Demon Possession

Biblical Terminology Related to “Demon Possession”

The term “demon possession” is frequently used in English translations of the New Testament, most notably in the Synoptic Gospels, to render the meaning of the term daimonizomai. In addition, the parallels between Matthew 8:28, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 suggest that the terms “with an unclean spirit” (en pneumati akathartō) and “having a demon” (echōn daimonian) are viewed as similar in meaning (cf. Mark 1:23/Luke 4:33), both to each other and to daimonizomai. These terms seem to indicate the presence of demons or unclean spirits, who are exerting a degree of regular or intermittent and pernicious influence in a person’s life.

Symptoms of “Demon Possession”

The symptoms associated with “demon possession” vary significantly from one exorcism account to another. On the one hand, this condition may produce symptoms that are difficult to distinguish from those of illnesses that are simply the result of living in a fallen world. Specific accounts refer to an inability to speak, whether mentioned alone (Matt. 9:32-33/Luke 11:14), together with blindness (Matt. 12:22-23), or as accompanied by intermittent seizures and an inability to hear (Mark 9:14-29). In addition, Matthew 17:14-20 which contains a general reference to seizures that are associated with “great suffering.

On the other hand one encounters as well the case of the Gadarene demoniacs in Matthew 8:28-34, which is parallel to the accounts of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1-20/Luke 8:26-39. In this case the symptoms of demonic influence mimic a severe psychological or psychiatric disorder which include ferocity (Matt. 8:28), social isolation (i.e., living among the tombs—Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27), dwelling on the mountains (Mark 5:5), “driven by the demon into the desert” (Luke 8:29), nakedness (Luke 8:27), self-harm (Mark 5:5), and excessive strength (Mark 5:3; Luke 8:29).

The data gathered from the four major Synoptic accounts and several minor references that describe the symptoms of “demon possession” and exorcism should not be viewed as exhaustive in nature since the summary statements and passages make it clear that exorcism was a regular feature of Jesus’ ministry and, ultimately, the ministry of his disciples (Matt. 4:23-25; 8:16-17; 10:1, 5-8; Mark 1:21-34, 39; 3:9-12; 6:6b-7, 12-13; Luke 4:31-41; 6:17-19; 7:21; 9:1-2, 6). In fact this ministry, along with teaching, preaching and healing, together made up the four major aspects of Jesus’ ministry. Yet even so the data in the Synoptic accounts and the minor references to “demon possession” and exorcism demonstrate that the symptoms of “demon possession” can be quite diverse. For this reason it is noteworthy that Jesus was able to distinguish conditions resulting from the fall of humankind (which were addressed by miracles of healing) from conditions that were caused by direct demonic influence (which required exorcism). The evidence from the summary statements and passages makes this very clear.

Distinguishing “Demon Possession” from Other Conditions Related to the Fall

Regarding the question of how Jesus was able to distinguish between these two types of conditions, the evidence in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Luke) suggests, first, that Jesus is led by the Spirit in making this important determination. When Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue in Nazareth, it was his “anointing” with the Spirit that enabled him to bring the message of freedom and liberation in the eschatological Jubilee that was inaugurated in his ministry. It was by the Spirit that he was able “… to proclaim good news to the poor, freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18-19). Then, after rebuking the people of Nazareth, Jesus went immediately to Capernaum, where by his actions he began doing the ministries that were mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2. He set free a man who was “demon possessed” in the synagogue (Luke 4:33-35), healed Simon’s mother-in-law of a fever, and, once the sabbath was over, healed “all who had various kinds of sickness” (Luke 4:40). Also, it is stated that through his ministry “demons came out of many people” (Luke 4:41). In short, by the Spirit he was able both to discern the difference between cases that required a miracle of healing and those that required exorcism, and to deal with them accordingly.

In addition to the role of the Spirit in discerning the difference between the two types of conditions, the summary statements and passages also provide some guidance. They help us discern the messiness of the situations Jesus faced as the crowds pushed forward seeking help for their loved ones. In such a context certain passages suggest that the spirits spontaneously reacted when confronted with Jesus’ presence and authority. For example, Mark 3:10 tells us, “For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. Whenever the impure spirits saw him, they fell down before him…” (cf. Luke 4:40, as well as the reaction of the spirit to Jesus’ presence in Mark 9:20). In these types of cases, the presence of “demon possession” is clearly signaled by the reaction of the impure spirits to Jesus, and all that remained was for Jesus to issue an authoritative command for them to leave.

One other approach to discerning whether a condition has resulted from the fall or from the presence of direct demonic influence can be detected in the exorcism of the boy with the “dumb and deaf spirit” in Matthew 17:14-21/Mark 9:14-29/Luke 9:37-43a. Regarding the boy’s symptoms, his father states directly that he has a “dumb spirit,” i.e., a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Later in the account, Jesus addresses the spirit as “you dumb and deaf spirit,” which suggests that it had robbed the boy not only of his ability to speak but also his ability to hear. It is not stated explicitly whether the inability to speak and hear was continuous or occurred only when the spirit intermittently seized him. However, the designation of the demon as a “dumb and deaf spirit” suggests that this was its primary work in the boy’s life, and the contrast between this statement and Mark 9:17, “… wherever it seizes him,” suggests that the boy’s inability to hear and speak were more continuous, while his seizures were likely intermittent. What is clear, however, is that the boy’s father had noted a clue to the demonic origin of his son’s condition, namely that the seizures tended to take place when he was around fire or water, which to him suggested a malevolent purpose, i.e. “to destroy him.” It is notable that Jesus did not disagree with the father’s assessment of his son’s condition.

Ministering to People who are Afflicted by “Demon Possession”

Whether we focus our attention on the accounts of people being set free from “demon possession” or on the summary statements and passages, the evidence in the New Testament leads us to the same conclusion. The most common remedy for “demon possession” is the simple application of the spiritual authority that the Lord has delegated to followers of Christ. This is accomplished by issuing a command to the spirit in the name of Jesus to leave the person, which is usually quite effective. Jesus pointed to the effectiveness of his ministry of exorcism as demonstrating that the kingdom of God is present, albeit in its inaugurated form (Matt. 12:28), in his ministry, so the effectiveness of exorcism in his name should not surprise his followers.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we see a continuation of this type of ministry by the early Christians. One clue to understanding this evidence is found in the summary passage in Acts 5:12-16, where it is written, “The apostles performed many signs and wonders among the people” (v. 12). Then, in verses 15-16, Luke makes it clear that whatever else was meant by “signs and wonders,” the phrase referred primarily to healing and deliverance. This connection between “signs and wonders” and “healing and deliverance” is emphasized again in Philip’s ministry in Samaria (Acts 8:4-13), where Philip’s ministry is clearly presented as an example of the ministries of the believers who were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. This is clear from the movement from the general statement regarding the “scattered believers” in verse 4 to the specific example of Philip in verses 5-13. Clearly it was not only the apostles who were performing exorcisms to deal with “demon possession.” Then, of course, there’s Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19) where “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul,” specifically miracles of healing and exorcism (19:11-12).

In light of the evidence to this point, it should be evident that two critical assumptions that are often made in Western Christianity, namely 1) that “demon possession” is typically dramatic and extreme in nature, and 2) that “demon possession” is quite rare, are unfounded. The diverse nature of “demon possession” in the gospels stands as evidence against the first assumption, while the frequency of exorcism in the ministries of Jesus, his disciples and the early Christians tells against the second assumption.

The Best Translation of the Term Daimonizomai

Certain issues related to the phenomenon of “demon possession” have occasioned differences of opinion even among Christians who believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. One of these issues is how we should translate the word daimonizomai. Most English translations, as well as many biblical scholars and theologians, use the term “is demon possessed” to render the meaning of this term. However, a significant number of writers, including many who perform exorcism as a part of their overall ministry, argue that the term is too narrow in meaning, thus giving the reader the impression that all cases of “demon possession” are extreme in nature. And to make matters even more complicated, some have introduced a distinction between “demon oppression,” which usually denotes demonic influence from outside the person, and “demon possession,” which refers to demonic influence that is typically more severe in nature due to the fact that the spirit is dwelling within the person who is “possessed.” This type of argument is fundamentally spatial in nature, and proponents of the oppression/possession distinction focus their attention on the question, “Where is the spirit?”

It is clear that these various approaches have led to an impasse within the Christian community. However, one suggestion as we seek a way forward would be to consider the relatively diverse nature of the symptoms associated with the New Testament terms, namely daimonizomai (“demon possessed”), en pneumati akathartō (“with an unclean spirit”), and echōn daimonian (“having a demon”), and to ask ourselves whether most English speaking readers would tend to associate such a broad range of symptoms with “demon possession.” Given the manner in which “demon possession” has been presented in the West, both in print and in the sub-genre of horror film that was kicked off by The Exorcist in 1973 and was featured in the thirty or so films that followed, it is not surprising that our conception of “demon possession” tends toward the extreme. Interestingly enough, this is not unlike the conception of “demon possession” that is held by many people, including many Christians, in the Majority World. The primary difference is that for many people in the Majority World, “demon possession” is very real indeed, whereas for many people in the West, including many Christians, “demon possession” is only a theoretical possibility.

So where does this lead us? Perhaps more accurate than “demon possession” in terms of communicating the overall portrayal of this phenomenon in the Synoptic Gospels is something like “subject to demonic influence” or “subject to demonic oppression.” Another approach would be to use a literal translation of the other terms that are associated with and roughly synonymous with daimonizomai in the Synoptic Gospels, namely “with an unclean spirit” or “having a demon.” This approach would seem to be an improvement over the continued use of “demon possession” and the alternative approach of using the term “demonized,” which could be quite confusing to readers.