# Why do demons/exorcism evolve and diminsh after the gospels?



## K Jentoft

I am doing a study on demons, evil spirits, and unclean spirits (with 1 spirit of divination from Acts 16).

It is amazing that in the synoptic gospels, in nearly every instance exorcism is linked to healing a disease, especially if you include the demonic of Garasenes from Mark 5 or Luke 8 as being mentally ill. (Matthew 8:16. Matthew 9:32-33, Matthew 17:18, Mark 1:32-34, Mark 6:13, Mark 9:25, Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, Luke 9:1, Luke 13:32) Those references that are not about healing revolve around the message and teachings of Jesus as when the Pharisees accuse Him of having a demon. What is clear from the gospels is that Jesus has authority over the demons and can confer that to the 12 and the 70 (Matthew 10:1, Mark 3:13-15, Luke 9:1-2, Luke 10:1, Luke 10:17-20). With the exception of the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15:21-28) that hearkens back to Elijah's widow ( 1 Kings 17:8-24, Luke 4:25-26) all of the healing and exorcism happened for and in geographic Israel. 

*Here is the question, Jesus had authority over demons before the crucifixion, what changed and happened to that authority after the crucifixion?* Colossians 2:13-15 "When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." It seems as if after the crucifixion Jesus had MORE authority and had more defeated the evil spirits than before His crucifixion.

In addition, it seems as if there was an evolution relative to exorcism as well. While Acts records exorcism/healings in Acts 5:16 and Acts 8:7 this all happens within the geographical boundaries of historical Israel. As the gospel expands beyond Israel, with one exception the language changes and we continue to see healings but no mention of demons being cast out. In fact, in an interesting contrast, in Acts 19:11-15 we see that Paul's handkerchiefs were "healing" people and in contrast the wicked sons of Sceva were using exorcism (in an attempt to heal?). The one exception is Paul casting out a spirit of divination in Acts 16:16-19. The odd thing here is that the motivation for this exceptional exorcism was not the gospel but that after many days of mocking, Paul was greatly annoyed. And, the only result of the exorcism was a loss of revenue, salvation is not even mentioned. This evolution away from exorcism then extends even to Paul himself regarding the God's gift of a messenger of Satan to afflict him Acts 16:16-18. If Paul's thorn was a physical affliction cause by the demon, the answer for Paul now is to ask God for relief but then trust God to do what is best for him. What would have happened if Paul had attempted to use exorcism to cast out his thorn in the flesh? It seems like it would have been an act of rebellion against God’s purposes.

All of that to say that after Acts and throughout the epistles, demons are no longer linked to sickness but to doctrines, idols and deception. (1 Corinthians 10:20, 1 Timothy 4;1, James 2:19, James 3:15, Revelation 9:20, Revelation 16:13, Revelation 18:2). It is weird that even in the gospel of John, that was written later than the synoptics, there are no exorcisms for healing, the demonic references again point to teaching and the message. (John 7:20, John 8:48-52, John 10:20-21)

In any case, I am curious about the evolution in Jesus' evolution in authority over demons before the crucifixion and after the crucifixion. There seems to have been a change.

*Any ideas?*


----------



## RamistThomist

There is no evolution. It happened both in the Gospels and Acts, both inside and outside Israel.


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> What would have happened if Paul had attempted to use exorcism to cast out his thorn in the flesh?



This assumes several dubious points:
1) The thorn was a demon.
2) Paul had a demon.

I'm just not sure anyone would grant these points.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

You are beginning these discussions with a dubious conclusion and then seeing any difference in the text as a "deviation" or "evolution." That is literally the thing to be proven, not assumed.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jack K

There is a more obvious difference that happens after the cross: Jesus returns to heaven and the apostles take on the task of witnessing to him throughout the world. The _mission_ evolves.

The fact that the mission evolves may explain why you see a possible change in emphasis when demons are discussed. Scripture is no longer as concerned with showing Christ's power over all the efforts of demons. Instead, Scripture is more narrowly concerned to show how the devil has been keeping the nations in darkness to the truth, and how this is now changing. There is an enlarged concern for proclamation and doctrine because of the changing mission. Because of this concern, Scripture speaks more about doctrine and truth and the nations kept in darkness.

The fact that the mission has evolved seems to me a more plausible explanation for the shift you seem to detect (if indeed the shift is even there) than any conclusions about how Christ's authority may have evolved. Although we do read about all authority being given to Christ in, for example, Matthew 28:18, we also know that no demon has ever done anything without Christ allowing it. Jesus is God, and his authority has always been absolute.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> This assumes several dubious points:
> 1) The thorn was a demon.
> 2) Paul had a demon.
> 
> I'm just not sure anyone would grant these points.



Some scholars certainly would, and some would not. Here is what Colin Kruze says in his commentary:

Many suggestions have been made concerning the nature of Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’. They fall into one of three broad categories: (a) some form of spiritual harassment, e.g. the limitations of a nature corrupted by sin, the torments of temptation, or oppression by a demon, (b) persecution, e.g. that instigated by Jewish opposition or by Paul’s Christian opponents, (c) some physical or mental ailment, e.g. eye trouble, attacks of fever, stammering speech, epilepsy, or a neurological disturbance. However, the plain fact is that there is simply insufficient data to decide the matter. Most modern interpreters prefer to see it as some sort of physical ailment, and the fact that Paul calls it a thorn in the flesh offers some support for this. Galatians 4:15 is appealed to by those who want to identify it as an eye problem.

Kruse, C. G. (1987). 2 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 8, p. 199). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.


----------



## RamistThomist

Okay. The scholar said that. Doesn't prove anything. But let's pretend that it was a demon afflicting Paul. Many people have this weird view that spiritual gifts operate with 100% accuracy and success, yet anyone who has the gift of teaching or preaching knows this isn't true.

So Paul simply wasn't able to cast it out. Why? God specifically said why: his power is in weakness.


----------



## KMK

K Jentoft said:


> Here is the question, Jesus had authority over demons before the crucifixion, what changed and happened to that authority after the crucifixion?



Once again, this question sounds like you are doubting some of the fundamentals of the Reformed faith--like the authority of Christ in exaltation. Do you agree with the WLC?


*Q. 54. How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God?*

A. Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and *power over all things in heaven and earth*; and does gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies; furnisheth his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and maketh intercession for them.


----------



## K Jentoft

Jack K said:


> There is a more obvious difference that happens after the cross: Jesus returns to heaven and the apostles take on the task of witnessing to him throughout the world. The _mission_ evolves.
> 
> The fact that the mission evolves may explain why you see a possible change in emphasis when demons are discussed. Scripture is no longer as concerned with showing Christ's power over all the efforts of demons. Instead, Scripture is more narrowly concerned to show how the devil has been keeping the nations in darkness to the truth, and how this is now changing. There is an enlarged concern for proclamation and doctrine because of the changing mission. Because of this concern, Scripture speaks more about doctrine and truth and the nations kept in darkness.
> 
> The fact that the mission has evolved seems to me a more plausible explanation for the shift you seem to detect (if indeed the shift is even there) than any conclusions about how Christ's authority may have evolved. Although we do read about all authority being given to Christ in, for example, Matthew 28:18, we also know that no demon has ever done anything without Christ allowing it. Jesus is God, and his authority has always been absolute.



Jack,

I agree with you that the mission evolved. I still find it odd that an activity that had such a large part of the initial mission preaching the kingdom of God is at hand in Israel is given almost silence in the epistles. 

I agree with you that God has always had ALL authority, but then what did He win and conquer at the cross relative to the demonic powers compared to that which He had before the cross? (Colossians 2:15, John 12:31, Hebrews 2:14, 1 Corinthians 15:24, Luke 4:6-8, Ephesians 1:19-22). Even Psalm 110, the most quoted OT passage in the NT speaks of an evolution Acts2:34-36. 

As He already had ALL authority, maybe He acquired something else at the resurrection. Revelation 1:18 speaks of His resurrection and links it to the keys of Death and Hades. Revelation 3:7 speaks of the key of David from Is 22:22. Were these won at the cross? Did they make an incremental difference to somehow supplement ALL authority? Revelation 5:1-5 seems to indicate this concept.

What do you think?


----------



## K Jentoft

KMK said:


> Once again, this question sounds like you are doubting some of the fundamentals of the Reformed faith--like the authority of Christ in exaltation. Do you agree with the WLC?
> 
> 
> *Q. 54. How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God?*
> 
> A. Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in that as God-man he is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and *power over all things in heaven and earth*; and does gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies; furnisheth his ministers and people with gifts and graces, and maketh intercession for them.



I do agree with this. It seems that the Westminster would mean with the words, "as God-man" that there is an evolution and he is advanced to the highest favour with God the Father. As the ascended Christ He is seated at the right hand of God. Prior to the crucifixion, He was not the ascended Christ. That, in fact is the nature of my question. I know and believe that He has "power over all things in heaven and earth" as the God-man ascended to heaven. God too had "all power" before the crucifixion - He is totally sovereign before the crucifixion. What changed?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

K Jentoft said:


> that there is an evolution


This terminology with reference to God or Christ makes alarm bells go off in my head.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> Okay. The scholar said that. Doesn't prove anything. But let's pretend that it was a demon afflicting Paul. Many people have this weird view that spiritual gifts operate with 100% accuracy and success, yet anyone who has the gift of teaching or preaching knows this isn't true.
> 
> So Paul simply wasn't able to cast it out. Why? God specifically said why: his power is in weakness.



I agree, the fact there is a scholar does not prove it right, but it is a reasonable data point to consider. I think that the passage indicates that Paul did not even try to cast it out, but appealed directly to God. Based upon God's response, it seems that it would have been rebellious for Paul to try to cast it out. Satan's messenger was God's tool for Paul's good.

What is even more odd is that Paul seems to do something very similar when he delivered an unrepentant sinner to Satan with the goal of the suffering in the flesh driving the sinner to salvation 1 Corinthians 5:5. This is a far cry from exorcism.


----------



## K Jentoft

C. M. Sheffield said:


> This terminology with reference to God or Christ makes alarm bells go off in my head.



We have a dramatic evolution between the first and second covenant as God's plan unfolded for us over time. It was planned before the foundation of the earth, but it is still an evolution for us to witness. At least, that is how I understand things. Other evolutions would include God's salvation being Israel-centric and then moving to the whole world at Pentecost after the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

Even more dramatic is how our relationship with God evolves when we come to faith in Christ. Enemy to Son. Dead to living. Darkness to light....


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> This is a far cry from exorcism.



You are exactly right. That's because it isn't exorcism. Delivering over to Satan is a judicial act by the church. Has nothing to do with exorcism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> You are exactly right. That's because it isn't exorcism. Delivering over to Satan is a judicial act by the church. Has nothing to do with exorcism.



This is FAR more than a judicial act by the church,some civil process.

Actually, the concept is that because the church is God's family or "kingdom" on earth, excommunication is expelling the person out of that kingdom/family and placing them under the dominion of Satan and his hostility. Exorcism with Jesus had to do with His right as king over His subjects and Matthew 12:23 links the exorcisms with the legitimacy of His kingship as the son of David. How much more so the claim of the Son of God in Luke 4:41. The son of David and the Son of God was demonstrating His kingdom in a direct confrontation with the kingdom of Satan and his demons. That is what Paul was delivering the persistent sinner into, another kingdom.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

K Jentoft said:


> We have a dramatic evolution between the first and second covenant as God's plan unfolded for us over time. It was planned before the foundation of the earth, but it is still an evolution for us to witness. At least, that is how I understand things. Other evolutions would include God's salvation being Israel-centric and then moving to the whole world at Pentecost after the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.
> 
> Even more dramatic is how our relationship with God evolves when we come to faith in Christ. Enemy to Son. Dead to living. Darkness to light....


Your use of the word "evolution" was in reference to Christ himself. That's the issue. When you start talking about Christ "evolving" you had better be precise as to your exact meaning. What you meant by Christ "evolving" may not have been problematic in and of itself, but it wasn't sufficiently clear to me what you meant and that's why I raised the issue.


----------



## K Jentoft

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Your use of the word "evolve" was in reference to Christ himself. That's the issue. When you start talking about Christ "evolving" you had better be precise as to you exact meaning. What you meant by Christ "evolving" may not have been problematic in and of itself, but it wasn't sufficiently clear to me what you meant and that's why I raised the issue.


Thank you for the clarification. That is important. God does not change.

But even there, there can be evolution. The second person of the trinity took on flesh where there had been no flesh. He did not evolve in his essential attributes, but He did evolve. It would also seem that Jesus evolved in His death upon His spirit leaving His flesh to descend in Ephesians 4:9 and then again at His resurrection when He now has a glorified body. I think that Psalm 110 would indicate an evolution at His ascension as He is seated at the right hand of the Father and a possible coming evolution at the marriage supper of the Lamb (but I don't understand that one very well). There are evoluitions but not in His essential attributes as I understand things and as I understand Westminster.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

K Jentoft said:


> God does not change.
> 
> But even there, there can be evolution. The second person of the trinity took on flesh where there had been no flesh. He did not evolve in his essential attributes, but He did evolve.


Now you have stated plainly what I feared was implied in the earlier post. No "but" should ever follow the statement, "God does not change." Your statements here are extremely problematic. I would strongly encourage you to undertake a much deeper study of the nature and character of God before saying anything more on the subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## K Jentoft

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Now you have stated plainly what I feared was implied in the earlier post. No "but" should ever follow the statement, "God does not change."


Is the preincarnate Jesus identical and the same as the Jesus who took on flesh? Or, did the preincarnate Jesus always have flesh? This is the discussion of the Marcion heresy that considered Jesus was always a spirit and never actually took on flesh.


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> This is FAR more than a judicial act by the church,some civil process.
> 
> Actually, the concept is that because the church is God's family or "kingdom" on earth, excommunication is expelling the person out of that kingdom/family and placing them under the dominion of Satan and his hostility. Exorcism with Jesus had to do with His right as king over His subjects and Matthew 12:23 links the exorcisms with the legitimacy of His kingship as the son of David. How much more so the claim of the Son of God in Luke 4:41. The son of David and the Son of God was demonstrating His kingdom in a direct confrontation with the kingdom of Satan and his demons. That is what Paul was delivering the persistent sinner into, another kingdom.



Exorcism isn't the same thing as excommunication. This is church polity 101

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> Is the preincarnate Jesus identical and the same as the Jesus who took on flesh?



Identical in terms of essential nature. He did take on contingent aspects (such as the property of human nature).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> Is the preincarnate Jesus identical and the same as the Jesus who took on flesh? Or, did the preincarnate Jesus always have flesh? This is the discussion of the Marcion heresy that considered Jesus was always a spirit and never actually took on flesh.



You are assuming that "having flesh" (or rather, having the property of being human) necessitates that one will be evolving. But that in no way follows.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

K Jentoft said:


> Thank you for the clarification. That is important. God does not change.
> 
> But even there, there can be evolution. The second person of the trinity took on flesh where there had been no flesh. He did not evolve in his essential attributes, but He did evolve. It would also seem that Jesus evolved in His death upon His spirit leaving His flesh to descend in Ephesians 4:9 and then again at His resurrection when He now has a glorified body. I think that Psalm 110 would indicate an evolution at His ascension as He is seated at the right hand of the Father and a possible coming evolution at the marriage supper of the Lamb (but I don't understand that one very well). There are evoluitions but not in His essential attributes as I understand things and as I understand Westminster.


We're trying to read you with charity, but it's getting kind of hard.

Is our receiving a glorified body at the resurrection some form of "evolution" in your idiosyncratic way of linguistic framing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exorcism isn't the same thing as excommunication. This is church polity 101



I agree with you. The meaning of excommunication is the *inverse* of exorcism, turning over a person to the rule of Satan that occurs outside the church. The is why Paul states it this way in 1 Timothy 1:19-20. It is more than church polity. People are released from the power of Satan through exorcism and placed under that power in excommunication.


----------



## K Jentoft

Contra_Mundum said:


> We're trying to read you with charity, but it's getting kind of hard.
> 
> Is our receiving a glorified body at the resurrection some form of "evolution" in your idiosyncratic way of linguistic framing?



Our bodies do evolve/change 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. That change and evolution is a fundamental hope as in 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.

Bottom line is that our body is not unchangeable. It does change and evolve from what it was to something new and something more. It is still our body that is "sown" perishable but raised imperishable. The same but changed.

Are you saying that they do not evolve or change, but remain the same?


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> People are released from the power of Satan through exorcism and placed under that power in excommunicatio



Even if this is true, I am not seeing how it connects with a supposed "evolution" in the New Testament. Of course, I don't see the "evolution" either.


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> Are you saying that they do not evolve or change, but remain the same?



I think we are equivocating on concepts. Saying our bodies "change" is one thing. We gain and lose physical properties. That *not* how "evolve" is being used in this thread.


----------



## KMK

K Jentoft said:


> Are you saying that they do not evolve or change, but remain the same?



The main issue is your insistence on the word 'evolve'. Why not use a biblical words like 'changed' or 'glorified'.

evolve: develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form. 

This simply does not fit Christ, and your continued use of the word is beginning to 'sound' like you have an agenda. (Not saying you do, but again, we don't know you very well.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> I think we are equivocating on concepts. Saying our bodies "change" is one thing. We gain and lose physical properties. That *not* how "evolve" is being used in this thread.



I can ask the question another way, 

1. Was there any *change* in the authority of Jesus before the cross/resurrection compared with after His ascension?

2. Why does the use of exorcism dramatically fade after the synoptic gospels, except for 3 or 4 references in Acts. It was a core element of the preaching of Jesus and the 12 (and even the 70) but it is simply not taught or encouraged in the epistles. That seems like a dramatic *change* in the ministry of the gospel. Do you disagree that this is the record of scripture?


----------



## K Jentoft

KMK said:


> The main issue is your insistence on the word 'evolve'. Why not use a biblical words like 'changed' or 'glorified'.
> 
> evolve: develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
> 
> This simply does not fit Christ, and your continued use of the word is beginning to 'sound' like you have an agenda. (Not saying you do, but again, we don't know you very well.)



No problem, I can use "change" without the ideas changing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

K Jentoft said:


> Our bodies do evolve/change 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. That change and evolution is a fundamental hope as in 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.
> 
> Bottom line is that our body is not unchangeable. It does change and evolve from what it was to something new and something more. It is still our body that is "sown" perishable but raised imperishable. The same but changed.
> 
> Are you saying that they do not evolve or change, but remain the same?


"Evolution" is your, particular choice of description. "Evolution," to adapt a standard definition, describes a process of change not directed by inherent programming, whereby one thing becomes a different thing. By this definition, for example, a caterpillar does not "evolve" into a butterfly, because that change is directed by inherent (DNA) programming. On the other hand, a person's thinking is sometimes said to "evolve," when it starts out convinced of A, and as a result of various forces of influence ends up ~A.

Your claim is that the resurrection is an "evolution," and you seem to have reduced that term to a synonym for "change." However, there is lots of change that is NOT evolutionary, e.g. a butterfly (by a standard definition of evolution). Therefore, yours is either a careless use of terms; or it is deliberate in its employment of the "evolution" term whether intentionally reductionist, or to allow the importation of _process concept _at a later time in the discussion, or perhaps for some other purpose.

It isn't helpful to impose idiosyncratic terms in the discussion on those who aim at engagement, especially if you then defend the term by blaming others for their failure to adopt (in advance) your reductionist or selective employment of it.

As for our bodies, and the change that comes in the promised resurrection at the Last Day, there is no "process" of change, not for those who have been long dead-in-body, nor for those who are alive and will be "changed in the twinkling of an eye." The kind of change indicated by Scripture does not fit an "evolutionary paradigm." It is its own category. The disciples of Jesus could both recognize him at one point, and not recognize him at another. It's impossible to tell if that dynamic was a result of properties of his body, or a change in their perceptions, or something of both.

Is our change driven (even in part) by anything God has already "built in" to our constitution? Will our change be the result of a "butterfly-like" transformation, a metamorphosis (not evolution)? Will it be entirely a thing that is imposed on us by the external power of God? These are not specifics that have been revealed to us.


----------



## K Jentoft

Rev. Bruce Buchanan kindly explains: "Therefore, yours is either a careless use of terms."

Jentoft replies: "I confess! I sinned. I did exactly what you described. I will hence force use the term changed." I had no wish to devolve into Darwinism.


----------



## Pergamum

Some quick thoughts:

(1) History does progress. As the others have said, maybe evolution is not the best word. Right now the saints in heaven enjoy God and yet do not have their resurrected bodies. But one day they will be united body and soul to enjoy God. That is a progression.
(2) Demon possession and exorcisms peaked during the earthly ministry of Christ. Therefore we should see the maximum number of demons mustered against Christ to do battle during the years of his earthly ministry.
(3). Paul's thorn in the flesh was a physical illlness, not necessarily a demonic "possession" or demonization, though he clearly says Satan sent it. 
(4). Throughout church history we still read cases of demonic possession and exorcism. Many of these cases of demonization also included physical ailments. In general I think we should expect a slow decrease in this as the gospel spreads throughout the world. 

Read Athanasius On the Incarnation and you will see how the demons flee as the Gospel moves forth. 

55. "This, then, after what we have so far said, it is right for you to realize, and to take as the sum of what we have already stated, and to marvel at exceedingly; namely, that since the Saviour has come among us, idolatry not only has no longer increased, but what there was is diminishing and gradually coming to an end: and not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer advance, but what t*here is is now fading away: and demons, so far from cheating any more by illusions and prophecies and magic arts,* if they so much as dare to make the attempt, are put to shame by the sign of the Cross. 2. *And to sum the matter up: behold how the Saviour's doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling.* And thus beholding, worship the Saviour, "Who is above all" and mighty, even God the Word; and condemn those who are being worsted and done away by Him. 3. For as, *when the sun is come, darkness no longer prevails*, but if any be still left anywhere it is driven away; *so, now that the divine Appearing of the Word of God is come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His teaching.* 4. And as, when a king is reigning in some country without appearing but keeps at home in his own house, often some disorderly persons, abusing his retirement, proclaim themselves; and each of them, by assuming the character, imposes on the simple as king, and so men are led astray by the name, hearing that there is a king, but not seeing him, if for no other reason, because they cannot enter the house; but when the real king comes forth and appears, then the disorderly impostors are exposed by his presence, while men, seeing the real king, desert those who previously led them astray: 5. in like manner, *the evil spirits formerly used to deceive men, investing themselves with God's honour; but when the Word of God appeared in a body, and made known to us His own Father, then at length the deceit of the evil spirits is done away and stopped, while men, turning their eyes to the true God, Word of the Father, are deserting the idols, and now coming to know the true God.* 6. Now this is a proof that Christ is God the Word, and the Power of God. For whereas human things cease, and the Word of Christ abides, it is clear to all eyes that what ceases is temporary, but that He Who abides is God, and the true Son of God, His only-begotten Word."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

K Jentoft said:


> Why does the use of exorcism dramatically fade after the synoptic gospels, except for 3 or 4 references in Acts. It was a core element of the preaching of Jesus and the 12 (and even the 70) but it is simply not taught or encouraged in the epistles. That seems like a dramatic *change* in the ministry of the gospel. Do you disagree that this is the record of scripture?


You are making a lot of assumptions and then drawing some pretty big conclusions from them. Not a good method.

It also seems like you've come inviting others to discuss something you are unclear about when, in truth, you already have your mind made up and aren't open to considering what others here have to say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> Why does the use of exorcism dramatically fade after the synoptic gospels, except for 3 or 4 references in Acts. It was a core element of the preaching of Jesus and the 12 (and even the 70) but it is simply not taught or encouraged in the epistles. That seems like a dramatic *change* in the ministry of the gospel. Do you disagree that this is the record of scripture?



I see a difference in emphasis, and there is clear casting out of demons, so no, there isn't any change.


----------



## K Jentoft

C. M. Sheffield said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions and then drawing some pretty big conclusions from them. Not a good method.
> 
> It also seems like you've come inviting others to discuss something you are unclear about when, in truth, you already have your mind made up and aren't open to considering what others here have to say.



Here are the facts (not assumptions) relative to exorcisms in the New Testament. The vast majority are in the synoptic gospels. There are 4 in Acts and none beyond that. Even in the gospel of John, which was written late, there are none. That seems to indicate a change in how important exorcisms were relative to the preaching of the gospel and growth of the church.
*Gospel/Acts Exorcisms: *

Matthew 7:22, Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:31, Matthew 9:32, Matthew 10:1, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 12:22, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 17:18, Mark 1:22-27, Mark 1:32-34, Mark 1:39, Mark 3:10-11, Mark 3:14-15, Mark 3:22, Mark 5:1-15, Mark 6:7, Mark 6:13, Mark 7:25-30, Mark 9:25, Mark 9:38, Mark 16:9, Luke 4:32-36, Luke 4:40-41, Luke 6:18, Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, Luke 8:26-36, Luke 9:1, Luke 9:42, Luke 9:49, Luke 10:8-9, Luke 11:14, Luke 13:32, Acts 5:26, Acts 8:7, Acts 16:16, Acts 19:12

*No mention of exorcisms in Gospel of John*

*No mention of exorcisms in the epistles or Revelation*

In contrast, all of the passages in John refer to the message or teaching and not exorcism (John 7:20, John 8:48-49, John 8:52, John 10:20-21) None of the other passages with demons, evil spirits, or unclean spirits has anything to do with exorcism but idolatry or teaching/doctrines of demons.


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum said:


> Some quick thoughts:
> 
> (1) History does progress. As the others have said, maybe evolution is not the best word. Right now the saints in heaven enjoy God and yet do not have their resurrected bodies. But one day they will be united body and soul to enjoy God. That is a progression.
> (2) Demon possession and exorcisms peaked during the earthly ministry of Christ. Therefore we should see the maximum number of demons mustered against Christ to do battle during the years of his earthly ministry.
> (3). Paul's thorn in the flesh was a physical illlness, not necessarily a demonic "possession" or demonization, though he clearly says Satan sent it.
> (4). Throughout church history we still read cases of demonic possession and exorcism. Many of these cases of demonization also included physical ailments. In general I think we should expect a slow decrease in this as the gospel spreads throughout the world.



Pergamum,

Thank you, that is much closer to what I was looking for.


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum states, (1) History does progress. As the others have said, maybe evolution is not the best word.

My question would be, 
1. Does the authority of Christ progress or change at the cross/resurrection/ascension?
2. If so, how does it change and when?


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> Here are the facts (not assumptions) relative to exorcisms in the New Testament. The vast majority are in the synoptic gospels. There are 4 in Acts and none beyond that. Even in the gospel of John, which was written late, there are none. That seems to indicate a change in how important exorcisms were relative to the preaching of the gospel and growth of the church.
> *Gospel/Acts Exorcisms: *
> 
> Matthew 7:77, Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:31, Matthew 9:32, Matthew 10:1, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 12:22, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 17:18, Mark 1:22-27, Mark 1:32-34, Mark 1:39, Mark 3:10-11, Mark 3:14-15, Mark 3:22, Mark 5:1-15, Mark 6:7, Mark 6:13, Mark 7:25-30, Mark 9:25, Mark 9:38, Mark 16:9, Luke 4:32-36, Luke 4:40-41, Luke 6:18, Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, Luke 8:26-36, Luke 9:1, Luke 9:42, Luke 9:49, Luke 10:8-9, Luke 11:14, Luke 13:32, Acts 5:26, Acts 8:7, Acts 16:16, Acts 19:12
> 
> *No mention of exorcisms in Gospel of John*
> 
> *No mention of exorcisms in the epistles or Revelation*
> 
> In contrast, all of the passages in John refer to the message or teaching and not exorcism (John 7:20, John 8:48-49, John 8:52, John 10:20-21) None of the other passages with demons, evil spirits, or unclean spirits has anything to do with exorcism but idolatry or teaching/doctrines of demons.



A lack of demons in the Gospel of John might just be a matter of emphasis.

John wrote his Gospel as a spiritual gospel and he wrote last and seemed to focus on things not emphasized in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He may have judged that the others had already mentioned demons enough.

In the Revelation John writes of demons pestering mankind, after all.

Jude is written late and speaks of the fallen angels and spiritual battles.

The early church Fathers all spoke of the demons and many spoke of possessions.

Linked is an article about demon possesion in the writings of the Church Fathers. They believed that the battle continued: https://www.lausanne.org/content/historical-overview-1

Here is Tertullian, for example, he spoke of this as at least an occasional occurrence:

_"Let a person be brought before your tribunals, who is plainly under demoniacal possession (daemone agi). The wicked spirit, bidden to speak by a follower of Christ, will as readily make the truthful confession that he is a demon, as elsewhere he has falsely asserted that he is a god. Or, if you will, let there be produced one of the god-possessed (de deo pati), as they are supposed..."_

We need not agree with Tertullian, but we must acknowledge that it was a common belief among the early Christians that demon possession did not cease but continued.

Here is Justin Martyr:

_“He (Christ) said, “I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions… and on all the might of the enemy”. And now we, who believe on our Lord Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, when we exorcise all demons and evil spirits, have them subjected to us_ (_Dialogue _76,6)


And here is Origen:

_“Hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantatons. And here he mainfestly appears to malign the gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to him; for the repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit. Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men…” _(_Contra Celsum _I,6). 


The tribal believers in Papua who have recently come out of outright worship and sacrifice to demons instinctively use the name of Jesus to expel demonic presences. They know nothing of the early Church Fathers and yet do the same out of instinct. They use the name of Jesus as a weapon and pray out loud against the devil and to expel demons. I have felt uncomfortable about this, but have never forbidden or discouraged it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> Pergamum states, (1) History does progress. As the others have said, maybe evolution is not the best word.
> 
> My question would be,
> 1. Does the authority of Christ progress or change at the cross/resurrection/ascension?
> 2. If so, how does it change and when?




After the resurrection, Christ is clearly the victor and ascends to heaven. There is progress in that He has now finished His state of humiliation and has entered into His State of Exaltation and sits as heavenly mediator.

Some in the early Church say that He descended into hell on Saturday after Good Friday to proclaim his victory to the Underworld. This has been called the Harrowing of Hell and, if this is to be believed, shows a progression in the work of salvation. 

At the end of time Christ will return and destroy Antichrist and throw all remaining demons into hell. That is progress and change.

Revelation now states that the martyred saints in heaven proclaim, "How long oh Lord" until God does justice on earth. And they are told to wait awhile. But in the end this justice will be exacted and the martyrd saints will no more cry this way. This seems to be progress and even improvement. 

Also, the Apostle Paul says that to die is to be with Christ....but that it will be better when he is united body and soul. That is progress. Those in heaven right now are happy, but they will be even happier (if this is possible) when the Last Day comes and new bodies are given. This is a progress and improvement of sorts.

At the end of time, Christ will put all things under His feet and gain final victory, and then turn over the Kingdom to the Father. I Corinthians 15:24, "Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power."

That is definitely progress.

Again, evolution is not the right word. But there is advancement in salvation history and progression towards the end of time and final victory. We were saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. The same with the universe.


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum said:


> A lack of demons in the Gospel of John might just be a matter of emphasis. John write his Gospel as a spiritual gospel and he wrote last and seemed to focus on things not emphasized in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. He may have judged that the others had already mentioned demons enough.
> 
> In the Revelation John writes of demons pestering mankind, after all.
> 
> Jude is written late and speaks of the fallen angels and spiritual battles.
> 
> The early church Fatehrs all spoke of the demons and many spoke of possessions.
> 
> Linked is an article about demon possesion in the writings of the Church Fathers: https://www.lausanne.org/content/historical-overview-1
> 
> Here is Tertullian, for example, he spoke of this as at least an occasional occurrence:
> 
> _"Let a person be brought before your tribunals, who is plainly under demoniacal possession (daemone agi). The wicked spirit, bidden to speak by a follower of Christ, will as readily make the truthful confession that he is a demon, as elsewhere he has falsely asserted that he is a god. Or, if you will, let there be produced one of the god-possessed (de deo pati), as they are supposed..."_
> 
> We need not agree with Tertullian, but we must acknowledge that it was a common belief among the early Christians that demon possession did not cease but continued.
> 
> Here is Justin Martyr:
> 
> _“He (Christ) said, “I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions… and on all the might of the enemy”. And now we, who believe on our Lord Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, when we exorcise all demons and evil spirits, have them subjected to us_ (_Dialogue _76,6)
> 
> 
> And here is Origen:
> 
> _“Hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits by incantatons. And here he mainfestly appears to malign the gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits), but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives which relate to him; for the repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit. Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men…” _(_Contra Celsum _I,6).


 I think that the references that you point out underscore the non-exorcism approach to Jude and one could interpret "not reviling angelic majesties" as not fighting evil spirits in exorcism but letting God have His way as when Michael only said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you." The reactions to the demons in Revelation are also not exorcism.

I am not saying that they did not/could not occur. The early church fathers are an interesting data point. But still, don't you find it odd that while exorcism was central to the message of the gospel in the synoptics it is so absent in the epistles as the apostles give teaching to the early church?

One thought is that the way we now deal with demonic oppression or healing is not to "cast it out" in exorcism but to pray to God for deliverance or healing and trust Him that He will accomplish His will for us and it will be for our good. This would be consistent with how Paul dealt with his "messenger from Satan" and how Jude encourages us to act with his example of Michael.


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum said:


> After the resurrection, Christ is clearly the victor and ascends to heaven. There is progress in that He has now finished His state of humiliation and has entered into His State of Exaltation and sits as heavenly mediator.
> 
> Some in the early Church say that He descended into hell on Saturday after Good Friday to proclaim his victory to the Underworld. This has been called the Harrowing of Hell and, if this is to be believed, shows a progression in the work of salvation.
> 
> At the end of time Christ will return and destroy Antichrist and throw all remaining demons into hell. That is progress and change.
> 
> Revelation now states that the martyred saints in heaven proclaim, "How long oh Lord" until God does justice on earth. And they are told to wait awhile. But in the end this justice will be exacted and the martyrd saints will no more cry this way. This seems to be progress and even improvement.
> 
> Also, the Apostle Paul says that to die is to be with Christ....but that it will be better when he is united body and soul. That is progress. Those in heaven right now are happy, but they will be even happier (if this is possible) when the Last Day comes and new bodies are given. This is a progress and improvement of sorts.
> 
> At the end of time, Christ will put all things under His feet and gain final victory, and then turn over the Kingdom to the Father. I Corinthians 15:24, "Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power."
> 
> That is definitely progress.
> 
> Again, evolution is not the right word. But there is advancement in salvation history and progression towards the end of time and final victory. We were saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. The same with the universe.



I agree with your analysis above. But what was the progress/change at the ascension relative to before the cross/ascension? He certainly had authority over demons before the cross, but did that progress into more authority over them after the cross. Matthew 28:18 is post cross when Jesus claims all authority in heaven and earth. Was this always the case or was some of it new?


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> I think that the references that you point out underscore the non-exorcism approach to Jude and one could interpret "not reviling angelic majesties" and not fighting evil spirits in exorcism but letting God have His way as when Michael only said, "The Lord rebuke you." The reactions to the demons in Revelation are also not exorcism.
> 
> I am not saying that they did not/could not occur. The early church fathers are an interesting data point. But still, don't you find it odd that while exorcism was central to the message of the gospel in the synoptics it is so absent in the epistles as the apostles give teaching to the early church?
> 
> One thought is that the way we now deal with demonic oppression or healing is not to "cast it out" in exorcism but to pray to God for deliverance or healing and trust Him that He will accomplish His will for us and it will be for our good. This would be consistent with how Paul dealt with his "messenger from Satan" and how Jude encourages us to act with his example of Michael.



I think Paul's thorn was a physical illness and not the presence of a demon. Being afflicted and ill by the permitted power of Satan is different than having an ongoing presence of a demon to haunt one. 

I admit I am unsure of the answer. You migth very well be correct. Here is how one online person summarized the position:

"The Bible does not give Christians the authority to rebuke the devil, but to resist him. James 4:7 says to "submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." Zechariah 3:2 tells us that it is the Lord who rebukes Satan. Even Michael, one of the most powerful of the angels, did not dare to accuse Satan, but rather said, "The Lord rebuke you" (Jude 1:9). In response to Satan's attacks, a Christian should appeal to Christ. Instead of focusing on defeating the devil, we should focus on following Christ (Hebrews 12:2) and trust that He will defeat the forces of evil."

However, the early Church Father did not believe the same for they still rebuked demons and drove them out by the name of Christ - even incantations (which makes me uncomfortable).

I believe we are to pray and need not repeatedly use the name of Christ to drive out demons. BUT it could be that God blessed the imperfect attempts of the early Christians to battle demons. Though they erred in their methods, God was still pleased to give them victories through the use of the name of Christ to show His power. 

I honestly do not know.


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> I agree with your analysis above. But what was the progress/change at the ascension relative to before the cross/ascension? He certainly had authority over demons before the cross, but did that progress into more authority over them after the cross. Matthew 28:18 is post cross when Jesus claims all authority in heaven and earth. Was this always the case or was some of it new?



I am not sure. Maybe somebody else can help us. 

Whereas Christ personally cast out demons in the NT, when he ascended he gave forth his Spirit to all believers and we see these believers then going forth and sometimes exercising demons. 

Whether the ability to exercise demons coincided with the ability to speak in tongues during the days of the apostles only or whether it continues today, I do not know. 

I believe we can still cast out demons today and I believe demons are still active in the same manner today, though it is still a struggle for me to know HOW exactly, whether we directly cast out demons by addressing and rebuking them, or else by merely imploring God to do the work. I favor the latter approach, but I have seen cases of the former method being done in tribal contexts. We have burned/destroyed fetishes and amulets and prayed for those claiming demonic attack and read Scripture to them. But local pastors have also shouted at the demons to be gone in the name of Christ. And the patient appeared to be comforted and healed afterwards. Perhaps God is merely patient with us and grants victory despite our flaws.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum said:


> I think Paul's thorn was a physical illness and not the presence of a demon. Being afflicted and ill by the permitted power of Satan is different than having an ongoing presence of a demon to haunt one.



I wasn't meaning that Paul was controlled by a demon as in possessed. But that the messenger from Satan was involved in tormenting Paul. The woman in Luke 13:10-16 had a "sickness caused by a spirit." She was tormented but not possessed. Like Paul, her torment was caused by an evil spirit. In her case, the spirit was cast out and she was healed. In Paul's case God told Paul that His grace was sufficient and that His strength was made perfect in Paul's weakness.


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> I wasn't meaning that Paul was controlled by a demon as in possessed. But that the messenger from Satan was involved in tormenting Paul. The woman in Luke 13:10-16 had a "sickness caused by a spirit." She was tormented but not possessed. Like Paul, her torment was caused by an evil spirit. In her case, the spirit was cast out and she was healed. In Paul's case God told Paul that His grace was sufficient and that His strength was made perfect in Paul's weakness.



Yes, I see your point and it is a good one. I don't want to call all the early Church Fathers to be in error, however, because there are many recountings of those sick from demons being healed in the early Patristic Period and also the Mediaval Church period...even up until this day. Should I discount these testimonies as false because they are not the canon of Scripture? Rather, I believe they were reporting what they witnessed. Perhaps their interpretation was faulty.


Here is an interesting paper about demon possession in Early Modern England: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rary_Texts_and_Their_Cultural_Contexts_review

Here is another paper about demon possesion in Elizabethan England: https://www.academia.edu/14847263/J...xorcism_and_Apocalypse_in_Elizabethan_England

Here is another paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25482891?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Here is Wickepedia about Puritan Exorcism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_exorcism

And here is a google book about signs and wonders and demonic irritations in early America: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=HESRDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&lpg=PT125&dq=isaac+backus+demon+possession&source=bl&ots=khrWOwx_cB&sig=ACfU3U2i_YZA1bldDN9hOCb2jEitkIFYfA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR6Pvc4OnhAhVIMI8KHf-cDm8Q6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac backus demon possession&f=false

John Foxe, the author of the Book of Martyrs, exorcised a man by the name of Robert Briggs. Here is a link about this: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=7QGuVwbcmaMC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=John+Foxe+exorcised+Robert+Briggs&source=bl&ots=W4l3qH8-6A&sig=ACfU3U1OOYjrJctnsU8Vu3deCPFyn1QcNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU-bq44unhAhVGsI8KHeBpDUQQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=John Foxe exorcised Robert Briggs&f=false

A case could be made that demon possession and demon affliction is an occasional thing that peaked during the time of Christ and has occasionally continued up until this present day. Otherwise we must accuse many past Christians of being superstitious and believing in fables. Perhaps modern Christians are more impacted by Enlightenment Naturalistic thinking than we admit.


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I see your point and it is a good one. I don't want to call all the early Church Fathers to be in error, however, because there are many recountings of those sick from demons being healed in the early Patristic Period and also the Mediaval Church period...even up until this day. Should I discount these testimonies as false because they are not the canon of Scripture? Rather, I believe they were reporting what they witnessed. Perhaps their interpretation was faulty.
> 
> 
> Here is an interesting paper about demon possession in Early Modern England: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rary_Texts_and_Their_Cultural_Contexts_review
> 
> Here is another paper about demon possesion in Elizabethan England: https://www.academia.edu/14847263/J...xorcism_and_Apocalypse_in_Elizabethan_England
> 
> Here is another paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25482891?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
> 
> Here is Wickepedia about Puritan Exorcism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_exorcism
> 
> And here is a google book about signs and wonders and demonic irritations in early America: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=HESRDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&lpg=PT125&dq=isaac+backus+demon+possession&source=bl&ots=khrWOwx_cB&sig=ACfU3U2i_YZA1bldDN9hOCb2jEitkIFYfA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR6Pvc4OnhAhVIMI8KHf-cDm8Q6AEwB3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac backus demon possession&f=false
> 
> John Foxe, the author of the Book of Martyrs, exorcised a man by the name of Robert Briggs. Here is a link about this: https://books.google.com.my/books?id=7QGuVwbcmaMC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=John+Foxe+exorcised+Robert+Briggs&source=bl&ots=W4l3qH8-6A&sig=ACfU3U1OOYjrJctnsU8Vu3deCPFyn1QcNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjU-bq44unhAhVGsI8KHeBpDUQQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=John Foxe exorcised Robert Briggs&f=false
> 
> A case could be made that demon possession and demon affliction is an occasional thing that peaked during the time of Christ and has occasionally continued up until this present day. Otherwise we must accuse many past Christians of being superstitious and believing in fables. Perhaps modern Christians are more impacted by Enlightenment Naturalistic thinking than we admit.



Thank you again! I am not having trouble believing that people could be demonized or even possessed(non-Christians). I was not raised in a PCA church and witnessed exorcisms and "deliverance ministries." At its worst, exorcism was used as a therapy method to achieve sanctification. Many of the demons that were "cast out" were demons of sin such as lust or gluttony. I don't believe that is scriptural. The result of being demonized in the gospels is a physical sickness or affliction(or mental as in the case of the Gasarenes demoniac). The issue being addressed with exorcism was not sin.

My main issue on this thread is to better understand if a believers response to someone (another believer or themselves) being demonized is not to seek out exorcism but to confess our sins and repent (if there are any like the blasphemers Alexander and Hymaneus) and then pray and petition God regarding the affliction/illness and then, after praying, to confide oneself into the will of a loving God. This approach seems much different that that of the Synoptics (but not John) and I was wondering how to answer "Why?".


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> Thank you again! I am not having trouble believing that people could be demonized or even possessed(non-Christians). I was not raised in a PCA church and witnessed exorcisms and "deliverance ministries." At its worst, exorcism was used as a therapy method to achieve sanctification. Many of the demons that were "cast out" were demons of sin such as lust or gluttony. I don't believe that is scriptural. The result of being demonized in the gospels is a physical sickness or affliction(or mental as in the case of the Gasarenes demoniac). The issue being addressed with exorcism was not sin.
> 
> My main issue on this thread is to better understand if a believers response to someone (another believer or themselves) being demonized is not to seek out exorcism but to confess our sins and repent (if there are any like the blasphemers Alexander and Hymaneus) and then pray and petition God regarding the affliction/illness and then, after praying, to confide oneself into the will of a loving God. This approach seems much different that that of the Synoptics (but not John) and I was wondering how to answer "Why?".



Yes. Even if true demon possession and true exorcism sometimes still occurs, we can also admit that there will be counterfeits and false fixes. 

It seems a modern thing to speak of vices as demons, such as the demon of lust, etc. Though the activities of demons may be to tempt us with our weaknesses such as lust, lust is not a demon. I even heard one Fundamentalist speak of the demon of tobacco. Just strange. 

Yes, we must pray and read Scripture and not rely on the power of rituals.


----------



## DTK

Just going to address the question posed as the title of this thread . . .


> *Why do demons/exorcism evolve and diminsh after the gospels?*


First of all, consider why there was in the days of our Lord's flesh, and for a brief time subsequently in the ministry of the apostles, this unusual stirring up of demonic activity. It was because the kingdom of God was threatening the kingdom of darkness with an intensity as never before. Over and over the message of John the Baptist and of our Lord Jesus was, "the kingdom of heaven/God is at hand!" The kingdom of God drew near to the kingdom of darkness in the person of the King, hence this unusual stirring up of demonic activity that we read about in and learn from the Gospels and in the ministry of the apostles.

There is in Matthew 11:12 that somewhat obscure language employed by our Lord who said, "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." I'm inclined to think that this is speaking of the gospel of the kingdom preached by both John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus himself, and their message was being violently resisted by the forces/powers of darkness that were responding to the kingdom of heaven/God having drawn near in the person of the King. The person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ was threatening the hosts of hell in a way that was unprecedented. No wonder our Lord was tempted by the evil one to forego the cross, because that event would consummate in the destruction of the work of the devil (cf. Jn. 12:31-32; Col. 2:14-15; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn 3:8). The kingdom of Satan was dealt the deathblow, as it were, in the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, the cross marks the consummation, yet not the culmination that will take place at the return of our Lord (the tension between "the now and the not yet") when every last foe, even death itself, will be vanquished.

Thus, though the battle continues, the spiritual forces that opposed our Lord have been for all intents and purposes defeated in the person and work of Jesus Christ, but the "mop up" work continues in areas where there are pockets of resistance still. Missionaries have often testified to this continuing resistance in areas where the gospel is "breaking" new ground, so to speak. The devil continues to go about as a roaring lion, but as one preacher put it, "his teeth were pulled at Calvary." *This is why, I think, we do not witness today the unusual intensity of demonic activity that was experienced by our Lord in the days of his flesh and in the ministry of the Apostles. *

Consider the following analogy with respect to "the kingdom of heaven/God" having drawn near in the person of the King, the Lord Jesus . . . 

In the game of football, no one ever hears of a 30 yardline stand, but everyone has heard of a goal line stand. Never is a team closer to the objective of the game than when they are within the opposing team's five yard line, but never is the resistance more fierce! By way of analogy, this is what we see transpiring when the kingdom of heaven/God drew near in the person of the King. Our Lord's presence was violently opposed, for the objective of all redemptive history was about to be fulfilled, and was fulfilled when our Lord became at one and the same time both offerer and offering for the sins of his people. The kingdom of heaven was suffering violence, but our Lord by violence (in this act) took his objective by force. There are many facets to the cross of Christ, but surely one of those facets is that his death destroyed the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3:8).

That's my 2 cents.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Afterthought

My two cents.

1) Christ destroyed him who had the power death, and now Christ has the keys of death and hell. Death has no more sting for Christ's people.

Hebrews 2:14-15 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

Revelation 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

2) Christ bound the devil so that he can no longer deceive the nations. Hence, the Great Commission will not be stopped by the gates of hell as Christ gathers His people from the corners of the earth. The devil's power over the nations has been broken and cannot hold onto those who are Christ's. (Revelation 20. Colossians 2.)

3) Nations once were allowed to walk in ignorance, but now God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17). Part of that ignorance was devising a system of false intermediary gods ("demons") ("For an idol is nothing in the world." "They sacrifice to devils [demons]."), but Christ is the only Mediator between God and men, and men must repent and submit to Him if they will want to feel after God and find Him.

4) Christ is head over all things, and all things have been given over to Him to rule for the good of His church (Ephesians 1. Colossians 1.). While Christ as God made use of the evil fallen angels as part of the administrations of Providence, now Christ as God-Man--the Mediator--rules over all things--including the evil angels--for the good of His church. As such, the devil is not only God's devil, the devil is Christ's devil. Believers then have all the more reason to not fear, even as unbelievers have no excuse in blaming the devil for their sin.


----------



## K Jentoft

Afterthought said:


> My two cents.
> 
> 1) Christ destroyed him who had the power death, and now Christ has the keys of death and hell. Death has no more sting for Christ's people.
> 
> Hebrews 2:14-15 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."
> 
> Revelation 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
> 
> 2) Christ bound the devil so that he can no longer deceive the nations. Hence, the Great Commission will not be stopped by the gates of hell as Christ gathers His people from the corners of the earth. The devil's power over the nations has been broken and cannot hold onto those who are Christ's. (Revelation 20. Colossians 2.)
> 
> 3) Nations once were allowed to walk in ignorance, but now God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17). Part of that ignorance was devising a system of false intermediary gods ("demons") ("For an idol is nothing in the world." "They sacrifice to devils [demons]."), but Christ is the only Mediator between God and men, and men must repent and submit to Him if they will want to feel after God and find Him.
> 
> 4) Christ is head over all things, and all things have been given over to Him to rule for the good of His church (Ephesians 1. Colossians 1.). While Christ as God made use of the evil fallen angels as part of the administrations of Providence, now Christ as God-Man--the Mediator--rules over all things--including the evil angels--for the good of His church. As such, the devil is not only God's devil, the devil is Christ's devil. Believers then have all the more reason to not fear, even as unbelievers have no excuse in blaming the devil for their sin.



Thank you, that seems very helpful. This passage seems to also indicate progress/change in authority over Satan's activities against us with the word, "Now." It seems like somehow, prior to that "now," that authority had not been released or manifested. After the now, there is a change of authority over Satan.

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “*Now* the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God *and the authority of His Christ have come*, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. Revelation 12:10


----------



## Jack K

K Jentoft said:


> This passage seems to also indicate progress/change in authority over Satan's activities against us with the word, "Now." It seems like somehow, prior to that "now," that authority had not been released or manifested. After the now, there is a change of authority over Satan.



That still feels off to me, or at least liable to misunderstanding. What follows gets into some Christology that deserves precise wording, so I'm open to being corrected on that... but I'll give it a try.

Yes, there is a sense in which Jesus, in his role as the Christ and the second Adam, successfully fulfilled human rule over creation and evil where Adam failed to do so. It is also true that the devil met defeat at the cross (Hebrews 2:14). And because of Christ's victory, he is given a position of authority which he has earned: God has put all things under his feet (Ephesians 1:22). Many of the passages you have cited seem to be speaking of this.

One potential for misunderstanding comes if we then conclude that the eternal Son of God has a new authority over evil powers that he didn't possess before. Clearly this is not the case, since "by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities" (Colossians 1:16). So the most we might say is that, as the reigning Christ, the Son chooses to exercise his authority in ways that appear broader and fuller in this era than he did in times past. Scripture affirms that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles is a significant development, one that might fit the idea that Christ is extending his authority. Other new conditions you propose are less clear in Scripture.

Another potential for misunderstanding comes if we conclude that the devil's defeat at the cross means he was running about unchecked before then. Consider one of the passages you have quoted, Colossians 2:15, which says God "disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in [Christ]." Ask yourself if this also happened before the cross. Think of incidents such as the time Christ stopped Balaam's curse, shaming the powers of evil and turning their demonic curse into a blessing. You will see that the devil's defeat at the cross is not a brand new thing but rather the crowning defeat so far in a long line of defeats at the hands of Jesus.

I think you would be on firmer ground if you first guarded against those misunderstandings. Then we could discuss whether or not your observations represent a true change in demonic activity in the latter parts of the New Testament or are best explained some other way.


----------



## K Jentoft

Jack K said:


> That still feels off to me, or at least liable to misunderstanding. What follows gets into some Christology that deserves precise wording, so I'm open to being corrected on that... but I'll give it a try.
> 
> Yes, there is a sense in which Jesus, in his role as the Christ and the second Adam, successfully fulfilled human rule over creation and evil where Adam failed to do so. It is also true that the devil met defeat at the cross (Hebrews 2:14). And because of Christ's victory, he is given a position of authority which he has earned: God has put all things under his feet (Ephesians 1:22). Many of the passages you have cited seem to be speaking of this.
> 
> One potential for misunderstanding comes if we then conclude that the eternal Son of God has a new authority over evil powers that he didn't possess before. Clearly this is not the case, since "by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities" (Colossians 1:16). So the most we might say is that, as the reigning Christ, the Son chooses to exercise his authority in ways that appear broader and fuller in this era than he did in times past. Scripture affirms that the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles is a significant development, one that might fit the idea that Christ is extending his authority. Other new conditions you propose are less clear in Scripture.
> 
> Another potential for misunderstanding comes if we conclude that the devil's defeat at the cross means he was running about unchecked before then. Consider one of the passages you have quoted, Colossians 2:15, which says God "disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in [Christ]." Ask yourself if this also happened before the cross. Think of incidents such as the time Christ stopped Balaam's curse, shaming the powers of evil and turning their demonic curse into a blessing. You will see that the devil's defeat at the cross is not a brand new thing but rather the crowning defeat so far in a long line of defeats at the hands of Jesus.
> 
> I think you would be on firmer ground if you first guarded against those misunderstandings. Then we could discuss whether or not your observations represent a true change in demonic activity in the latter parts of the New Testament or are best explained some other way.



Thank you, this is helpful. My terms are likely not the proper technical terms, but I am a layman... I appreciate the interaction with the ideas I am attempting to convey.

Your points are well stated, God has always had all authority over all creation, including evil. I am suspecting that the issue does not have as much to do with the demonic activity changing but more to do with the "means" of how Christ's authority over demonic oppression is expressed and His people relieved from that demonic oppression. It could well be linked to the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. It seems to me that before the crucifixion Christ's authority over the demonic was direct (even direct as explicitly delegated to the 12 or the 70) this does not disappear and direct authority continues on. But it also seems that Jesus' authority over the demonic changed after the cross such that a believer's internal faith/trust in Jesus' authority earned at the cross is sufficient to experience freedom from demonic oppression that had required direct intervention by someone with direct authority in an exorcism until then. As I read the passages, faith itself doesn't seem to be enough. We see in Matthew 8:8 that the word of Jesus is needed. The same seems true in Luke 8:43-48 where the touch was needed in addition to the faith. It seems like faith with direct proximity or direct authority.

If this is true, that faith in Christ's victory is now sufficient, we would anticipate the dramatic decline in exorcisms that we witness in Acts and then the epistles.


----------



## K Jentoft

I think that preaching the gospel to the Gentiles is similar in that, prior to the crucifixion, the citizens of God's kingdom were those of faith and they were circumcised. They worshiped God but it was not supposed to happen freestyle or on any mountain or high place - it was prescribed to be in Jerusalem. People had true faith but it was somehow linked to holy dirt and God's home on the holy dirt. This excluded the Gentiles. After the crucifixion, the Gospel expanded beyond the holy dirt and faith alone was enough without the tangible locations and form that God had prescribed for His holy dirt.


----------



## K Jentoft

Exorcism in the New Testament: Proposal

God has always had all authority over all creation, including the devil and evil spirits.

I am suspecting that the reason exorcism declines does not have as much to do with demonic activity declining but more to do with the "means" of how Christ's authority over demonic oppression is expressed and His people relieved from that demonic oppression.

It seems to me that before the crucifixion Christ's authority over the demonic was direct (even direct as explicitly delegated to the 12 in Matthew 10:1 or the 70 in Luke 10:1,17) this does not disappear and direct authority continues on. But it also seems that Jesus' authority over the demonic changed after the cross such that a believer's internal faith/trust in Jesus' authority earned at the cross is sufficient to experience freedom from demonic oppression that had required direct intervention by someone with direct authority in an exorcism until then. As I read the passages, faith itself doesn't seem to be enough before the cross. We see in Matthew 8:8 that the word of Jesus is needed in addition to faith. The same seems true in Luke 8:43-48 where the touch was needed in addition to the faith. It seems like faith with direct proximity or direct authority was needed for exorcism before the cross and resurrection.

After the resurrection this direct intervention in exorcism declines and faith in what Christ accomplished on the cross is sufficient to be free from demonic oppression. We now know the Son and the truth and He sets us free by faith without needing exorcism John 8:31-36. This is the message of the epistles as seen in Ephesians 1:18-23 and Colossians 1:13-23. The bold text is referring to the evil spiritual powers and Satan’s kingdom.

I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above *all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come*. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.​
For He rescued us from *the domain of darkness*, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and i*nvisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities*—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were *formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds*, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.​After the cross we hear of Christians overcoming Satan,“because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death." Revelation 12:1 This would not have been possible before the cross as Jesus had not yet shed His blood.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Re 12:11). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

If this is true, that faith in Christ's victory is now sufficient, we would anticipate the dramatic decline in exorcisms that we witness in Acts and then the epistles. Freedom is found in knowing and believing, “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know… what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe.” “He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death…if indeed you continue in the faith.”

What is odd is that in the epistles, instead of exorcisms, we read about “reverse exorcisms” where God or the apostle gives permission to Satan to afflict Christians for their good to help bring about sanctification or salvation as in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20. God is the one who is all powerful. Even Satan cannot go beyond what God allows as in Job 1:12.


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> What is odd is that in the epistles, instead of exorcisms, we read about “reverse exorcisms” where God or the apostle gives permission to Satan to afflict Christians for their good to help bring about sanctification or salvation as in 2 Corinthians



Exorcism applies to demon-possession or demonization. When Paul gives someone over to Satan he isn't acting as a retail middle-man in the possession business.


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> Exorcism applies to demon-possession or demonization. When Paul gives someone over to Satan he isn't acting as a retail middle-man in the possession business.



At some level Paul is reversing Colossians 1:13 where he claims we are rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of Christ. Instead, Paul is transferring these people *out of the church into the kingdom of darkness* - a reversal. He is doing for sanctifying reasons. I am not saying that these people necessarily become "demonized" but simply placed into the domain of darkness. An interesting Old Testament example that really is demonization is Nebuchadnezzar becoming like a beast for 7 years at God's decree until he learned to give glory to God in Daniel 4:33-34.

At some level, delivering someone to Satan really means placing people under Satan's evil spiritual influence to achieve a Godly result. In this sense, it is "reverse exorcism" and the inverse of exorcism when Jesus or the apostles by direct command remove Satan's evil spiritual influence from people to achieve a Godly result.


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> In this sense, it is "reverse exorcism" and the inverse of exorcism when Jesus or the apostles by direct command remove Satan's evil spiritual influence from people to achieve a Godly result.



That is precisely what it isn't. Paul isn't channeling the demon into the person. He is judicially cutting them off from the covenant which will allow the destruction of their flesh. That has nothing to do with demon possession cases either in the NT or in church history.


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> That is precisely what it isn't. Paul isn't channeling the demon into the person. He is judicially cutting them off from the covenant which will allow the destruction of their flesh. That has nothing to do with demon possession cases either in the NT or in church history.



Exactly, "judicially cutting them off from the covenant" means that they are beyond the benefits and excluded from the covenant - they now belong to or are subjected to the kingdom of darkness as that is the only option outside of the covenant, the kingdom of light. They are now judicially subject to Satan's evil spiritual influences.


----------



## RamistThomist

K Jentoft said:


> Exactly, "judicially cutting them off from the covenant" means that they are beyond the benefits and excluded from the covenant - they now belong to or are subjected to the kingdom of darkness as that is the only option outside of the covenant, the kingdom of light. They are now judicially subject to Satan's evil spiritual influences.



Which is not possession, so it is not a reverse exorcism.


----------



## K Jentoft

BayouHuguenot said:


> Which is not possession, so it is not a reverse exorcism.



Actually most of the “casting out” (exorcism) is associated with healing and possession is not mentioned. I other words, exorcism in not exclusive to demonic possession but is used to cure or heal demonization associated with physical maladies. 

At some level being under Satan's evil spiritual influence could be termed "demonization," especially if that influence took the form of a physical affliction as in Luke 6:18 which stated unclean spirits were being "healed." If sinning can cause sickness as in Acts 12:23 and healing is linked to forgiveness in James 5:15, there is serious cause to think that being delivered over to Satan involves something much more than a letter from the elders or the presbytery announcing a judicial decision.


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> Actually most of the “casting out” (exorcism) is associated with healing and possession is not mentioned. I other words, exorcism in not exclusive to demonic possession but is used to cure or heal demonization associated with physical maladies.
> 
> At some level being under Satan's evil spiritual influence could be termed "demonization," especially if that influence took the form of a physical affliction as in Luke 6:18 which stated unclean spirits were being "healed." If sinning can cause sickness as in Acts 12:23 and healing is linked to forgiveness in James 5:15, there is serious cause to think that being delivered over to Satan involves something much more than a letter from the elders or the presbytery announcing a judicial decision.



What is your operational definition of exorcism? And possession? You seem to be using these terms sometimes in strange ways. 

Have you read books on spiritual warfare? Can we recommend some? Frederick Leahy in Satan Cast Down and Clint Arnold's books are helpful, to begin with. 

You seem to link illness with demonization and healing with forgiveness, but we have no reason to think that Paul's thorn in the flesh was due to his personal sin. He was merely under attack from the devil, and God permitted it. 
Likewise some of the demonized children in the NT were children and we should not see them as particularly heinous sinners who deserved such demonic attack.

Satan's evil spiritual influence is broader and more general than being demonized. His influence is all around, but not every sinner is particularly demonized in a physical way. Most of the time the battle is for the mind, in the realm of temptations, etc. Most folks do not see or hear anything supernatural, nor feel the physical effects of demons. The spiritual battle rages around us, but we are unaware of it mostly. I know Luther said he threw an ink pot or something at the devil, but he might also have been slightly crazy and unhinged. 

On the other hand, we've met folks wearing amulets and giving sacrifice/gifts to family spirits who report a persistent threatening voice in their ears telling them to kill themselves, which disappeared after prayer and bible reading and the discarding of the amulet/fetish. Is prayer and the removal of amulets an exorcism? Because we've occasionally done this for folks reporting demonic oppression, and some have healed. Prayer and the Word of God and repentance (which means discarding the occult object) seems to be the means, though some local Christians also recite the name of Jesus out loud ("to scare the demons" they have said).


----------



## K Jentoft

Pergamum said:


> What is your operational definition of exorcism? And possession? You seem to be using these terms sometimes in strange ways.
> 
> Have you read books on spiritual warfare? Can we recommend some? Frederick Leahy in Satan Cast Down and Clint Arnold's books are helpful, to begin with.
> 
> You seem to link illness with demonization and healing with forgiveness, but we have no reason to think that Paul's thorn in the flesh was due to his personal sin. He was merely under attack from the devil, and God permitted it.
> Likewise some of the demonized children in the NT were children and we should not see them as particularly heinous sinners who deserved such demonic attack.
> 
> Satan's evil spiritual influence is broader and more general than being demonized. His influence is all around, but not every sinner is particularly demonized in a physical way. Most of the time the battle is for the mind, in the realm of temptations, etc. Most folks do not see or hear anything supernatural, nor feel the physical effects of demons. The spiritual battle rages around us, but we are unaware of it mostly. I know Luther said he threw an ink pot or something at the devil, but he might also have been slightly crazy and unhinged.
> 
> On the other hand, we've met folks wearing amulets and giving sacrifice/gifts to family spirits who report a persistent threatening voice in their ears telling them to kill themselves, which disappeared after prayer and bible reading and the discarding of the amulet/fetish. Is prayer and the removal of amulets an exorcism? Because we've occasionally done this for folks reporting demonic oppression, and some have healed. Prayer and the Word of God and repentance (which means discarding the occult object) seems to be the means, though some local Christians also recite the name of Jesus out loud ("to scare the demons" they have said).



Pergamum,

Excellent feedback as usual. I love Clint Arnold's book on Colossians; it was groundbreaking work and helped me.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that demon possession, or even being demonized, is always or even mostly the result of sin. I do not believe that. I was attempting to link demonization to the goal of sin/sanctification in the specific examples of when Paul turned Christians over to Satan. At some level, the blasphemy of Hymenaeus and Alexander triggered the demonization released by Paul in an attempt to stop it in 1 Timothy 1:20. I think the same concept (Satan behind illness and death) happens in 1 Corinthians 11:28-32. Verse 32 seems to say that God is using weakness, sickness and even death to judge in a salvific/sanctifying way "*so that we will not be condemned along with the world*." 1 Corinthians 11:32. From outside appearance the sin, sickness, sanctification goals seems similar to that of 1 Timothy 1:20.

Paul's gift of his "messenger from Satan" wasn't the result of Paul's sin but was sanctifying from the aspect that it happened to prevent Paul from sinning by "exalting himself" in 2 Corinthians 12:7. In fact, Paul repeats the preventative nature twice in the same verse. I suppose this could be one outworking of how God responds when we pray, "Lead us not into temptation."

Thank you for your feedback.


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> Excellent feedback as usual. I love Clint Arnold's book on Colossians; it was groundbreaking work and helped me.
> 
> I am sorry if I gave the impression that demon possession, or even being demonized, is always or even mostly the result of sin. I do not believe that. I was attempting to link demonization to the goal of sin/sanctification in the specific examples of when Paul turned Christians over to Satan. At some level, the blasphemy of Hymenaeus and Alexander triggered the demonization released by Paul in an attempt to stop it in 1 Timothy 1:20. I think the same concept (Satan behind illness and death) happens in 1 Corinthians 11:28-32. Verse 32 seems to say that God is using weakness, sickness and even death to judge in a salvific/sanctifying way "*so that we will not be condemned along with the world*." 1 Corinthians 11:32. From outside appearance the sin, sickness, sanctification goals seems similar to that of 1 Timothy 1:20.
> 
> Paul's gift of his "messenger from Satan" wasn't the result of Paul's sin but was sanctifying from the aspect that it happened to prevent Paul from sinning by "exalting himself" in 2 Corinthians 12:7. In fact, Paul repeats the preventative nature twice in the same verse. I suppose this could be one outworking of how God responds when we pray, "Lead us not into temptation."
> 
> Thank you for your feedback.



Yes, I agree that, for the Believer, God uses even the darts of the Devil to improve us. The Devil attacks us to harm us, but he only makes us more fit for heaven (though short-time failures may result and true harm may be done to us).


----------



## K Jentoft

*PROPOSED SOLUTION*​
I think that this is the answer to the decline in exorcisms so common in the synoptic gospels and only 4 times in Acts and then disappearing in the epistles through Revelation. Before the cross, Jesus' authority, direct or delegated, commanding demons was the means to bring freedom from demonic bondage - the *exorcism process*. After the cross we are shown a different means, a new process to overcome demonic bondage that was not dependent upon Jesus commanding the demon. The new "*repentance process*" is dependent upon the blood of Jesus shed on the cross and the wholesale defeat of Satan's kingdom.

Paul outlines the "repentance process" in his epistle to 2 Timothy 2:25-26.

correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them *repentance* leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and *escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will*.​
The new way to overcome Satan that did not exist during the synoptic gospels is based upon the blood of Christ shed on the cross. This was sufficient for Christians to confront and overcome even Satan himself along with all his fallen angels and not be bound by their oppression or sin (Revelation 12:11).

And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.​
This is not the "exorcism process" described in the synoptics, but the result of a crucified and risen Jesus who offers that freedom to all Christians.


----------



## Pergamum

K Jentoft said:


> *PROPOSED SOLUTION*​
> I think that this is the answer to the decline in exorcisms so common in the synoptic gospels and only 4 times in Acts and then disappearing in the epistles through Revelation. Before the cross, Jesus' authority, direct or delegated, commanding demons was the means to bring freedom from demonic bondage - the *exorcism process*. After the cross we are shown a different means, a new process to overcome demonic bondage that was not dependent upon Jesus commanding the demon. The new "*repentance process*" is dependent upon the blood of Jesus shed on the cross and the wholesale defeat of Satan's kingdom.
> 
> Paul outlines the "repentance process" in his epistle to 2 Timothy 2:25-26.
> 
> correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them *repentance* leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and *escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will*.​
> The new way to overcome Satan that did not exist during the synoptic gospels is based upon the blood of Christ shed on the cross. This was sufficient for Christians to confront and overcome even Satan himself along with all his fallen angels and not be bound by their oppression or sin (Revelation 12:11).
> 
> And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death.​
> This is not the "exorcism process" described in the synoptics, but the result of a crucified and risen Jesus who offers that freedom to all Christians.



I would have to think about that. But Paul's "messenger from Satan" afflicting his flesh occurred after the completed work of Christ and did not require repentance.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello K Jentoft, I think the answer to your observation is that during Jesus’ earthly ministry, and before His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, the power of God was in Christ (Luke 4:14) or those He delegated that power to (Mark 3:15), whereas after His ascension the power of God was in the preaching of the Gospel, the message of Christ (Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:18), which is the Spirit-empowered word presenting the salvation Jesus obtained for His elect.

When this manifest power was declared through Gospel preaching—and that across the world—this revealed God’s saving power and love and set the devil’s captives free. It was simply the transfer of power from Jesus Himself to His witnessing people, and the Gospel’s efficacy to deliver souls from the power of darkness and translate them into the kingdom of the Father’s dear Son (Col 1:12,13).

This does not preclude the casting out of demons in some cases, as the Lord indicated: “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils…” (Mark 16:17), although it remains that the primary weapon against the kingdom of Satan is the preaching of the Gospel. Missionaries in primitive cultures know both of these approaches. Sometimes demonization is so profound in the unregenerate it requires direct confrontation as distinguished from Gospel preaching.

You said in post #47,

My main issue on this thread is to better understand if a believers response to someone (another believer or themselves) being demonized is not to seek out exorcism but to confess our sins and repent (if there are any like the blasphemers Alexander and Hymaneus) and then pray and petition God regarding the affliction/illness and then, after praying, to confide oneself into the will of a loving God. This approach seems much different than that of the Synoptics (but not John) and I was wondering how to answer "Why?".​
Here you are talking of believers (though Alexander and Hymaneus may not have been). David Powlison, in his, _Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare_, addresses this at length (cf also the Amazon reviews). As you mentioned, the phenomenon of “sanctification by exorcism”—one of the excesses of the “spiritual warfare movement”—is an extreme distortion and falsity some have gone to. If we see that we (i.e., as believers) have yielded to satanic influence or infiltration through sin or deception (Eph 4:27; Matt 24:4,24), it is through repentance, receiving forgiveness unto restoration, and asking God for discernment that we may obtain deliverance, and not via “exorcism”, as you rightly said.

There is more that may be said concerning demonic activity in these days, but this above should suffice with regard to what you have brought up.


----------



## terry43

Just a laywoman observation.. anyone that believes that demonic possession ended just needs to visit a hospital ward treating "mental illness" or addiction . 
I had a patient one time that started speaking Spanish ..when the incident ended we asked him about his ability ...he said he did not know Spanish.. at a workshop when I shared this another provider said she had had a similar experience.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40

terry43 said:


> Just a laywoman observation.. anyone that believes that demonic possession ended just needs to visit a hospital ward treating "mental illness" or addiction .
> I had a patient one time that started speaking Spanish ..when the incident ended we asked him about his ability ...he said he did not know Spanish.. at a workshop when I shared this another provider said she had had a similar experience.



Oh I almost hate chiming in here.  Ask any person in a mental health facility if most of the patients there are chronic lairs. The idea that the devil can somehow speak another language through another person today gives Christians a bad name in my most humble opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Thread closed.


----------

