2: Belief in Demons Today

Possession by Demons in the Gospels References to demons in Matthew, Mark and Luke

In the first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), the descriptions of the general teaching and good works of Jesus of Nazareth are broadly similar in style and content. Some of the events described in one Gospel are clearly the same as those in one or both of the other two; others are just as clearly different. Some events may appear similar but may or may not be the same occasions; it is not always possible to be sure. When studying demons, as with other topics, a comparison of the different descriptions can often aid our understanding. In these Gospels, the events involving demons fall into two main groups.

There are various occasions when Jesus is described as healing the people who come to him. Among these, the writers refer to some who are possessed by demons or, to put it another way, have unclean spirits. Jesus casts out the demons and heals them of their afflictions. In these general descriptions no details are given of what the effects of being possessed by a demon are.

The other group consists of descriptions of particular cases, where more detail is given. Sometimes, like the man in the synagogue, the demons threw the possessed persons about, causing them to fall on the floor. This happened to the boy at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration. He also foamed at the mouth. The man among the tombs went about naked, raved, cut himself with stones and was able to break out of chains. In a number of cases, the afflicted person would shout out loudly. In other cases the people afflicted were dumb ["mute" in the NKJV] and sometimes deaf or blind as well; of these, only the epileptic boy is reported as falling and shouting out.

In most of these cases, when the afflicted person's behaviour is described it is abnormal, it corresponds with the kind of behaviour associated today with conditions such as epilepsy and mental illness of various kinds, when the patient is not receiving modern medical or psychiatric treatment. Anyone who has witnessed the convulsions of a major uncontrolled epileptic seizure, or the strength and self-inflicted injuries of patients with certain kinds of mental illness, will recognise the symptoms in the gospel descriptions.

The effects of profound dumbness may be less well known. It should not be thought that the dumb person was unable to make any sort of vocal noise, but rather that they were unable to produce coherent speech. Such a condition can arise from a variety of causes, including brain damage at birth, by an accident, a stroke or simply by profound deafness. (In these Gospels, the same Greek word, meaning basically "blunted" or "dull", is sometimes translated correctly as either deaf or mute [Matt. 11:5; Matt. 15:31]; the connection between the two comes out in various places, such as Mark 7:32). Without the benefit of modern therapies, people so afflicted will sometimes make grotesque noises and facial grimaces in their attempts to make themselves understood, especially if suffering from deafness or blindness as well.

Today, medical science is able to distinguish between the various conditions set out in the above paragraph. In earlier times this was not so. Anyone with one or other of the conditions, or a combination of them, would probably be regarded as insane, even if they were not. So, a possible explanation of people being described as possessed by demons is that this was the language used, and generally believed, in relation to people thought to be intermittently or continuously insane. There is support for this view in the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John

In John's Gospel, there are no descriptions of anyone possessed by a demon or of demons being cast out. That in itself is an interesting and possibly significant fact. The only references to demons occur in accusations made against Jesus himself. There are three places (John 7:20, John 8:48, John 8:52, John10:20) where it is evident that some of the people listening to Jesus thought that what he was saying was nonsense and was, therefore an indication that he was mentally unbalanced; in their terms, possessed of a demon. The last of these references is particularly significant, because we are told

"there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings. And many of them said, 'He has a demon and is mad; why do you listen to him?' Others said, 'These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?'"

Evidently there was a difference of opinion as to whether Jesus was mad and possessed of a demon or not!

Further charges against Jesus and John the Baptist

It would also seem, from another incident, that not everyone attributed mental instability to possession by a demon. There was an occasion, after Jesus had healed many people, including some with unclean spirits, when the crowds gathering round Jesus were so great that he and his disciples did not have time even to eat. When his family heard about this they said "He is out of his mind" (more literally from the Greek "he is beside himself") and came to take him home (Mark 3:21). They evidently thought he had become unbalanced and, in neglecting himself, was taking things too far - but they did not say he was possessed of a demon. However, in the very next verse (Mark 3:22) we are told that the Jewish scribes were putting about another story to explain his behaviour, and said "He has Beelzebub" and "By the ruler of the demons he casts out demons".

They were all wrong, of course! The scribes were wrong again when they said that John the Baptist was possessed by a demon, possibly because of his rather unusual lifestyle and, to them, the extreme nature of his message (Luke 7:33). It is possible that the scribes did not actually believe this, but were putting it about to discredit Jesus and John. Whether this was so or not, it shows again that thinking someone was possessed by a demon was a matter of speculation and rumour, and not an indisputable fact. The highly subjective nature of the diagnosis as to whether someone was or was not possessed by a demon, and, in some cases, the dubious motives behind it, ought to cast doubt on the reality of demon possession.

The accusations made against Jesus and John show another interesting point. In contrast with descriptions of people supposedly possessed by demons today, neither Jesus or John showed exceptional physical strength, nor did they fall about or shout in a wild or uncontrollable manner. Nor are any of these symptoms recorded for those who were dumb, except the epileptic boy. It is also interesting to note that, except in such a case as Legion, who, with his companion, is described as "exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way" (Matt. 8:28), those thought to be possessed by demons do not appear to be avoided by other people. They came, or were brought, with the crowds of other sick folk, to be healed. The man with the unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum was not, apparently, barred from being there. And, in spite of the scribes' charges that John and Jesus were possessed by demons, people came in crowds to hear them.

Other conditions and descriptions

There were other conditions, in addition to those described earlier, which could cause abnormal behaviour. For example, someone suffering from a fever might become delirious, have hallucinations and become rambling in their talk. But, if they survived, the fever would pass, and their behaviour would return to normal. In such cases in the Gospels, the problem does not appear to be attributed to a demon (e.g. Matt. 8:14-15). There were also mute persons for whom there was no association with demons (e.g. Matt. 15:30-31). The symptoms which seem to lead to a person being thought to be possessed by a demon are some persistent irrationality of talk or strangeness of behaviour, the latter possibly violent but not necessarily so.

Luke was a doctor, and his descriptions of people possessed by demons are particularly interesting. Like the other Gospel writers, he refers to Jesus casting out demons, but alongside this language he often simply speaks of the afflicted people as being "healed" or "cured", using the same Greek word as he does for other diseases. A notable example of this is in Luke 6:17-19: "a great multitude ... came to hear him and be healed of their diseases, as well as those who were tormented with unclean spirits. And they were healed. And the whole multitude sought to touch him, for power went out from him and he healed them all."

Or again, in Luke 7:21

"he cured many people of their infirmities, afflictions and evil spirits" and Luke 9:42

"Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the child, ..."

There is another place where Luke says Jesus "rebuked" a demon, which then "came out" of the man; and then a few verses later, healing Peter's mother-in-law, he says Jesus "rebuked the fever; and it left her", using the same word (Luke 4:35, Luke 4:39).

In the case of Legion, after the man has been healed, Luke refers to him as "sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind" (Luke 8:35).

In all of these instances, it is as if, to Luke, the language of demons and unclean spirits was just a way of describing certain illnesses, predominantly of the mind rather than the body, difficult indeed for an ordinary doctor to cure, but not for Jesus, possessing, as he did, the power of the spirit of God.

The demons speaking

One of the major problems that has to be confronted is that much of the language used in describing the incidents involving demoniacs gives the impression that the demons really existed as independent supernatural beings, which could inhabit human beings, and could be caused to leave the possessed persons by someone with the power to do so. In particular, demons are recorded as speaking, and Jesus as speaking to them.

The incident in the synagogue at Capernaum, as recorded by Luke, begins as follows:

"Now in the synagogue there was a man who had a spirit of an unclean demon. And he cried out with a loud voice, saying 'Let us alone! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Did you come to destroy us? I know you, who you are - the Holy One of God.'" (Luke 4:33-34)

However, it is not absolutely clear to whom or to what the pronoun "he" applies. Who was crying out, the man or the demon? Well, presumably, in one sense it must have been the man himself. The voice would come from his mouth, produced by his vocal chords. But were the ideas coming from his deranged mind, or was it a literal demon speaking through him?.

The incident concerning Legion is similarly ambiguous. In Mark 5:9 the man says "My name is Legion; for we are many", and the next verse continues that "he begged" Jesus "that he would not send them out of the country", and then (Mark 5:12) "all the demons begged him ..." In Mark 5:5, Jesus says "Come out of the man, unclean spirit", referring to only one spirit, instead of many demons. Similar inconsistencies are found in the other records of this event.

The case of Legion illustrates another point, which possibly also applies to the man in the synagogue, namely how a person supposedly possessed by a demon was sometimes identified with the demon, either by the possessed person or by others. Another example is Jesus himself. He was, at one time, accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub (Matt. 12:24), and, at another, of having Beelzebub, an unclean spirit (Mark 3:22, Mark 3:30). Yet again, it also appears that he was actually called Beelzebub by some (Matt.10:25).

These kinds of inconsistencies again cast doubt on the reality of possession by supernatural demons. They provide further support for the possible explanation that these people were not really possessed by supposedly supernatural demons at all. Rather, they were thought to be so, by other people, because of their apparently irrational behaviour and confused talk. Because of their disturbed states of mind, it is understandable that those assumed to be possessed would also come to accept this diagnosis.

If "spirit" is accepted as referring here to a state of mind, as developed in Chapter 11, then the use of the singular "unclean spirit" alongside the description of "many demons" adds weight to the above explanation. In his disturbed state of mind, the man believed himself to be possessed by many demons. When the confusion in the mind is removed the "demons", as figments of the imagination, are also cast out.

There is another incident where Jesus himself may be drawing this distinction. The seventy returned from their preaching mission and rejoiced that "even the demons are subject to us in your name." (Luke 10:17). Then in Luke 10:20, Jesus says "rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you ..."

Recognition of Jesus as Christ and Son of God

There are numerous occasions in the Gospels when we are told that a person thought to be possessed by a demon would cry out to Jesus phrases such as "I know who you are, the Holy One of God" or "You are the Son of God!" (Luke 4:34, Luke 4:41). It is sometimes argued that this was evidence that the demons were indeed supernatural beings with knowledge of Jesus which would be unknown to the common people. However, this is an unwarranted implication.

At the time that Jesus came on the scene, there was among the Jews a great expectation that the Messiah, the Christ, the great King promised by their prophets, was about to appear. It is also evident that, in some sense, they were expecting him to be the "Son of God", perhaps on the basis of such scripture as Psalm 2:7.

There, speaking of the King who will reign in Zion, God says "You are my son, today I have begotten you." Right at the outset of the ministry of Jesus, following one brief experience, Nathaniel said "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel." (John 1:49).

This expectation had been heightened by the work of John the Baptist. When Jesus appeared on the scene, performing miracles and speaking with such authority, it was inevitable that there was much speculation as to whether he was Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, or not. This debate surfaces in several places, notably throughout John 7. For example, in John 7:26, the people say "Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Christ?" and in John 7:41,

"Others said 'This is the Christ.' But some said, 'Is the Christ to come from Galilee?'"

Jesus repeatedly referred to God as his Father, and the authorities, rightly, took this to mean that he was claiming to be the Son of God. Wrongly, they then inferred that he was blaspheming. Their awareness of his claims and their open rejection of them come out no more clearly than at Calvary. They said of him

"He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, 'I am the Son of God'" (Matt. 27:43).

To claim that some notable man was the Christ was a dangerous thing for people to do. There had been many false Christs, and much blood shed on their account. It is evident that many who did believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, dared not say so publicly for fear of the authorities. The authorities agreed that "if anyone should confess him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue" (John 9:22). Nevertheless, there were individuals who acknowledged Jesus as "Son of David", another phrase the Jews related to the Messiah. There were the blind beggars at Jericho (Matt 20:30, Mark 10:47). The crowd "warned" them to "be quiet". Did they fear for what the authorities might do to them because of their implicit acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah? But they were people already on the fringes of Jewish society and perhaps felt they had little to lose, so they "cried out all the more ... 'son of David'".

Another who called him "son of David" was the "woman of Canaan", with the demon-possessed daughter, away to the north, but she had nothing to fear from the Jews, being outside their jurisdiction (Matt. 15:22)

People who were mentally deranged, likewise, would not suffer from the inhibitions of most of their fellows. They would have absorbed something of the expectation of the Messiah. They would have heard the rumours about Jesus and, unlike their more sane fellows, would not hesitate to come out with what was on their minds when they met this remarkable man.

Blasphemous though the authorities regarded such statements, there is no evidence that they did anything to try to stop the demoniacs uttering them. It is doubtful if they could have done, but also, coming from the mouths of such people, they may have thought that such utterances would do the cause of Jesus more harm than good. Did Jesus himself share that view, and was this partly the reason why, in so many cases, he "strictly ordered them not to make him known" (Mark 3:12)? Be that as it may, we should not make too much of the fact that Jesus usually stopped the demoniacs proclaiming him. He did this with other people (e.g. Mark 5:43) including the twelve disciples (Luke 9:20-21), who were not similarly afflicted. However, none of this addresses directly the problems of the Gospel records being written as if the demons did actually exist, and Jesus apparently talking to them. This difficulty will be looked at in some detail in Chapter 3, through an incident in the Acts, and again, later, through parallels in the Old Testament.

A possible explanation

Leaving that particular problem on one side for the moment, the suggestion that some people were thought to be possessed by supposedly supernatural demons because of their apparently irrational behaviour carries considerable weight. The conditions so described can today be distinguished as mental illness or psychological disturbance in some cases, epilepsy or speech impairment, often resulting from brain damage, in others. Moreover, much can be done to relieve these conditions by modern medical practice, which would be unlikely if they were caused by supernatural spirits. There may be those reading this study who will be more or less satisfied by this suggestion. However, helpful though it may be, such an explanation still leaves a number of other unanswered questions, in addition to those referred to in the Preface.

Is there any clearer evidence that Jesus and the writers of the Gospels did not themselves believe in demons as supernatural beings, other than the circumstantial evidence brought forward in this chapter?

If the demons and unclean spirits are not literally supernatural beings, what are they?

What were Jesus and the disciples actually doing when it says they cast the demons out?

And where does Beelzebub fit into the picture?

In later chapters we shall explore possible answers to these and related questions.

Back to 1: Belief in Demons Today