It seems that demons are everywhere at the time of Jesus and his apostles. But who sees them today? Was there something unique about that time or are we presently blind to it?

Source: De Reformatie, 1983. 12 pages. Translated by Wim Kanis.

The Casting Out of Demons

The accounts in the gospels about the exorcising of demons are impressive. The bystanders were astonished and bewildered, in particular by the fact that Jesus gave brief commands to them, which they had no choice but to obey. Who is this Jesus anyway?

Bible readers of the twentieth century experience a greater difficulty in trying to get on the same page as the gospels. When reading these accounts about exorcism, many today are faced with a very different question: who are these demons anyway? While the bystanders accept the demons as a given reality, they look up to Jesus. Many Christians in the twentieth century, on the other hand, people who have accepted Jesus as Lord, are surprised by these demons in the gospels.

Why this difference? Is there a fundamental distinction between the time of the New Testament and the world in which we ourselves are living? Bultmann has characterized the entire New Testament as a book written in a mythological way, which we need to approach in a de-mythologizing manner. Not in the least would this apply to the belief in demons. In a worldview where heaven and hell have a place along with angels and devils, it is obvious to express faith in the form of stories where angels and demons appear. But our worldview, as it is functioning in Western science and as it is being experienced in Western culture, is narrower and governed by natural laws or chance. In this view there would be no room for demons, such that modern man will need to express his faith in God’s restorative power in other ways.

Is it indeed true that demons in the New Testament, among other phenomena, point us to a hermeneutical need to demythologize the gospel? We are convinced that this solution needs to be challenged.1 The demons were not explanatory models in a worldview for people in New Testament times, just as natural laws can function for us. Demons were regarded as non-time-bound realities and they were also experienced as such at the occasions when they were driven out, screaming loudly and struggling violently. The demons are not part of a particular worldview, but they are part of the experiential world. Anyone who sees demons at work in a person will be able to include this reality in the shaping of a worldview, but will not derive this experience from a preconceived perspective. There is no way to escape it: demons were experienced as a reality. Do they no longer exist, or do we only see them less clearly?

Because of what has been stated so far, we are also unable to get anywhere with the notion that these accounts were meant to be suggestive, or used as projections. The exorcisms of demons actually took place in public, with little reason to think of the influence of suggestion on a somewhat sensitive mind. The accompanying phenomena such as the loud screaming and convulsions also prevent us from believing that a certain animistic view of things was being projected at the time into phenomena that we, from a different perspective, would regard as “normal recovery process” and the like. Neither do the psychological or religious-historical approaches offer us any particular help here.2

There is every reason not to use the difference between the accounts of exorcism and our own experience to silence those accounts. On the contrary, we will have to read these carefully in the willingness to let the text speak to us without allowing our short-sightedness to dominate our approach. In doing so, we know very well that the Bible is not given to teach us a certain demonology. However, one cannot seriously read the accounts about the casting out of demons when one is not prepared to consider the presuppositions that are inextricably linked to such events. It is about Jesus and not about the demons, but anyone who wants to forget about such demons in the twentieth century can hardly come to the point of amazement and wonder: “Who is this? He even gives orders to unclean spirits and they obey him!”

An Exploration of the Terms being Used🔗

In reading the accounts of demons being cast out it is important to take a careful look at the terms and designations that are used. Indeed, there is a serious danger that our reading will terminologically end up on the wrong track right from the start. For example, one can easily speak of the healing of “a person who is possessed”. In the term “possessed” however, a certain — albeit still vague — image already comes to mind. Being “possessed” is interpreted as a particular mental depiction, distinguished from other clinical or pathological symptoms. The interpretation then still gives rise to a discussion about what is taking place, but the framework is already fixed. It is better to avoid a term such as “possession” for the time being and to consider later whether it functions as a suitable summary indication for the subject that is discussed in the exorcism of demons.

In the New Testament, the word daimon is used several times. According to the text of Nestle-26 only once (Matt. 8:31), but in the majority of manuscripts we also find it in two other places (Mark 5:12; Luke 8:29) and it is also possible to read this word in one of the following places: Revelation 16:14 and 18:2. It is not surprising that this word was sometimes supplanted in the text-tradition by the word daimonion. Although this term initially means “something demon-like”, in the New Testament it has the same value as daimon, i.e., “demon”. Both terms are used interchangeably, where daimonion occurs more frequently.3 Daimon in Greek was primarily a vox media: it could have either a favourable or an unfavourable meaning. In the New Testament it is always unfavourable. Demons are the idols served in pagan temples who are opposite to the true God (1 Cor. 10:20). They believe that God is one, yet they tremble before him (James 2:19).

These demons can also be referred to as pneuma akatharton (unclean spirit) or pneuma ponēron (evil spirit). In this case, an adjective is needed because pneuma is in fact a vox media in the New Testament: both good and evil angels can be referred to as pneumata (spirits; compare Heb. 1:14 with Rev. 16:14 “ministering spirits” versus “demonic spirits”). In a few cases an “unclean” or “evil” spirit can be referred to as pneuma without further specification, but then it is perfectly clear from the context as to what kind of spirit is meant (Matt. 8:16 after 8:15; Mark 9:20 after 9:17; Luke 9:39 contains a description of the behaviour of this spirit; 10:20 after 10:17).

Occasionally, the spirit’s wickedness is further specified. Thus we read of a pneuma alalon (a mute spirit Mark 9:17), referred to also as “an unclean spirit” (Mark 9:25) and is addressed as pneuma alalon kai kōphon (a mute and deaf spirit Mark 9:25;see Matt. 9:33 daimonizomenon kōphon: deafness caused by a demon). In Luke 11:14 there is mention of a daimonion who was mute. We also read of a pneuma astheneias (a disabling spirit; Luke 13:11;see Luke 8:2 “evil and weak spirits”): referred to a little later as a binding by Satan consisting of a disability (Luke 13:16;see 13:12). Finally, we read of a pneuma Pythōnos (a spirit of divination, Acts 16:16).

Twice we encounter a combination of pneuma and daimonion (or daimon). Revelation 16:14 speaks about “spirits of demons” and Luke 4:33 about a “spirit of an unclean demon”. A little later, however, Luke simply calls this spirit an “unclean demon” (Luke 4:35). We find confirmed here that the unclean/evil spirit is the same as the “demon”. We could therefore render Luke 4.33 as follows: “A spirit, namely an unclean demon”. Did Luke, when for the first time he signals the occurrence of the unclean spirits in his Gospel, perhaps want to make it extra clear to his Greek readers that he is speaking of the “demons” in a negative sense when they are mentioned?

The person who is occupied by demons or unclean spirits is called daimonizomenos (one who is controlled by a demon) or daimonistheis (one who is ruled by a demon). The term is used alternately (see Matt. 8:28, 33; Mark 5:15-16 with Mark 5:18; Luke 8:36). Other expressions are: “having an unclean spirit” (e.g., Mark 3:20; Luke 4:33; Acts 8:7; 19:13) or “being tormented by unclean spirits” (Luke 6:18; Acts 5:16). These descriptions are necessary because the term pneuma does not lend itself to a verb form, as opposed to daimon.

The distinction between man (as a person) and demon (as spirit) is evident in the act of casting out (ekballein) and its consequence: coming out (exelthein; ekporeuesthai). Those who were tormented by demons are “healed” (iasthai; therapeuesthai) or “released/loosed” (luthēnai Luke 13:12;see Mark 7:35) from their disorder.

From this exploration of the terms that are used, it may be evident that demons have their own identity, and that as unclean spirits they can torment or control a person. They are spirits that are in communication with the satan and thus take sides against God. However, it is difficult to infer much more from these terms. This is especially evident when specifications occur (deaf spirit, spirit of weakness, spirit of divination and the like) and it is also evident from the fact that there are differences in strength among the demons. Of one unclean spirit it is said that it can take along seven others who are “more evil than itself” (Matt. 12:45).

The Unique Character of Jesus’ Actions Against Demons🔗

It is notable that one group of words is missing when Jesus’ action against demons is described. That is the group of words that designate the act of adjuring (exorkizein) or exorcizing (exorkismos). Is this because the Palestinian Jews in Jesus’ day did not know the performance of miracles and exorcism, as Schlatter has argued over against Fiebig? Vander- Loos denies this, among other things, by referring to Luke 11:19, where Jesus refers to the sons of the Jews (“your followers”) who also cast out evil spirits.4

One could also point to Acts 19:13 where we read of itinerant Jewish driving out evil spirits. It is the only instance in the New Testament that the word exorkistōn is used! Why is Jesus not called an exorcist and why are his actions against demons not described as an act of adjuring? The answer is found in Matt. 8:16: “He drove out evil spirits with his word”. The striking thing is that Jesus does not drive out demons by acts of exorcism or by conjuring formulas. Such formulas contain an appeal to higher powers. In the case of Jewish conjurers, it is an appeal to the LORD, the God of Israel. Jesus, however, speaks from his own strength. He commands the demons and they obey him without question (Mark 1:27); this is especially what amazes the crowds. Even though they were familiar with the phenomenon of exorcism, they did not know the power of someone who expels demons by his own strength. This is also where the slander came in: while the people are wondering in whose name Jesus did his miracles, the opposing leaders suggest that he is covertly doing these things in the name of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. In contrast, Jesus notes that their own followers know better: demons can only be cast out in the name of Israel’s God.5 This experience should teach them that Jesus’ unique power lies precisely in his oneness with his Father (Luke 11:18-22)! He does not abjure the demon with an appeal to the LORD, but he commands as the LORD. The apostles can therefore cast out demons in Jesus’ name (Luke 10:17; Acts 19:13). In a certain sense, the apostles can be said to exorcise demons: in the early church the verb group centering on this verb is also used for exorcism. That such incantations in Jesus’ name were effective proves that Jesus is the Lord, who as God is too strong for the demons. The following quote from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with the Jew Trypho (± middle of the 2nd century AD) serves as an illustration of this for more than one reason:

“For every demon, when exorcised in the name of this very Son of God — who is the First-born of every creature, who became man by the Virgin, who suffered, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, who died, who rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven — is overcome and subdued. But though you exorcise any demon in the name of any of those who were amongst you — either kings, or righteous men, or prophets, or patriarchs — it will not be subject to you. But if any of you exorcise it in [the name of] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, it will perhaps be subject to you. Now assuredly your exorcists, I have said, make use of craft when they exorcise, even as the Gentiles do, and employ fumigations and incantations.” (Dialogue 85.2-3; cf. 76.6; Roberts/Donaldson).

The Specific Perspective of Some Elaborated Accounts🔗

The Gospels contain four accounts of demons having been cast out that are more broadly elaborated. It goes without saying that these narratives are strongly defining for people living in a later era. These are the following episodes:

  1. The driving out of a demon who cries out against Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum.
  2. The driving out of a legion of demons in the region of the Gadarenes.
  3. The driving out of an impure spirit from the young daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman.
  4. The healing of the “lunatic” [KJV] boy following the transfiguration on the mountain.

These acts of casting out demons, however, are not told to give us a complete picture of how the demons operate. The first account emerges because here is an aggressive, unclean spirit who wants to undermine Jesus’ authority: people do not present him for healing, but he himself goes on the attack. However, Jesus turns the resistance into a victory.

The second account concerns a pagan region and results in a sensational event: many pigs drowning in the lake! Also, the dangerous mountain man becomes a preacher in the cities. This man also did not come to be healed, but was helped by Jesus on his own initiative.

The third story concerns a foreign woman: the crux of the event is that Christ gives the bread that belongs to the children also to the Gentiles. The exorcism itself is, in a sense, only an incidental matter.

The fourth account is well remembered because in this case the disciples could not cast out the evil spirit, and Jesus does it sovereignly after his return from the mountain. This was a difficult and intractable case.

If we were now to take these four stories as a starting point for a description of the demonic activity, we would get a skewed picture. The impression would then be created that someone who has a demon is acting aggressively, may be showing signs of epilepsy and in our terminology would be described as being “mentally ill”. However, we should turn the picture around: it is precisely because of this type of unclean spirits that it is obvious that their being cast out can become a story in itself. In the whole of the exorcism of demons, however, these types are not representative of the rest. This may become evident from the following:

  1. The woman with a fortune-telling spirit in Philippi is not aggressive or anti-social. She brings in a lot of money for her masters. One would not considered her as a patient in need of healing, rather as a person with a distinct giftedness.
  2. The woman who has had a disabling spirit for 18 years, bent over and unable to straighten herself, does not fit the picture of being “demon-possessed”.
  3. The presence of a demon may also show up in people being deaf or mute.
  4. People have put Jesus in a bad light by suggesting that he had a demon (John 8:48-49) or an unclean spirit (Mark 3:30) and that he cast out demons through Beelzebul (Matt. 12:24). Yet there was nothing in Jesus’ appearance that made him comparable to, for example, the demon-possessed man in Gadara or the epileptic boy. Also, the people do not doubt the slander because Jesus displays a normal human image, but because one cannot expect good things from a demon, such as opening the eyes of a blind man (John 10:21). Thus, a “normal” person such as Jesus could still become the object of the derogative talk that attributes an unclean spirit to him. This demon would then manifest itself in the performance of deceptive signs, making Jesus a heretic (a Samaritan, John 8:48) in the service of the devil.

We could now define the demons’ activity more broadly: demons target their evil against man in the service of God’s adversary, and they can do this by using people as tools against God (apostates) or by tormenting people and with them their surroundings. We want to examine the latter in more detail by examining the relationship between sickness and unclean spirits.

Sickness and Demons🔗

For many Bible readers, there is probably a great gulf between the healing of the sick and the casting out of devils. For modern man the knowledge of medicine and exorcism are two distinct fields with no identifiable common ground. There is a real danger that, from this point of view, we also read these too much in the New Testament as separate identities, while it is actually closely related and sometimes even difficult to distinguish.

We cannot say that the healing of diseases and the casting out of demons are in fact coincidental in the New Testament. They are sometimes clearly and distinctly mentioned next to each other. In Mark 16:17-18, where the Lord lists the signs that will accompany the believers, he mentions first the “casting out of demons” and only at the end of the list the “healing of the sick by the laying on of hands”: these two activities do not coincide. This also applies to the work of Philip in Samaria. Unclean spirits went out of many who had them, with loud cries (Acts 8:7), and many paralyzed and lame people were healed: these paralyzed and lame people are not identical with those who had unclean spirits. Clearly there is a distinction between healing the sick and casting out unclean spirits.

Yet this does not mean that these two matters are unrelated. We often find them very closely connected, as if they were parts of one and the same package. In fact, the two do sometimes coincide.

In Matthew 4:23 we find as a general characterization of Jesus’ actions, that he “healed every disease and every affliction among the people”. In the more elaborate designation in the next verse we find under this heading of “disease and affliction” in addition to those who were “the sick, those afflicted with all kinds of various diseases and pains,” also mentioned those who were “oppressed by demons, those having seizures, and paralytics”.6 The people who are oppressed by a demon are seen in Matt 4:24 as a category of those who are healed from “diseases and afflictions” (4:23).

Next to the people oppressed by a demon in this verse are those who experience seizures (KJV: lunatics). Matthew used this designation only in 17:15 (incidentally, the designation does not occur in the NT). In Matthew 17, however, it appears that the epileptic boy is also considered to be the victim of a demon, who is cast out (Matt. 17:18-19). This teaches us that we cannot limit the action of demons to people who are specially designated as daimonizomenoi. This designation must refer to a category of people who are controlled by a demon in a special or total way.

Besides the oppressed and the epileptics, Matthew 4:24 also mentions the paralytics. We do read in Matthew 8:6 about a paralytic in a way that reminds us of the work of a demon. The servant lies paralyzed, “cast down” (beblētai): this is not about a servant who has been paralyzed for years already and is therefore bedridden, but about a man who has been hit by a sudden paralysis. The centurion also assumes that a force is at work here that needs to be adjured by a command to leave the servant: Jesus only has to speak the word and the servant will be healed; the centurion knows how this works, because he himself also has authority over soldiers and says to one person “Go!” and to another “Come!” (Matt. 8:8-9). Although the word “demon” does not appear, this paralysis also appears to have to do with a demon or an evil spirit. Once again it appears that the previously mentioned term diamonizomenoi indicates a special category and does not include all those who are tormented by a demon, such as the epileptics and the paralytics. However, it is true also of these particularly afflicted people that their deliverance is under the header of the healing from “diseases and afflictions”.

A close connection between the healing of the sick and the casting out of demons also appears in Matt. 8:16-17. There we first read the following: “That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.” And then Matthew summarizes all of this with a reference to the prophecy that promised that the Messiah would take on our illnesses: “This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took our illnesses and bore our diseases.’”

With this quote of the fulfillment of prophecy it is as if extra attention is given to the casting out of spirits and the healing of those who had serious diseases. A close connection, if not an identical occurrence, is also found in those texts where a demon-possessed person is simultaneously referred to by an ailment we would call “disease” or “illness”: a demon-possessed man who was deaf and mute (Matt. 9:32), and one who was blind and mute (Matt. 12:22).

Luke 4:40-41; 7:21; Acts 5:16; 19:12 can also be cited as places where healing and exorcism are mentioned in the same breath.

Finally, we point to a text in which the healing of the sick coincides with helping people who are afflicted by unclean spirits: Luke 6:18. There we read that a great multitude came to Jesus on the mountain “to hear him and to be healed of their diseases”. Next Luke writes, “And those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured”. This can hardly be intended as a restrictive phrase, as if only those who were tormented by unclean spirits were helped. It must mean that all the sick are referred to here as being tormented by unclean spirits. This does not mean that all the sick are also oppressed or possessed. Luke does not use the special term daimonizomenos (possessed by a demon). Here he uses a verb that merely expresses that the burdens from which they are suffering are the work of demons. There is a difference between one who is hindered or afflicted by an unclean spirit and one who is possessed by an unclean spirit.7 Not every afflicted person is like a captured fortress! However, the wording in Luke 6:18 does show us why healing and exorcism of demons are so closely connected to each other: the activities of the unclean spirits are encapsulated in both cases, even though there is a difference between the removal of diseases and the deliverance of those who are possessed completely, while in the latter case there is again a difference between the pure demoniac and the demoniac that manifests itself in epilepsy (seizures), paralysis, deafness or the like. The healing of diseases and the exorcism of demons are distinguishable entities, even as they appear to be inseparable.

An Organic, i.e., an Interdependent Relationship🔗

That there is a certain organic connection between the healing of diseases and the exorcism of demons is finally shown when the Saviour also grants his own power to his apostles.

We read in Matthew 10:1 how the twelve receive the authority to “heal every disease and every affliction”. We already encountered this stereotypical phrase as a general characterization of Jesus’ actions in Matthew 4:23, and repeated in 9:35. Now it appeared in the elaboration that Jesus’ healing of every disease and affliction also included the healing of those who were oppressed (or possessed). When these abilities are transferred to the apostles, it becomes clearer how they are related. Jesus calls them to himself. “And he gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction” (Matt. 10:1). The original Greek shows even more strongly than the translation that both the casting out of spirits as well as the healing of all sickness and affliction is a fruit of the power over these unclean spirits. Why will the apostles be able to heal? Because they are given authority over the spirits: their actions can be undone and their presence can be removed. In this context we can also understand that the seventy men, when they were sent out, were given the task of “healing the sick” (Luke 10:9) and then later returned exclaiming that the demons also submitted to them in Jesus’ name (Luke 10:17): the one is not without the other!

The extent to which the whole of Jesus’ healing work (including the casting out of indwelling demons) is to be seen as an expression of power over the unclean spirits is clear from Acts 10:38. Peter summarizes Jesus’ actions to Cornelius as follows: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; he went about doing good and healing all those who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him”. The verb that is used in Greek for “oppressed by the devil” (katadynasteuein), is also found in James 2:6 where it is used for the rich who oppress the poor. The translation “oppressed” might one-sidedly make one think of those who were conquered by a demon, but the verb used is broader and makes one think of all those who are harassed and tormented, overpowered by the devil.8 All the sick and truly possessed, epileptic and paralytics, are here collectively referred to as those who were disturbed and plagued by the devil. Since Jesus has power over the devil, he is able to heal all people. This implies therefore that the devil has to do with every sickness and affliction and not only with the oppressed reality of those in whom a demon has taken up its residence.

Having looked into various instances regarding healing and driving out demons, we conclude that the reading of the New Testament requires us not to separate these two aspects as qualitatively distinct entities. The premise of the New Testament texts is that the physical and mental impairment done to man and the world is connected to the power of the devil.9 We have to deal with this in diseases, paralysis, epilepsy, deafness, and demonic manifestations: even a fever can be rebuked (Luke 4:39) and the same holds true for the winds and the sea that threatened life during a fierce storm (Matt. 8:26). The fact that we do not encounter here an independent force against God is shown precisely by the fact that God’s son causes Beelzebul and his unclean spirits to lose their hold on people. The devil may say and claim that all the kingdoms of the earth have been handed over to him (Luke 4:6), yet he has a much-too-high opinion about himself (as soon becomes clear) when he says that he will give that authority to whomever he wants (Luke 4:6). The reverse is shown to be true: God’s Son takes that power away from him and gives it to whomever HE wants (Luke 10:19-20). Jesus is the stronger one who takes away the devil’s armour (Luke 11:22) and divides his spoils. All authority in heaven and on earth is given to him! (Matt. 28:18).

It is not the distinction between illnesses and demon-possession, between natural and supernatural influences, that dominates in the New Testament, but the contrast between God in heaven and his great adversary the devil. The weapons that the latter is temporarily allowed to use vary from all kinds of diseases and afflictions to the total control of a person by a raging and heretical demon.

Demons Being Exposed🔗

It seems that demons are everywhere at the time of Jesus and his apostles. But who sees them today? Was there something unique about that time or are we presently blind to it?

We can note in the first place that the coming of Jesus, who has authority over unclean spirits and also grants it to others, greatly contributes to the fact that the enemy now has to come out of his hiding places. Apparently, Jews and Greeks were even better aware than we are that demons live in hiding places and from there are exerting their influence in this world10 — similar to how Africans in the 20th century know it a lot better than Europeans.

Secondly, we note that Jesus did not give his apostles authority over unclean spirits so that diseases and demons would disappear entirely. These are signs that are performed in support of the gospel (Mark 16:17, 20). In the time when an apostle must have his greatest joy in the fact that his name is written in heaven (Luke 10:20), healing and casting out demons are never the ultimate goal. One day God will completely drive away the devil: the signs already make that clear. In the meantime, Luke remains in function as “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14) next to the apostle who has received this authority: this does not make him into an ex-doctor! And Trophimus, who was ill, remained in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). Paul himself had to deal with “a messenger of Satan” who harassed him with a thorn in the flesh; even in spite of repeated prayers the Lord would not deliver him from it: Christ’s power had to become evident in Paul’s weakness (2 Cor. 12:7-9). Ultimately, grace is sufficient for Paul as well. Signs for the progress of the gospel do not necessarily become part of the regular life. They test and strengthen the faith that now experiences the afflictions by Satan as the last convulsions of the enemy.

In the third place we do need to recognize that the biblical teaching on devils and demons puts our modern approach in medicine and psychiatry in perspective. Apparently we cannot do more than the many things that we are able to do because we know too little of the underlying causes. There is no shame in being grateful for what man is capable to do anyway, provided we do not become proud of our accomplishments. People who are able to mow the weeds in the world should not imagine that they could also eradicate them.

Fourthly, it is necessary to warn against the use that some charismatic movements make of the texts relating to demons, labeling a selected number of symptoms of illness as “being possessed”, which would then need to be cured through exorcism and not by psychiatry.11
In this approach, a modern approach (“diagnosing pathologies”) is selectively applied to data from the New Testament. Those who believe they can and should exorcise devils must therefore also have power over every disease and ailment, and they should not specialize.

In the fifth place, it is also necessary to warn against the idea that the church today would no longer be able to receive the gifts of healing (including exorcism), as was the case for example in Corinth (1 Cor. 12:28-30) and in the hands of the elders of James’ day (James 5:14-15). Particularly in the situation of expansion of the gospel message, we can be open to the possible extension of these gifts as signs. And, in any case, it would be wrong to give the impression to the non-believers that the serum of Western medical science would be a substitute for the exorcisms of the apostolic church.

Finally, it should be noted that healings and exorcisms need not necessarily be repeated in every generation in order to retain their unique character as signs. The accounts of these miracles stand before us like erected cairns and reminders so that we would not forget. For the functioning of these signs from the period of the earthly work of Jesus and his apostles and from the period of later church and missionary history, the re-telling and the preaching are essential. Martyrologies and legends about the saints have (in addition to much error-filled proliferation) traditionally preserved signs from the past. The disappearance of these signs after the great Reformation is to be accepted, provided that the preaching about the biblical “miracle-accounts” is then not done in a cold and indifferent fashion. It is to be feared that sometimes this does occur. Reflecting on the connection between miracles of healing and authority over demons can provide new impetus to this preaching.

Endnotes🔗

  1. ^ See L. Goppelt, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Göttingen 1975, 189-195 (Zur historischen Analyse der Wundererzählungen).
  2. ^ See D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology. Leicester 1981, 125-130.
  3. ^ Lexicographically the situation is similar to that at Josephus (see Thw II 10).
  4. ^ H. vanderLoos, The Miracles of Jesus (Suppi. to Novum Testamentum VIII). Leiden 1965, 137-150. VanderLoos also points to Matt. 12:10 (it is not the healing of the sick that causes surprise, but the healing on the Sabbath), John 9:31, and the fact that Jesus’ acts of healings are not included in the accusations by the Sanhedrin.
  5. ^ Josephus (Antiquities 8:45-49) relates that among the Jews the technique taught by Solomon for healing and driving out demons is still practiced: “God enabled him (Solomon) to learn that skill (technè) which expels demons...by which distempers are alleviated” (8:45) and “this method of cure is of great force unto this day” (8:46). After this, Josephus gives the story of Eleazar who, in the presence of Vespasian and others, drove demons out of people by holding a ring containing a root of a plant recommended by Solomon under the nose of the demoniac, and so removed the demon through the nostrils, after which he abjured him to return in him no more, using the oath of Solomon and while reciting Solomon’s formulations. Thus Eleazar demonstrates God’s great favour upon Solomon.
  6. ^ The ESV translation seems to make it possible to recognize these three groups as an interpretation of the first group, so that the diseases and afflictions are then further described as oppression, seizures and paralysis. This is based on a Greek text from some manuscripts that lacks the connecting word “and” (kai). In the latest edition of Nestle (26th edition), however, this word is inserted again in accordance with the vast majority of manuscripts. This obliges us to translate: “... afflicted with various diseases and pains, and those oppressed, epileptics, etc”.
  7. ^ J. Smit, De daemoniacis in historia evangelica. An exegetical-apologetical dissertation. Rome 1913, 56). He distinguishes the circumsessio (the demon oppresses the person, as it were, from the outside and fires his projectiles at him) and the possessio (the demon has conquered the person and lives inside the captured fortress).
  8. ^ Note also the base word “dynasty” in this Greek term kataynateuomenous: the demon exercised dominion over his victim.
  9. ^ Cf. H. N. Ridderbos, De komst van het koninkrijk — Jezus’ prediking volgens de synoptische evangeliën. Kampen 1950, 71-76. C. C. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Chicago 1959, 63-64.
  10. ^ See the article Geister (Demons) in RAC 9, 546-797 for the Hellenistic period (Egypt, 615-625: C. Colpe; Hellenistic Judaism, 626-640: J. Maier; philosophy, 640-668: C. Zitzen; Talmudic Judaism, 668-688). For Judaism, see also excursion 21 (Zur altjüdischen Dämonologie) in Strack-Billerbeck IV 501-535.
  11. ^ W. C. van Dam, Demonen eruit, in Jezus’ naam! (In the name of Jesus, get out, you demon!) Kampen 1973, 16-44) discusses nine characteristics of being possessed, as gleaned from the New Testament. Joh. Francke is rather cautious, yet considers it possible in principle that biblical psychology might sometime be able to provide the clinical picture of “being possessed” (“Een en ander over bezetenheid” (in DeReformatie 54). P.A. Heij is of the opinion that not the psychiatrist, but possibly the pastor only should ask the question about possible possession. He doubts however if a pastor can make such conclusions (Spirit possession: a psychic illness? Radix 5 (1979).

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.