Demon Possession in the NT

[Puritan Sailor]

I've been reading through the Gospels lately in preparation for a sermon series. And it struck me that so many during the time of Jesus struggled with demon possession, even Jews, those among the people of God. When did this become a problem? I don't recall any examples of this in the OT (except perhaps King Saul, 1 Sam 18:10, or the false prophets mentioned in 1 Kings 22:21-22, though the term "possession" is not used). How could so many among the covenant people of God be possessed by demons? How did that possession occur? I could understand how it might occur in a pagan worship context where such demonic communion is sought out, but not necessarily in the visible church of that time. And why do the incidents of that phenomena seem to burst at that period of history (at least in the redemptive historical presentation of it)? Appreciate any insights.

 

[Taylor]

A possible answer is that the increase in demon activity directly correlates with coming of the Son of Man and the progression of his ministry. As the kingdom of light broke into the world, the kingdom of darkness, which has sway over the world, ramped up its assaults.

 

[RamistThomist]

A possible answer is that the increase in demon activity directly correlates with coming of the Son of Man and the progression of his ministry. As the kingdom of light broke into the world, the kingdom of darkness, which has sway over the world, ramped up its assaults.

Pretty much this. ^

Another line of thought hinges on one's interpretation of Satan being cast down in Revelation. We normally take that as referring to the primordial fall of Satan and his angels. The problem, though, is that the text clearly links it to the birth of Christ. If that reading obtains, and I am undecided at the moment, that could explain the upswing in demonic activity.

 

[py3ak]

The redemptive-historical answer commends itself to me in several ways. At the same time, there may be another element operative as well.

Given Christ's interaction with Nicodemus, as well as the widespread rejection of and hostility to his message, I think it's largely fair to describe the church in his day as having the form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Is that not a condition is highly likely to lead to demonic possession? Since Satan and his messengers disguise themselves in righteousness and light, one effect of their activity is the externals of godliness without the substance. And in that condition, without the power, there's little effectual resistance to demonic activity. People whose religion is earthly and carnal (in its appropriation, even though not in its origin), essentially seek power for living that isn't God's. Who will volunteer to fill up that void?

 

[Pergamum]

Everybody musters their best players for the Big Game, after all.

 

[chuckd]

How could so many among the covenant people of God be possessed by demons? How did that possession occur? I could understand how it might occur in a pagan worship context where such demonic communion is sought out, but not necessarily in the visible church of that time.

I've had questions about what demon possession was for quite some time. Was it simply an unsuspecting person going about their day when, all of a sudden, an evil spirit took over their body and they had no control?

I think it was more along the lines of Judas or Ananias where it records that Satan entered them, but at the same time they were fully responsible for their actions (Acts 5:1-4, Luke 22:3-6). Meaning they were tempted to sin and, without any resistance, that temptation snow balled until it was as if they were Satan himself doing the sin.

Covenant people are susceptible to possession because they do not watch and pray. Calvin on Luke 22:3:
Let us therefore learn to repent early, lest our long-continued harshness should confirm the reign of Satan within us; for as soon as we have been abandoned to this tyranny, his rage will have no bounds.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've had questions about what demon possession was for quite some time. Was it simply an unsuspecting person going about their day when, all of a sudden, an evil spirit took over their body and they had no control?

I think it was more along the lines of Judas or Ananias where it records that Satan entered them, but at the same time they were fully responsible for their actions (Acts 5:1-4, Luke 22:3-6). Meaning they were tempted to sin and, without any resistance, that temptation snow balled until it was as if they were Satan himself doing the sin.

Covenant people are susceptible to possession because they do not watch and pray. Calvin on Luke 22:3:
Let us therefore learn to repent early, lest our long-continued harshness should confirm the reign of Satan within us; for as soon as we have been abandoned to this tyranny, his rage will have no bounds.

The word itself isn't "possession," but "demonized." That suggests more of a spectrum. Not ever case is Emily Rose. I don't believe a born again Christian can be "possessed," but I do believe a Christian can open doorways and give unclean spirits a place, or topos.

 

[chuckd]

The word itself isn't "possession," but "demonized." That suggests more of a spectrum. Not ever case is Emily Rose. I don't believe a born again Christian can be "possessed," but I do believe a Christian can open doorways and give unclean spirits a place, or topos.

Even more confusing is "demon" is not a translation, but transliteration. We don't even have a word in English to describe what these entities were. I know some believe they were the spirits of the dead Nephilim who were apparently angel/human hybrids from Gen. 6. I think Jews at the time may have believed this along with the Eastern Orthodox today.

 

[RamistThomist]

Even more confusing is "demon" is not a translation, but transliteration. We don't even have a word in English to describe what these entities were. I know some believe they were the spirits of the dead Nephilim who were apparently angel/human hybrids from Gen. 6. I think Jews at the time may have believed this along with the Eastern Orthodox today.

So here is where it gets interesting. If all demons = fallen angels, and fallen angels are locked in prison (Jude 6), then it's hard to explain exactly what the demons are doing in the NT and how they got out. The Nephilim link might be a bit far fetched, but it doesn't run into the above contradiction. I see Eph. 6 as a good starting point. It mentions dark entities yet never once calls them demons. I see demons as earth-bound unclean spirits.

Moreover, if these higher dark entities are in the aerial planes, as Eph. 6 seems to say, then that makes sense of how ha-shatan was able to appear before God. It might also explain the lying spirit sent to Ahab (though the Bible never says it is a bad guy).

 

[RamistThomist]

It can get even more interesting when you start reading up on the origin of the term Rephaim and Shedim (the latter being territorial rulers of the underworld).

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The redemptive-historical answer commends itself to me in several ways. At the same time, there may be another element operative as well.

Given Christ's interaction with Nicodemus, as well as the widespread rejection of and hostility to his message, I think it's largely fair to describe the church in his day as having the form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Is that not a condition is highly likely to lead to demonic possession? Since Satan and his messengers disguise themselves in righteousness and light, one effect of their activity is the externals of godliness without the substance. And in that condition, without the power, there's little effectual resistance to demonic activity. People whose religion is earthly and carnal (in its appropriation, even though not in its origin), essentially seek power for living that isn't God's. Who will volunteer to fill up that void?

That is an interesting angle. And certainly the parable of casting out demons but them returning with 7 more to the unfilled house may support that vulnerablity of outward religion.

The only problem with the redemptive historical argument I find so far is that even before Jesus emerges into his public ministry, the people are familiar with demon possessions and there are already practicing exorcists among the religious leaders (Matt 12:27). That would seem to indicate that this phenomena had been going on for a while. What amazes the people is the authority Jesus displayed in removing the demons immediately (and perhaps that the religious leaders were sometimes unsuccessful?). Even if Rev 12 and the casting down of Satan could explain the sudden burst in demonic activity, it seems that this burst had been going on longer than just before the birth of Christ.

I guess, redemptive historically speaking, how would the people have realized what demonic possession actually was without much precedent in the OT to explain it? Is thirty years (between Christ's birth and public ministry) enough time for the Jewish culture back then to develop such a well-informed view of demonic activity and learn how to cast them out?

 

[RamistThomist]

That is an interesting angle. And certainly the parable of casting out demons but them returning with 7 more to the unfilled house may support that vulnerablity of outward religion.

The only problem with the redemptive historical argument I find so far is that even before Jesus emerges into his public ministry, the people are familiar with demon possessions and there are already practicing exorcists among the religious leaders (Matt 12:27). That would seem to indicate that this phenomena had been going on for a while. What amazes the people is the authority Jesus displayed in removing the demons immediately (and perhaps that the religious leaders were sometimes unsuccessful?). Even if Rev 12 and the casting down of Satan could explain the sudden burst in demonic activity, it seems that this burst had been going on longer than just before the birth of Christ.

I guess, redemptive historically speaking, how would the people have realized what demonic possession actually was without much precedent in the OT to explain it? Is thirty years (between Christ's birth and public ministry) enough time for the Jewish culture back then to develop such a well-informed view of demonic activity and learn how to cast them out?

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Transcript-87-Exorcism.pdf

 

[Andrew35]

Pretty much this. ^

Another line of thought hinges on one's interpretation of Satan being cast down in Revelation. We normally take that as referring to the primordial fall of Satan and his angels. The problem, though, is that the text clearly links it to the birth of Christ. If that reading obtains, and I am undecided at the moment, that could explain the upswing in demonic activity.

Was waiting to see your input (as I know this is an area that interests you), then realized you changed your name.

Sneaky...

 

[RamistThomist]

Was waiting to see your input (as I know this is an area that interests you), then realized you changed your name.

Sneaky...

I actually wondered about that when I did it. I thought I would get a lot of views on my first post because people would wonder, "Is this a new guy?"

 

[hLuke]

Having been demonically possessed and healed myself, I can say that demonic possession comes from a life of filth and disobedience, with dabbling in the occult; but according to God's sovereign will of election he overpowers the kingdom of hell and restores his children to himself, from Satan to the Kingdom of God and Light in Christ.

 

[hLuke]

A possible answer is that the increase in demon activity directly correlates with coming of the Son of Man and the progression of his ministry. As the kingdom of light broke into the world, the kingdom of darkness, which has sway over the world, ramped up its assaults.

This. The Satan trembled at the coming of God incarnate.

 

[Pergamum]

Having been demonically possessed and healed myself, I can say that demonic possession comes from a life of filth and disobedience, with dabbling in the occult; but according to God's sovereign will of election he overpowers the kingdom of hell and restores his children to himself, from Satan to the Kingdom of God and Light in Christ.

Can you tell us more about this?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Transcript-87-Exorcism.pdf

Thanks Jacob.

For those who haven't read this, here's a summary:
Heiser basically argues that the reason the Jewish people became familiar with demon possession and had expectations that the Messiah would deal with it, is because of the influence of extrabiblical Jewish literature (primarily extra songs of David dealing with demon possession) and because of some more translations used in the Greek LXX translating various Hebrew phrases in ways similar to demonic names used in broader ancient near eastern culture.

That certainly is a plausible argument to answer that piece of the puzzle.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The only problem with the redemptive historical argument I find so far is that even before Jesus emerges into his public ministry, the people are familiar with demon possessions and there are already practicing exorcists among the religious leaders (Matt 12:27). That would seem to indicate that this phenomena had been going on for a while. What amazes the people is the authority Jesus displayed in removing the demons immediately (and perhaps that the religious leaders were sometimes unsuccessful?). Even if Rev 12 and the casting down of Satan could explain the sudden burst in demonic activity, it seems that this burst had been going on longer than just before the birth of Christ.

Look how familiarized we all are now to a very altered way of life and thinking after two short years. I would think that 20+ years of this kind of thing going on would have seemed like ages to the people, as if it had always been; and the Jewish leaders would have already spent decades trying to get a handle on it. (Plus, it would likely have been mixed with superstitious, extra-biblical ideas floating around.)

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks Jacob.

For those who haven't read this, here's a summary:
Heiser basically argues that the reason the Jewish people became familiar with demon possession and had expectations that the Messiah would deal with it, is because of the influence of extrabiblical Jewish literature (primarily extra songs of David dealing with demon possession) and because of some more translations used in the Greek LXX translating various Hebrew phrases in ways similar to demonic names used in broader ancient near eastern culture.

That certainly is a plausible argument to answer that piece of the puzzle.

Although it is quite dated, CK Barrett has a background handbook to the New Testament. It includes Jewish amulets to ward off demons (which, by the way, is still an industry in Israel). That's why the crowds were amazed: Jesus didn't cast any magic spells.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks for that piece by Heiser, Jacob – very interesting. Though I will stick with the Scripture, and with the Masoretic OT. I would say that the Jews were familiar with the existence of the Devil, the fallen angel and enemy of God and of humankind. And also with the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15. The records of Job, 1 Samuel, Zech 3, all were common knowledge among the Jews, at least those who knew the Scriptures. Those who didn't were those more likely to engage in superstitions.

As noted above, when God manifest in the flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, came on the human scene, His very presence exposed and caused to manifest the presence of the one who mostly operated in stealth, Satan and his hordes. Mark 9:17–29 (the famous passage where the father of one possessed says, "Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief") shows that it was commonly known then, but the people were powerless against it. See also the Greek / Syrophenician woman with a possessed child in Mark 7:25 ff. Jesus was much sought after as there were many possessed – due to sin, idol worship, sorcery (there were sorcerous drugs in those days, which facilitated demonic entrance, which the pagan nations used [see Isa 47:9, 12], and no doubt king Manasseh brought such into Israel, 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chron 33:6).

Gen 3:1 ff, and especially Gen 3:15, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Job 1:6 ff, and Job 2:1 ff.

1 Sam 16:14-23, an evil spirit sent by the LORD in judgment to trouble Saul, which David's music expelled – a classic case of exorcism – which didn't "stick", as Saul had an evil heart which gave further entrance to the spirit.

Zech 3:1,2 : And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

See also Heb 2:14, 15 – it had to be common knowledge in ancient Israel that death entered into the world through sin, and that at the tempting of the devil in serpent guise. And part of their fear of death was it was through the Devil's attack of Adam it befell them to die.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks for that piece by Heiser, Jacob – very interesting. Though I will stick with the Scripture, and with the Masoretic OT. I would say that the Jews were familiar with the existence of the Devil, the fallen angel and enemy of God and of humankind. And also with the protoevangelium of Gen 3:15. The records of Job, 1 Samuel, Zech 3, all were common knowledge among the Jews, at least those who knew the Scriptures. Those who didn't were those more likely to engage in superstitions.

I don't think Heiser was saying the Jews didn't know those texts. What he is saying, and what the documentary record shows, is that the Jews were also familiar with other texts. In any any case, the Jews expected Messiah to be an exorcist among other things, yet we really don't see the above texts speaking of exorcism.