaks. Those who believe in gods of wood and stone aren’t necessarily possessed by a demon, but they are believing a demonic lie.
Regarding 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, it is true that the Christians there are said to be at risk of receiving a spirit which is different from that which they had previously received, but in the context they do this by receiving the false apostles, who are acting not by the Spirit of God but by a different spirit. The Corinthians in this instance reject the Spirit of God by rejecting Paul and his apostleship (see 2 Cor 11:12-15). That is why Paul is writing. That is, the ‘different spirit’ is conveyed by the false teachers who challenge the true apostle Paul, and come to deceive the Corinthians like Eve was deceived. It is Satanic teaching in that the false teacher takes the form of a ‘super-apostle’, that it is inspired by Satan, and that the intention of the super-apostles is to deceive the Corinthians.
So I conclude that there is no place in Scripture that teaches that true believers in Christ can be demonized, and instead there are several considerations that conclusively militate against the suggestion.
Scripture also speaks of the activities of Satan and the demons that fall short of ‘demonization’, that is, possession. According to Scripture, all humans outside of the special salvation of Christ are under the deception, influence and sway of Satan and the demons. This flows directly from the description of Satan as ‘the ruler of this world’ (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), and the ‘ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience’[45]—whom all of us once lived amongst and followed (Eph 2:1-3). Humans outside of Christ and the salvation God offers are—knowingly or unknowingly—under the sway, influence, thrall, and deception of Satan. Demons are part of Satan’s kingdom, in some way serving Satan’s purpose.
The Lord Jesus Christ taught as much in his parables. In the parable of the soils, Satan, the evil one, snatches away the word that is sown (Matt 13:19). Satan is also the enemy who sows the weeds among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43). The weeds, the sons of the evil one, represent the humans who are part of the enemies’ kingdom, who work lawlessness. In John’s gospel, Jesus said that his opponents are like their father the devil (John 8:44).
The kingdom of Satan generates lies and deceptions drawing humans into believing things contrary to God's word or the reality of God's world. That fits with Satan being a liar and the father of lies. It is a similar deception to that wrought by Satan in the garden of Eden as he deceived the woman and tempted the man.
The work of Satan in the sons of disobedience—all outside of Christ—is here not to be confused with the demonization we have observed in the Gospels. While this work of Satan can be described as a Satanic-working-in, it is not a satanic or demonic indwelling or possession in the same way that we see in the Gospels and Acts. To say otherwise is to suggest that the predominate mode of spiritual attack is possession. But the Gospels do not lead us to this conclusion.
That is to say, the Gospels, in which there are undeniable cases of demonization or demon-possession, cannot be read to say that all outside of the kingdom of God or who are not believers in Christ (I am speaking slightly anachronistically) are possessed by demons. In the Gospels, there are people with afflictions and under sin who are not obviously or apparently possessed by a demon—but they are still under the sway of Satan. Not all people lost in sin are possessed by demons. We might use the phrase ‘demonic deception’ as opposed to ‘demon possession’ to characterize the sway or thrall under which all humans outside of Christ are bound.
We can thus distinguish the two different types of demonic action as ‘demon possession’ and ‘demonic deception’. Demon possession involves an internal dwelling of the demon in the host human, which negates the human’s will in some way. However, demonic deception works with the human will by deceiving humans into believing the lies and deceptions of Satan and the demons.
Scripture makes it clear that all outside of Christ are deceived by Satan and the kingdom of darkness. The deception means that they cannot come to Christ and be saved by him.
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor 4:4)
The ‘blinding’ of Satan and the demons here, is an operation on the cognitive faculties of unbelievers, not by way of possession, but deception, concealment and distraction. The minds and hearts of unbelievers are veiled.
A typical ruse used by Satan and the demons according to the New Testament, is idolatory, the worship of created things rather than the Creator. Satan seems to desire the worship that is strictly due to God alone (Matt 4:9). Accepting the essential religiousness of humanity, this deception involves Satan re-channelling the human impulse to worship toward himself and the demons, through the statues and images made by human skill. Thus:
They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded. (Deut 32:16-17; cf. Lev 17:7; Ps 106:37; 2 Chr 11:15)
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. (1 Corinthians 10:19-20)[46]
The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts. (Revelation 9:20-1)
The most crude form of idolatory is the worship of images made of stone and wood gods. These have no real existence—that is to say, these gods do not actually exist. However, Moses, Paul and John all teach that behind the non-existent god is a demon or demons which receive that worship in some way. Though the false god does not exist, the demons do. They deceive humans into thinking that the false god exists, even though the image is deaf, dumb, blind, unmoving, unthinking—a block of wood or hunk of stone.
There is no statement here that the worship of idols leads to demon possession. We simply do not know on what basis a demon is permitted (ultimately by God) to enter a human. So a view which states that idol worship leads to demon possession is an unproveable generalization. The Scriptures do not ‘join the dots’ like that for us. The reason given to not engage in idolatory is not the risk of demon possession, but that they are false, that they do not exist, that the true God and his Christ are jealous and brook no rivals, and hence idolatory provokes God to anger, and that idolatory is associated with and leads to other sins (e.g. Rom 1:18-32).
Again, Christians are rescued from the dominion of darkness and brought into the kingdom of the beloved Son (Colossians 1:13-14). `The Son sets us free from our subjugation to the devil and demons (John 8:36). That is, Christians are no longer part of the world deceived by the devil and the demons.
However, Christians are this side of glory subject to the temptation to believe the lies of the devil and the demons. The Lord taught us to pray ‘lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil’. There is thus a real risk of falling into the devil’s various traps. This reality is the basis of the exhortations found in the New Testament letters concerning the devil and the demons.
Demons are particularly associated with various forms of ascetic and legalistic religious practices, whether those practices are from a gentile or a Jewish source. An example of this demonic influence is the teaching reported in 2 Timothy 4:1-6:
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed.
The teaching of the deceitful spirits, that is, demons, here related is simply to forbid marriage and abstain from certain foods. This is deceptive teaching because it seems spiritual and impressive, with its denial of bodily realities relating to food and sex. However, the means by which these demonic spirits are countered in the church and the world is not by exorcism, but by the servant of Christ teaching the truth (v. 6). All things are created by God and therefore good, all food is clean when received from God’s hands with thanksgiving. By addressing the human will with true teaching, the demonic teaching is countered.
Another example of this is found where the adjective ‘demonic’ is used, in James 3:15[47], which relates to jealousy and selfish ambition, sins of attitude and character that the Christian is warned against.
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. (James 3:14-17)
Here the adjective ‘demonic’ describes the origin of ‘jealousy and selfish ambition’. The answer to these sins is not to seek exorcism from a ‘spirit of jealousy and selfish ambition’: it is to repent and seek God.
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you (James 4:7-10)
Again, the letter to the Colossians picks up on the role of demons. Demons attempt to deceive Christians into false teaching and false practice. While Paul in the letter to the Colossians does not use the words for either ‘demon’ or ‘evil spirit’, he makes clear the relationship between Christ’s victory, the demonic world, and the believer.
Christ is the agency and goal of creation of everything, whether ‘in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities’ (Col 1:16). Christ is the creator, sustainer and heir of everything in creation (Col 1:16). These references to the cosmos of necessity include the demons or unclean spirits. They—along with every other atom— are under the sovereign rule of their creator, Christ. All the fullness of God dwells in Christ. Moreover, ‘all things, whether on earth or in heaven’ were reconciled to God through Christ (Col 1:19). The reconciliation and peace brought about between God and all things came through ‘the blood of his cross’ (Col 1:21).
All the fullness of God dwells in Christ (Col 1:19), the whole fullness of the deity dwells in bodily form (Col 2:9), and Christ dwells in believers (Col 1:27) and have been filled by him who is the head of every ruler and authority (including the elemental spirits which includes the demons: Col 2:8-10). If Christ has filled the believer with the fullness of the godhead that dwells in him, how is there any ‘room’ or ‘space’ for a demon to ‘squeeze’ itself in? There is not. These factors militate against the demonization of those who have been transferred from the dominion of darkness and into the kingdom of the beloved son (Col 1:13-14).
As we saw in 2 Timothy 4:1-6, demonic teaching uses, is hidden behind, and underlies human religious teaching outside of Christ. So in Colossians 2:8, the deceptive philosophy and empty deceit that the church is warned against is characterized as: ‘according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ’. In Colossians 2:16, freedom is decreed for the church regarding food, drink, festivals, new moons and Sabbaths. The ‘elemental spirits of the world’ seek to impose on the church the rules ‘Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch’ (Col 2:20-21), even if they were once divine commands (their substance is fulfilled now with the coming of Christ), and since, if they are retained, their principles are according to human precepts and teachings, which the demons use to smuggle in their own enslaving teachings (Col 2:20-22). Colossians 2:23 shows the limit of the demonic ascetic teachings: though they have ‘an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body’, yet in accordance with the sinful tendency of their demonic hijackers, ‘they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh’.
Indeed, related to the demonic teaching is the ‘worship of angels’ and detailed recounting of ‘visions’ and in so doing letting go of Christ, the head (Col 2:18-19).
The defeat of the demons and the Satanic kingdom occurred at the cross, and Colossians explains how this defeat occurred:
13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Col 2:13-15)
The legal aspect of the Satanic kingdom’s power over us needed to be dealt with. That is, we were rightly held guilty by the law. The devil is the accuser of the brothers. He rightly holds over humans their guilt. They are truly guilty before God. And Satan can accuse them of this. However, God in Christ and through the cross has set aside the record of debt and the legal demand for punishment for sin. In theological language, Christ satisfied the penal requirements of the law on behalf of God’s people, that cursed is everyone is everyone who does not continue to do everything in the book of the law (e.g. 10:5; Gal 3:10-13). He who knew no sin became sin for us (2 Cor 5:21). By removing the ground of condemnation, Christ has ‘disarmed the rulers and authorities’. They no longer have that accusation. Christus Victor meets penal substitutionary atonement, but penal substitutionary atonement provides the basis for the victory of Christ over the demons.
A further activity of the devil, and one imagines, his demons, is temptation. Generally speaking, the activity of ‘temptation’ in Scripture is never immediately attributed to demons. This indeed may be intentional. God in his wisdom does not wish us to overplay the role that demons play in temptation. While C S Lewis fictionalizes the possibilities of individual demons tempting a Christian in his The Screwtape Letters, this characterization of the relationship between demons and Christians is not specifically taught in Scripture. While this construction is consistent with the limitations of demons in time and space, setting up a demonology as a mirror image of the traditional ‘guardian angel’ conception may render the kingdom of Satan more organized and less chaotic than it may actually be.
Certainly, we are specifically told that God does not tempt us (James 1:13)—which means that God does not send a test with the intention that we fall into sin as part of his revealed moral will. God’s intention in allowing or decreeing a ‘temptation’ or sending a ‘test’[48]—like that of any good teacher—is that we his children pass the test. The devil sends ‘temptation’ so that we might fail; in those same events and in those very circumstances, God for his part sends and allows the ‘tests’ that we may pass them and grow strong, more like Christ. That is why God does not tempt us beyond our ability, but always provides a way of escape that we might endure the temptation that he allows to be sent to us (1 Cor 10:13). God is still sovereign over the whole process of temptation/testing, so that it is always appropriate to pray in the Lord’s prayer, ‘lead us not into temptation’ (Matt 6:13).
It is possible that a person with the Holy Spirit might be subjected to a particularly concerted demonic or satanic attack. There are several examples of this in Scripture.
(1) We have the example of Job 1-2 in the Old Testament, which undoubtedly constituted a wide ranging assault on Job. Yet the book of Job is quite clear that no matter what Satan did, Job's real issue is with God. From the perspective of Job’s relationship with God, Satan is merely a tool in God's ultimate purposes for Job.
(2) Somewhat similar is the situation with King David, when he was incited by Satan (and God's anger) to number the people (1 Chr 21:1; 2 Sam 24:1). Again, we see Satan used as a secondary cause, but God is the primary cause, not of the sin, but of all that came to be, so that God might bring about his own good purposes.
(3) The temptation of the Lord Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry and the satanic opposition he faced is also an example of demonic opposition that falls short of and cannot be conceived of as possession. We would never say that Christ was demon possessed, though he certainly had agonizing conflict with Satan and the demons, particularly during the temptation in the wilderness, when Peter confessed him the Christ, and perhaps also in the Garden of Gethsemane.
(4) The church at Pergamum seems to be an example of intense satanic trial because they have their church ‘where Satan dwells’ and has his ‘throne’ (Rev 2:12-17).
(5) An intense experience of satanic attack might explain the reference in 1 Peter 5:8-9, that the brotherhood are particularly experiencing the devil as 'your adversary' as he seeks someone to devour. Christians universally face Satan and his demons, and he is at war with them all, some to a greater degree, some to a lesser degree. The degree of Satanic trial ultimately depends on God's permissive will. Whatever God deems useful for conforming his church to Christ, and whatever limits are necessary to protect the weak of his flock from being permanently damaged by Satan, will come to pass and occur.
It is available to the sovereign God to use demonic powers for his own purposes of predestination and reprobation. The ultimate end of the divine activities or permissions on the earth are to bring glory to himself and his Christ. However, for the elect, God will use the tests he sends and the temptations he allows to conform his people to the image of Christ.
The following points are the key findings for our consideration of Satan and the demons in general, and the question of whether demons can possess Christians in particular.
(1) Satan is limited in time and space, and is neither omniscient nor eternal. He is totally under the authority and sovereign control of God, who uses Satan’s evil for his own good purposes. Satan is not eternal, but created. Satan was created good, because all things were created good by God. The Bible does not narrate either the creation of Satan, nor his fall into sin. The Biblical passages sometimes thought to narrate the fall of Satan give only the slightest support for it, on the possibility that they may obtain their rhetorical power by positing a vorlage about the fall of Satan. Satan is in the garden in the form of a snake. He at that point, or at some time before, has fallen into sin, for he is doubting and denying God’s explicit revealed word and encouraging the first human pair to do the same. Later in the Old Testament, he appears among the ‘sons of God’ in the heavenly court (Job 1:6, 2:1, cf. 38:7), suggesting that Satan may well have been an angel, given that the ‘sons of God’ are most likely angelic creatures of some sort (cf. Gen 6:2, 4). Satan is said to be cast down from heaven after the incarnation and ascension of the Messiah (Rev 12:9), at the mission of the disciples (Luke 10:17-20), and immediately before Christ’s death (John 12:31). None of these passages seem to narrate a fall of Satan into sin, but a temporal judgement anticipating the final eternal perdition of ‘the devil and his angels’.
(2) Satan’s names are descriptions of the evil that he works: he is ‘the satan’, the enemy or adversary; the ‘devil’, the slanderer; the ‘evil one’; ‘the enemy’ of God and his purposes; ‘the god of this world’ (2 Cor 4:4); ‘the prince of demons’; Beelzebub, ‘Lord of the Flies’; the deceiver. These names, titles and descriptions reveal something of his character. In both Old and New Testaments, Satan is depicted as the accuser and prosecutor in God’s courtroom, charging God’s people with sin (Zech 3:1-2; Job 1-2; Rev 12:10). This is consistent with his description as ‘the devil’, the slanderer. Satan’s character as a ‘tempter’ is clear first in the garden when as the serpent he tempted Eve, and later Satan again tempted Jesus in the wilderness without success. His character as a liar and a murder is clearly expressed by the Lord Jesus himself.
(3) Coinciding with and as a result of Jesus resisting Satan’s temptation, Jesus’ ministry of casting out demons, and particularly Jesus’ determination to go to the cross to take away sin and rise again, Satan is described as having been expelled from heaven, God’s courtroom, and so roams the earth looking for someone to devour. While Satan holds all people outside of Christ under his thrall (e.g. Eph 2:1-3), Satan’s eviction from heaven consequent upon Jesus’ earthly ministry and his work of paying for sin coincides with the beginning of a systematic persecution of God’s people (Revelation 12:12-17). The agency of this persecution is sinful human government arrayed against God’s people. Satan’s intention is to bring about the total destruction of the kingdom of God and particularly seeks to tempt Christians so that they sin, and ultimately deny Christ. God tolerates Satan for his own good purposes, allowing him only to work within the limits that he sets and for the ultimate good and salvation of the elect.
(4) While the identity of the nephilim in Genesis 6:2, 4 is one of the most controverted aspect of Old Testament exegesis, it is clear that the nephilim cannot be the demons of the Old and New Testaments, because the nephilim have been bound in tartarus awaiting judgment and punishment since their ‘fall’ recounted in Genesis 6:2, 4 (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4).
(5) While some say that demons are nowhere described in the Old Testament, the shedim || daimons (Deut 32:17 cited in 1 Corinthians 10:20; Psalm 106:37) are almost certainly references to demons, and this is demonstrated by Paul’s application of the Deuteronomy passage in its LXX manifestation. That the se`irim should likewise be seen as a reference to demons cannot be discounted. It is not surprising that the intertestamental period develops this nascent teaching about demons found in the Old Testament. The New Testament confirms the existence of demons as real spiritual persons who are malignant, destructive of humans, and have knowledge of Jesus Christ that ordinary contemporary humans do not. The fall of the demons is shrouded in even more mystery than the fall of Satan. While we can quite safely posit a moral fall of Satan prior to or at Genesis 3, the earliest marker for the commencement of demonic activity we have in Scripture is the statement in Deut 32:17. That is not to say that the demons did not exist before that point—in fact, they certainly did exist before the Song of Moses, because Moses sung about them. The references in the New Testament to Satan’s angels (Matt 25:41; Luke 11:18; Rev 12:9) suggests that like Satan the demons were angelic beings who have since their creation subsequently fallen into sin and rebellion against God.
(6) Satan and the demons will ultimately be punished and will perish in the Lake of Fire, along with his angels, the demons (Revelation 20).
(7) Demons are subject to the authority of God and his Christ and cannot in any sense possess or demonize Christians in whom dwells the Holy Spirit of God, for Christ and the Spirit indwells them instead. While I consider that Christians are certainly attacked by satanic forces, I do not believe Christians can be possessed by demons—‘demonized’ in the sense of the Gospels. The things said of Christians, of Christ, and of the Spirit, are not consistent with the idea of Christians being ‘possessed by demons’. The key issue in demon-possession is the by-passing of the human will of the poor afflicted human by the demon for substantial periods of time. The lack of self-control the demon-possessed person endures seems inconsistent with the fruit of the Spirit. A Christian has the mind of Christ through the indwelling Spirit of God. By faith in Christ the believer is filled by Christ through his Spirit. There is no space or room for a demon to co-inhabit the Christian. That does not mean, however, that God cannot use Satan and the demons and our suffering in this world to make us more like Jesus. God never tempts, but only the devil. God does however test us, so that we might pass the test and that our faith be proved genuine.
[1] I have recently heard an argument that perhaps demons do not exist but that the Gospel writers and Christ are accommodating to our capacity by using the language of demons and demon possession. I find such an argument deeply unsatisfying as (1) it compromises the perspicuity of Scripture, that only those clever enough to know about this or that ‘accommodation’ really understand what Christ is saying. The Gospels are clearly expecting us to accept that Christ and his disciples cast out real and existent beings called ‘demons’ which of necessity exist; (2) it does not explain the phenomena such as the possession of the pigs or the words spoken by people who were demon possessed.
[2] Luke 4:33 has the phrase ‘having a spirit of an unclean demon’ || ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου.
[3] A minority position among Christian exegetes holds that the demons are the spirits of dead people—particularly, the nephilim. There is some affinity with this position that of 1 Enoch, an inter-testamental pseudipigraphical Jewish work, which may have supplied later Christian exegetes with an hermeneutical key. 1 Enoch teaches: ‘But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. 9 Evil spirits have come out of their bodies. Because from the day that they were created from the holy ones they became the Watchers; their first origin is the spiritual foundation. They will become evil upon the earth and shall be called evil spirits.’: 1 Enoch 15:8-9; translation from J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 quoted by Michael S Heise, ‘Where do Demons come from?’ https://blog.logos.com/2015/10/where-do-demons-come-from/ accessed on 20 March 2017. David Jackson also cites the Ugaritic literature where the ‘sons of the gods’ are identified as the spirits of deceased Rephaim: Crying Out for Vindication: The Gospel According to Job, 19. Peter Bolt also points out that in the Graeco-Roman milieu of the New Testaement, ‘the Greek word daimon was regularly and frequently used to refer to the spirits of the dead’ and that ‘daimon was just another word for ghost’: P G Bolt, Living with the Underworld (Sydney: Matthias Media, 2007), 53.
[4] The term ‘giants’ enters into the translation tradition from the LXX γίγαντες and the Latin vulgate gigantes (Genesis 6:4), under the influence of Numbers 13:30-33, and into the Authorized Version. Indeed, the nephilim may indeed have been giants when compared to those around them and us. Augustine, City of God, cites as an apologetic enormous graves and remains extant to his day (e.g. Schaff, NPNF1-02, 291). However that may be, the plural noun nephilim has been held to be related to the Hebrew verb naphal, ‘to fall’. Options for translation include ‘fallen ones’, ‘those that cause others to fall’, and ‘those that fall on others’.
[5] David R Jackson, Crying Out for Vindication: The Gospel According to Job (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2007), 18.
[6] One version of this view popular among Jewish exegetes is that the ‘sons of God’ are judges or nobles, since 'elohim can mean judges (Ex 21:6, 22:8). This is a natural view which sits alongside the view that they are the ‘sons of Seth’, the righteous line.
[7] D R Jackson, Crying Out for Vindication: The Gospel According to Job, (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2007), 21.
[8] Jackson, Job, 20.
[9] D A Carson, Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 28.
[10] Ibid, 32.
[11] Compare James Crichton ‘Sons of God’ in James Orr, (ed) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) accessed at http://www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/sons-of-god.html on 19 March 2017.
[12] Carson, Jesus the Son of God, 44.
[13] In private correspondence.
[14] E H Plumptre, The General Epistles of St Peter & St Jude: with notes and introduction: Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges (Cambridge: CUP, 1903), 87-88.
[15] B Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007), 612.
[16] Tertullian, On the Dress of Women, 3.3, cited in Witherington, op cit, 613; G L Bray (ed), James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude: ACCS: NT XI (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 254.
[17] Bede, On Jude: PL 93.126, cited in Witherington, op cit, 613.
[18] E H Plumptre, The General Epistles of St Peter & St Jude: with notes and introduction: Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges (Cambridge: CUP, 1903), 204; cf. 179.
[19]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim.
[20] I leave aside the question for the moment of whether the Old Testament saints and the disciples during the Gospel times were regenerated by the Spirit. My own thinking is that they were, and that they needed prevenient grace to recognize Christ—Peter’s recognition of the Christ was from the Father. No-one comes to me unless the one who sent me draws him, says Jesus Christ. But the baptism of the Spirit was a different, salvation historical outpouring of the Spirit to enable testimony to Christ that all Christians have now received.
[21] ὅπου ἄγγελοι ἰσχύϊ καὶ δυνάμει μείζονες ὄντες || where angels, being stronger and more powerful [than men].
[22] The parallelism of πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων suggests it is the demons who are the ‘deceiving spirits’. They deceive by their false ‘teaching’.
[23] D R Jackson, Enochic Judaism: Three Defining Paradigm Exemplars (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 34.
[24] H Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians: Hermeneia (ET: J W Leitch: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 173.
[25] C K Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd Ed: London: A & C Black, 1971), 236-7.
[26] R E Ciampa & B S Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians: Pillar (Grand Rapids/Cambridge/Nottingham: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2010), 480-1.
[27] J K Kuemmerlin-McLean, ‘Demons’, in D M Freedman, Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New Haven/London: Yale University Press/Doubleday, 1992, 2008), II:138-140 at 139.
[28] Both passages raise the issue of the origin of evil, but the answer almost certainly lies in the permissive will of God by which he allows secondary causes to do evil which will ultimately serve God’s good purposes. In this, they have points of contact with Job 1-2, by which the Satan himself is permitted to bring suffering upon Job. Judges 9:23 describes a similar situation: ‘And God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem, and the leaders of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.’ However, this situation may indicate temptation and external influence rather than possession and internal takeover.
[29] Δαιμονίζομαι, meaning ‘to be possessed by a demon’ is most frequently used as a passive participle, thus δαιμονιζόμενον, δαιμονιζομένους, etc (Matt 4:24, 8:16, 8:28, 33, 9:32, 12:22; Mark 1:32; 5:15-16, 18; Luke 8:36; John 10:21). It is once used as a finite verb and adverb: κακῶς δαιμονίζεται, ‘badly demonized. (Matt 15:22). All these instances are in the Gospels.
[30] In the New Testament, each instance of the word ‘demon’ (Greek neuter diminutive δαιμόνιον, 63 occurrences or masculine δαίμων, 1 occurrence) is found in the Gospels except for those instances found in Acts 17:18, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, 1 Timothy 4:1, James 2:19, and Revelation 9:20, 16:14, 18:2. The related adjective is used in James 3:15. As is the case with the Old Testament references explained above, none of these listed instances of the word ‘demon’ found in the later New Testament outside the Gospels is used in the context of what we would call ‘demon possession’ or ‘demonization’. They are used instead in contexts describing other demon activities that fall short of demonization.
[31] ‘Therefore, Jesus’ exorcisms were not merely isolated incidents of compassion for individuals oppressed by malevolent forces. They were direct confrontations with the kingdom of the enemy. They were demonstrations of the power and presence of the Kingdom of God’: D G Reese, ‘Demons (NT)’, Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 2:140-142 at 141.
[32] Matt 11:18; Luke 4:33, 7:33, 8:27; John 7:20, 8:48-9, 52, 10:20.
[33] E.g. Matt 7:22, 8:16, 31, 9:33-34, 10:1, 8, 12:24, 27, 28, 17:18; Mark 1:34, 39, 3:22, 7:26, 29; Luke 4:35, 41, 7:33, 8:2, 29, 33, 38, 11:14-15, 18, 19-20.
[34] The statement in Mark 16:17 that the signs that accompany those who believe in Christ’s name is to cast out demons is not in the best manuscripts, and having inadequate support to be thought of as part of the original text of Mark, I place no dependence on it.
[35] There is a third state other Scriptures mention, which is for a human not to be empty, but to be indwelt by the Spirit of God. God promises to give the Spirit to whoever asks him (Luke 11:13). The true solution is not to be only without a demon, but to be inhabited by the Spirit of God. To be devoid of the Spirit in the new age of the Spirit is a terrible thing (Jude 19).
[36] Luke does not record that the demon-possessed man was also blinded by the demon. Matthew does.
[37] Matthew mentions two men with demons, while Mark and Luke mention only one demoniac. If there were two, there was also one. This is an example of Matthew’s recording of ‘two’ supplicants where Mark and Luke record only one (e.g. Matt 9:27-31, 20:29-34).
[38] Older translations render the ‘spirit of divination’ as a ‘spirit of python’ (Greek πνεῦμα πύθωνα). According to Ellicot, the ‘Python was the serpent worshipped at Delphi, as the symbol of wisdom, from whom the Pythian priestesses took their name’: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/16-16.htm.
[39] Luke 22:3: Εἰσῆλθεν δὲ σατανᾶς εἰς Ἰούδαν; John 13:27: καὶ μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον τότε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ σατανᾶς. There is an issue as to when Satan enters Judas. Luke suggests it was when it was when Judas went to the chief priests to organize the betrayal, John when Judas goes from the last supper to bring those who were going to arrest Jesus. Probably we should not be too fastidious about the time discrepancy, as both acts were part of the same plan, and Satan no doubt was behind both. The entry of Satan into Judas may be idiomatic of a ‘filling’ for a purpose, in a parallel but opposite way to the filling of the Spirit in Acts.
[40] The man of lawlessness in 2 Thess 2:3 is described as the ‘son of perdition’, (ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας) using the very same phrase that describes Judas Iscariot (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας) in John 17:12. This suggests that rather than Judas being a type of the Christian, he is a type of the anti-Christ.
[41] If we think about it, the moral problem here—the Holy God sends a lying spirit for good reasons—is no different to the problem of evil everywhere else in Scripture. If God is absolutely sovereign, as I believe him to be, then every instance of lying in God’s world has been permitted by him. The omnipotent God could have struck down the liar before the lie left their mouth. Everything that occurs in our world occurs under God’s permissive will. That does not make God the author of sin or evil, but it does mean that God uses evil and sin for his ultimate good. The Scriptures abundantly testifies to this (Gen 50:20; Acts 2:23; Rom 8:28).
[42] Peter Bolt, Living with the Underworld (Sydney: Matthias Media, 2007), 116-7.
[43] Ibid, 142-3.
[44] ‘World’ here does not denote the extent of humanity, but humanity in rebellion against God, and carries a negative and not a neutral, connotation.
[45] τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας.
[46] In Zechariah 13:2 LXX, the ‘unclean spirit’ (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον) is linked to both Israel’s idolatory and false prophets.
[47] The word is δαιμονιώδης, an adjective denoting the quality of being from, or like that of, the demons, thus ‘demonic’.
[48]These two English words are used to translate the same Greek word. The complexity of conveying the correct idea in English is illustrated in James 1:12-15, where the Greek words translated ‘trial’ (peirasmos) and ‘to tempt’ (peirazō) are from the same family of words, being the noun and cognate verb. Indeed, this Greek word group can be translated with either English word, so that it is only context and wider theology that determines what is the best translation. In English usage, humans are generally thought to test when they lay a verbal trap, and tempt when they lay a moral trap, even though it is the same Greek word. The English word ‘tempt’ is used with Satan as subject, but even in this case, sometimes ‘test’ is deemed a more appropriate English rendering. The verb peirazō is often understandably and correctly translated ‘to tempt’ in Matthew 4:1, 3; Mark 1:13, Luke 4:2; 1 Corinthians 7:5; Galatians 6:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13-14. Generally speaking, English translations render the verb ‘to test’ in Matthew 16:1, 19:3, 22:18, 35; Mark 8:11, 10:2, 12:15; Luke 11:16; John 6:6 (Jesus is testing his disciples—it would create all sorts of difficulties to think that Jesus ‘tempts’), 8:6; Acts 5:9, 15:10; 1 Corinthians 10:9, 13; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Hebrews 3:9, 11:17; Revelation 2:2, 10, 3:10. However, it may be that some in the second group of texts are debatable. For example, in Revelation 2:10, it is the devil who is testing the church—this could be considered temptation, except that God is clearly allowing it and in control. In some cases the verb can be used to refer to attempting something: Acts 9:26, 16:7, 24:6. The same possibilities are open for translating the noun peirasmos. It is often translated ‘temptation’ in Matt 6:13 even though the request is addressed to God, but it is translated trial or test in James 1:2, 12. It is understandably translated ‘temptation’ when referring to the action of Satan on Jesus (Luke 4:13).