by James F. Myers
When Satan led his revolt he
enticed one third of the angels to follow him against God (Revelation
12:4). Though some have thought that
demons originated from some other source, the association of Satan with fallen
angels in Matthew 12:24 and Revelation 12:7 demonstrates these rebellious
angels are now the demons. This is
confirmed by the synonymous use of the word “spirit” to indicate the nature of
these beings.
The Old Testament only mentions demons three times aside from the generic term ‘evil spirits’ (ruach ra’ah) who oppressed Abimelech (Judges 9:23) and Saul (1 Samuel 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9), but these are instructive. The Hebrew equivalent for demon is shed. In the two passages where this word is used we learn of the role of demons in promoting idolatry and false religions (Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 106:36-37). The idols of wood, stone, and metal apostate Jews and pagans sacrificed to were representations of demons. A second Hebrew term for demon, sa’ir, (Leviticus 17:7 referred to the goat demons worshipped by the pagan Gentiles surrounding Israel. The use of ruach to describe these creatures suggests their immaterial nature.
In the New Testament these fallen angels are
designated by three words, demon (daimonion), evil spirit (pneuma ponera), and unclean spirit (pneuma akathartos). Demons are indeed Satan’s henchmen,
carrying out his nefarious schemes and providing him with much needed
intelligence for his schemes to dominate mankind. As a creature Satan is neither omniscient nor omnipresent so must
utilize this vast demonic horde to execute his plans.
Three classifications of fallen
angels are revealed in the Scriptures: those that are active and operating in
the world today, those confined in the pit to be active during the Tribulation,
and those that are permanently restricted to Tartarus.
Much debate has taken place
concerning the identification of the latter category who are currently
incarcerated in Tartarus (Jude 6; 1 Peter 3:19-20). Some suggest these are demons so depraved
and evil they are no longer allowed to roam on the earth. However, a careful examination of these two
passages in conjunction with the bizarre reference in Genesis 6 to “sons of
God” procreating with the daughters of men yields the answer. First, these angels confined to Tartarus
(not hell as in the NASB), are associated in 2 Peter 2:4 with the Noahic
Flood. Second, Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4
make it clear these are fallen angels confined to Tartarus, in eternal bonds. This imprisoned group of angels must be then
identified with those to whom Jesus made His victorious proclamation (1 Peter 3:19). Third, these imprisoned angels were said to
have been disobedient at the time of Noah.
The identification of the sons
of God in Genesis 6 has generated much debate and controversy. Three positions are suggested for
identifying this phrase: 1) the phrase
refers to angelic beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), 2) the phrase describes powerful antediluvian kings or warriors, and
3) the term describes the descendants
of Seth, understood to be godly as opposed to the ungodly descendants of Cain.
The first interpretation has the
strongest support exegetically and historically. Early Jewish writers (1 Enoch 6:2; Jubilees 5:1, Philo, Josephus,
Dead Sea Scrolls) and early Christian writers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Origen) take this view. Exegetical
support derives from the use of the term sons of God (beni ha elohim) used of angels everywhere else..
Further, both 1 Peter 3:19 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 connect these angels to sin and
disobedience at the time of Genesis 6.
Critics raise the problem of sexual intercourse among the angels in
light of Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry. However, strictly speaking this does not preclude the possibility
of them deriving sexual powers if they took on human physical form and
function.
When the Lord appeared to Abram
by the Oaks of Mamre he had the appearance of a man as did the two accompanying
angels. They sat, they rested, they
ate, they drank, all functions of a normal physical human body, and not, one
might assume, the functions of an immaterial, angelic body. From this we can infer that angels can
transform their form into a human one insofar as normal bodily functions are
concerned which suggests that even procreation was possible. This suggests the malicious objective of the
invasion, to destroy the genetic purity of the human race by preventing God
from providing a savior who was the pure seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15). The explains the need to destroy the entire
human race.
The second option, that of mighty
warriors has the weakest support. It
came into vogue among the Rabbi’s after the destruction of the Temple. This view has found limited support among
scholar’s today. The weaknesses revolve
around the failure to demonstrate a meaning for beni ha elohim that refers to humanity and inability
to offer a satisfactory interpretation of the Petrine passages.
The third option also fails to
hold up on close scrutiny. By the time
of Noah, the population of the earth, with at least ten concurrent generations
living on the earth, would have easily exceeded two or three billion. To
suggest that the race was divided by Sethites and Cainites does not explain why
all but Noah’s immediate family were destroyed.
1. This first group of angels left their first
role and somehow exchanged their spirit bodies for a physical human body that
nevertheless was not truly human. For
their sin they have been irrevocably incarcerated in chains of darkness in
Tarturus.
2. The second category of fallen angels describes a demonic army,
currently confined to the Abyss (Luke 8:31;
Revelation 9:2). This is a particularly
vicious army of demons who will inflict an array of horrors and physical
ailments on mankind when they are released at the midpoint of the Tribulation.
3. The third group are those demons, still active today, engaged in
fulfilling Satan’s mission, blinding the unsaved to the truth of the gospel and
distracting Christians from fulfilling God’s plan of spiritual maturity for
their lives. These demons have certain
characteristics and powers still operational today.
Demons, like all angels, are
spirit beings with immaterial bodies.
As such they are not subject to physical laws, vast numbers may inhabit
one physical location as evidenced by the Legion of demons who indwelt the
Gadarene and then the swine (Luke 8:30; Matthew 8:32). The power of these indwelling spirits
enabled the mortal flesh of the demoniac to break the chains that bound
him. Though they have remarkable
powers, as do all angels, they are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Demons are limited in the power, they cannot
perform some healings (John 10:21) and their actions are always limited by
God’s Sovereignty (Job 1:12; 2:6; 1 Corinthians 12).
The power demons are able to
exert over the human body is vast.
Demons can impart incredible physical strength (Luke 8:29), they can
cause blindness (Matthew 12:22), the caused a boy to attempt suicide by
throwing him into fire and water (Mark 9:22), gave a woman a crippling illness
for eighteen years (Luke 13:11-17), and induces various mental and physical
disorders (Matthew 9:32-33; Luke 8:26-35).
Demons are primarily responsible
for carrying out Satan’s counterfeit deceptions.
The most vicious attack Satan or
demons can perpetrate on a human being is that of demon possession. The reality of demon possession cannot be
disputed, nevertheless arguments rage over both the meaning and the extent of
demon possession. First, the
terminology of the New Testament must be evaluated in terms of its usage,
second, these events must be synthesized into a definition, third, armed with
this biblical definition the question of demon possession of the Christian will
be addressed.
English translations have historically used the term demon‑possession to translate the Greek daimonizomai. In recent years that translation has been challenged. In its place, some have suggested the more fluid term “demonized” which is claimed to more accurately reflect the meaning of the Greek word. But is this accurate? The claim is made that the meaning of the English word “possess” is confusing and that the Greek New Testament “never uses language that suggests that a demon actually ‘possesses’ someone.” Instead, the conclusion is drawn that daimonizomai (in contrast to all the lexicons) should be translated ‘demonized’ or ‘demon influence’.” Only an evaluation of the usage of this key word can clarify the issue.
Two Greek terms are used to designate demon possession: daimonizomai, “to be possessed by a demon,” and echo daimonion, “to have a demon.” The synonymous use of these terms in the Lukan account of the Gerasene demoniac is informative.
At the beginning of the encounter, Luke describes the man as having a demon (echo daimonion; Luke 8:27; NASB: “possessed with demons”), yet when the encounter is complete he is said to have been “demon possessed” (daimonizomai). Thus showing that these two words are synonyms. The exact meaning is then revealed by the accompanying description of the demoniac’s deliverance.
After the demoniac approached Jesus, our Lord “commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.” The Greek word for “come out” is exerchomai, which means to go or come out of a place. Furthermore, when Luke explains the significance of the demons name, “Legion,” he says “for many demons had entered him. (emphasis added)” The Greek word for entered is eiserchomai, which means to enter or go into. Furthermore, when faced with eviction the demons implored Jesus to allow them to enter (eiserchomai) the swine. And then they “came out of the man and entered the swine” (Luke 8:33, emphasis added).
The use of these two expressive verbs tells us that having a demon means that an evil spirit is indwelling the body of a person. When the demon departs then the demon no longer has residence in the body of the person, and the person recovers the use of his mental faculties, “in his right mind” (Luke 8:35). From this example, it appears that the Greek term daimonizomai describes a situation where a demon(s) takes up residence in the body of an individual to the extent that it takes over control of that body. In this case the demons had imparted extraordinary strength to the man such that he could break the chains and shackles with which he had been confined.
Other examples of the use of daimonizomai reveal the same features. In Luke 4:35, the demon throws the body of the man he inhabits to the ground before leaving, and in Luke 9:42 the demon who possessed the boy not only came and went, but when present would throw the boy into convulsions and even into the fireplace and into water (Matthew 17:15). When Jesus rebuked the demon he “came out of him.”
From these events it is clear that daimonizomai and its synonyms always mean that a demon has taken up residence inside the body of a person and is controlling the body. It describes a situation where a person is totally under the control of a foreign personality so that the person can no longer operate on the basis of his own volition. This is true of every such case in the New Testament and is what distinguishes it from the less threatening demon influence. In fact, daimonizomai and its synonyms never describe a situation where a person does not have a demon in them cast out. A person becomes vulnerable to demon possession because of certain sinful choices or activities, such as necromancy, idolatry, or spiritism, into which they have willingly entered. Though the person’s body is controlled by a demon, his identity is still present along with his ability to believe or reject the Gospel. Only his ability to control his body is lost.
Since the major feature here is control, we must
ask if “possess” is an adequate English term to convey this meaning. According to the critics, the word possess
is inadequate because it conveys the idea of ownership, which is one meaning of
the noun. However, the Oxford English
Dictionary lists as the first meaning of the verb “possess,” “Of a person or
body of persons: To hold, occupy (a place or territory); to reside or be stationed
in; to inhabit (with or without ownership).”
This primary meaning for possess clearly accords with the evidence of
the biblical events. Therefore, the
case for rejecting demon‑possess as an accurate translation of the Greek daimonizomai is without support in either Greek or
English lexica or the biblical usage of the term itself.
The hidden agenda for this debate is to break down the distinctions between demon possession and demon influence in order to support the conclusion that Christians can be demon‑possessed. This is made evident by one such theologian’s statement: “If by ‘demon possessed’ they mean that a person’s will is completely dominated by a demon, so that a person has no power left to chose to do right and obey God, then the answer to whether a Christian could be demon possessed would certainly be no. . .” By rejecting the historically accepted definition of demon possession and reducing it to nothing more than an extreme form of demon influence, the author is then able to say that Christians can be demon possessed, and if so, this justifies so‑called deliverance ministries.
Having now raised the question, it
must be answered, Can a Christian be demon‑possessed? This redefinition of the term daimonizomai is but one approach in the attempt to
validate demon possession of the Christian.
Another is exemplified in the work of C. Fred Dickason, along with those
he has influenced. Dickason followed
the methodology of examining all of the Biblical passages used to either prove
or disprove demon possession of the Christian.
His conclusion was that no Scripture clearly answered the question one
way or the other. He then addressed the
theological arguments marshaled to prove or disprove the case. Again, he concludes that they were all found
wanting. So he then argues, that since
the Bible does not clearly answer the question, we must rely on our
experience. Since he documented alleged
cases of Christians who were demon possessed, he concluded that Christians can
be demon possessed. In essence he
claims that his interpretation of these experiences is more certain than the
interpretation of Scripture.
Unfortunately, the arguments against demon possession which he rejected,
could be stated in stronger terms.
The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit: Every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is
indwelt by the Holy Spirit from the instant of salvation (1 Corinthians 3:16;
6:19). This indwelling has positionally
set the believer apart as a Temple for the indwelling of the Trinity. In addition, 1 John 4:4 reminds us that
“Greater is He that is in you, then he that is in the world.” At the instant of faith in Christ, the
believer receives the imputation of God’s perfect righteousness. Since the believer is now positionally
righteous and positionally sanctified, no demon can enter in.
[1]
Merrill F. Unger, Demons in the World Today (Wheaton:Tyndale House,
1971), 18.
[1]
Cassuto, 1:290-301; E. A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis (New
York: Doubleday and Co., 1964), 44-46;
Ross attempts to combine the first and second views by suggesting demon‑possessed
warriors, 181-182.
[1]
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: The
Pentateuch Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965), 127-138;
H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1965), I:249-263).
[1]
Grudem mistakenly uses Deut 14:1 here to refute the position, but the Hebrew
text reads “sons of Yhwh,” in a completely different grammatical
structure than the phrase beni ha
Elohim, in Genesis and Job. Grudem,
414.
[1]
This does not necessitate that all but Noah’s family were genetically tainted,
but that a sort of critical mass had been achieved which would eventuate in the
destruction of the purity of the human race.
[1]
John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Grand
Rapids, Baker Book House, 1961), 23-30.
[1] Arnold
provides an example of the tortured logic used to redefine the historical
definition of daimonizomai: “People like Kurt Koch, Mark Bubeck, Neil Anderson,
Tom White, Tim Warner, and Ed Murphy have written extensively on this theme. .
. Most of them, however, prefer not to use the expression demon possession; they speak rather of demonization (a transliteration of the
Greek word often translated “demon possession”). For them, the
expression “demon possession” is less appropriate because people often
associate it with gruesome scenes like those portrayed in The Exorcist
(which is not representative of how they would conduct a ministry session) and
it carries a lot of other misleading overtones (such as ownership).” In this statement, Arnold
reveals several ways the pro Christian demon‑possession faction
misrepresents both the lexical evidence of the Greek New Testament and the
historical understanding of the meaning of possession. Clinton
E. Arnold, 3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual
Warfare (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 77.