The Biblical Criteria for Demon-Possession

By Willem Berends

With all the renewed interest today in demon-possession few people have sought to define what demon-possession really is in biblical terms. Even such concerned Christian authors as Koch and Unger list criteria which are not derived from Scripture, but rather from those cases which they have accepted as paradigm examples of demon possession today.[1] They beg the question as to whether they are dealing with what the Bible calls demon-possession, since they do not judge their cases by purely biblical criteria but rather by the symptoms which these “demon-possessed” themselves display, e.g. they mention the demoniac’s frequent ability to speak in languages he has never learned.[2] Koch also lists other phenomena such as the frequent presence of poltergeists, and some demoniacs’ ability to see or hear demons.[3],[4]

Because this “Demon-possession” is usually identified with the phenomenon described in the New Testament there are many who think that exorcism as per the Bible pattern is the only legitimate way of dealing with these cases. That may well be true, but before any attempts at exorcism are made there must be a certainty that the suspected demoniacs are really suffering the same malady as that with which Jesus and the apostles dealt. Such an identification requires a list of biblical criteria for diagnosing demon-possession. Nine possible criteria from the 50-odd references to demon-possession found in the Gospels and the Book of Acts are:

1. that demon-possession was limited to a certain era in history;
2. that demon-possession was limited to a certain class of people;
3. that demoniacs were readily recognized;
4. that psychosomatic symptoms always accompanied demon-possession;
5. that the demons possessing demoniacs had distinct personalities;
6. that demoniacs had some supernatural knowledge by virtue of their demons;
7. that the demoniacs were compelled to acclaim the authority of Jesus when confronted by him or by one of his representatives;
8. that demoniacs never came out of themselves to be cured.
9. that an authoritative word, spoken in faith, is the only biblical way of exorcising a demon.

Because these criteria fall naturally into three groups, we will deal with them under three headings:

I. The Scope of Demon-Possession (Criteria 1 & 2).

II. The Nature of Demon-Possession (Criteria 3–7).

III. The Nature of Exorcism (Criteria 8–10).

In order to prevent any confusion in terminology we will use the term “demoniac” to refer to the demon-possessed person and the demon inhabiting him together, while the term “demon-possessed” will refer strictly to the victim himself.

I. The Scope of Demon-Possession

1. Is demon-possession limited to a certain era in history?

When we study the New Testament accounts on demon-possession it strikes us that this phenomenon, which featured so prominently during the ministry of Jesus, receives almost no mention outside the Gospels.[5] There are four references in Acts (5:16; 8:7; 16:16ff; 19:11ff), but the epistles are silent on the matter. Among the lists of spiritual gifts there is no mention of any gift of exorcism, neither are there any instructions for the expulsion of a demon. This silence led Geldenhuys to conclude:

demon-possession is a phenomenon which occurred almost exclusively, but then to be sure on an amazing scale, during Jesus’ appearance on earth and to a lesser extent during the activity of the apostles.[6]

Thus we may well ask, is there any evidence that demon-possession occurred at all outside the era of Christ and his apostles?

Some authors have maintained that there are examples of demon-possession in the Old Testament, e.g. Unger cites 1 Kings 18:28; Dan 4:33 and 1 Sam chapters 16, 18–21.[7] But a careful scrutiny of the passages suggests otherwise. In 1 Kings 18–28 we read that Baal’s priests, in their confrontation with Elijah on Mount Carmel, cut themselves with knives “after their custom”. The usual explanation is that this custom refers to the priests’ method of gaining their god’s attention, and it is not a symptom of demon-possession. Also in the case of Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4:33 there is no reason to believe that this king’s behavior was a symptom of demon-possession. No demons, or even Satan, are mentioned in the context, and in the N.T. we have no instance of any demoniac imagining himself to be an animal. As for the evil spirit that came upon Saul, there are four things that set it apart from demon-possession: 1) The evil spirit came from God, 2) the evil spirit departed from Saul when David played his lyre, 3) unlike N.T. demoniacs Saul was in full possession of his faculties, enough to wage war, rule the country, etc., 4) in his better moments Saul took the blame for his actions upon himself and did not blame it upon a demon (26:21).

Besides the fact that there is no evidence for the occurrence of demon-possession in the O.T., there is some positive evidence to suggest that it was unknown, at least at Isaiah’s time. In Luke 7:18–23 we find the account of John the Baptist’s messengers coming to Christ for confirmation of his messianic identity. Luke writes:

In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. (vv. 21, 22)

It is noticeable that this remarkably detailed prophecy of Is (35:5–6; 61:1ff) makes only one omission in listing the miracles of Christ: it leaves out the curing of “evil spirits” mentioned by Luke in v. 21. Why did Isaiah omit any reference to Christ’s curing of the demon-possessed? The answer suggests itself—Isaiah was not familiar with the phenomenon of demon-possession.

There is plenty of evidence that belief in demon-possession was prevalent in O.T. times. Incantation texts found in Babylon and Assyria make this clear. The apocryphal book of Tobit (6:7; 8:2, 3) and Josephus’ Antiquities (8:2:5) show that these beliefs were also prevalent in Judaism. Page regards all this as “solid evidence that demon-possession was not restricted to the Palestine of Jesus’ day.”[8] This, however, is a most unscientific conclusion, because all that is really proved is that belief in demon-possession was widespread, not demon-possession itself. If we are to accept the accounts of demon-possession as genuine, then by the same token we must accept as genuine also those parts of the accounts which describe the exorcisms of these demons. And this involves accepting Tobit’s account of how he exorcised a demon with the smoke of fish-intestines, and Josephus’ account of an exorcism where the demon was drawn out through the nose with a magic root, and many more such fanciful tales.[9]

What has been said above is also true of the post-apostolic age. From Justin on Christian literature abounds with allusions to exorcisms. The difficulty is that accounts of demons are so involved and fanciful that it is difficult to separate truth from popular ideas. Harnack remarks:

the whole world and the circumambient atmosphere were filled with devils: not merely idolatory, but every phase and form of life was ruled by them: they sat on thrones; they hovered over cradles; the earth was literally a hell.[10]

By the late middle ages the inquisition held trials for sorcery, witchcraft and demon worship, which were all closely tied to the phenomenon of demon-possession. Whole nunneries were supposedly taken over by demons possessing the nuns.[11] In this context, can we accept any instances as being true examples of demon-possession?

It is clear that the only authoritative accounts that we have of demon-possession are those found in the New Testament. To determine whether demon-possession occurs outside the time of Christ and the apostles we will have to resort to the same authoritative source.

Matt 12:28 and Luke 11:20 make it clear that Christ’s exorcisms are signs that show the advent of the Kingdom, “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” With the coming of Christ’s Kingdom the rule of Satan must give way. Jesus, stronger than Satan, has bound him and so is able to rob him of his booty (Matt 12:29ff; Luke 11:21, 22). This argues strongly against any practice of exorcism before the binding of Satan by Christ, since at this time Satan was the “strong man”.[12] But what about the time after Christ’s ministry? We find in the Gospels ample evidence that Satan’s power has by no means ended. The Lord in his exemplary prayer teaches the disciples to pray for deliverance from the evil one (Matt 6:13; Luke 11:4). The demons of the demoniacs at Gadara pointed Christ to it that it was “before the time” (pro kairou) appointed for their destruction. Christ’s parable in Matt 12:43–45 (cf. Luke 11:24–26) shows that the cast-out demon, after wandering for a while, may come back and even take other demons with him if he finds the “house” empty. It seems that the first coming of Christ did not mean the end of demons, and their final destruction may not come to pass until the occasion mentioned in Rev 20:10, when Satan will be cast into the lake of fire. Christ’s exorcisms do not mark the end of demons, but, as Ridderbos puts it, it “is the guarantee and the symbol of the definitive victory.”[13]

From the above it is clear that Satan and his demons by no means disappeared out of the picture with the coming of Christ, although their power is already severely limited by Christ’s victory. Yet this last point too must be qualified. The Bible does speak about an intensification of demonic activity in the period immediately prior to the second coming of Christ (1 Tim 4:1ff; 2 Thess 2:9; Rev 16:13f). With this increase of demonic activity demon-possession may also come to the fore again.

The overall picture that appears from these passages is this: At the coming of Christ Satan did all that was within his might to establish his hold over the world. This satanic work was especially manifest in the hold that demons had on certain demoniacs. God allowed this influx of demonic activity in order that Christ might show forth his authority and power, and so herald the coming of the Kingdom. Christ severely curbed the activities of Satan, dealing him a mortal wound. We observe that after this triumph of Christ demon-possession is on the wane, with only a few isolated examples mentioned in Acts. The epistles do not mention it at all, although they do prophesy an outbreak of demonic activity before the end of time.

If our above analysis is correct then we are left with three possibilities regarding the occurrence of demon-possession today: either

a) demon-possession has disappeared or practically disappeared, with occurrences as rare as in O.T. times in Israel, or 

b) demon-possession is limited to those areas where the good news of the Kingdom has not yet been accepted, or 

c) demon-possession is on the increase because we are living in the last days before Christ’s return.

Because c) above is always a possibility it is important that we should be able to recognize demon-possession were we ever to be faced with it. For this purpose it is necessary that we study carefully any other criteria the Scriptures may offer by which we can test demon-possession. In addition, b) is a possibility in the light of certain texts, and we will examine this in the next section.

2. Is demon-possession limited to a certain class of people?

Since the matter of demon-possession is not raised in the Epistles it is tempting to conclude that demon-possession did not affect the Christian community. Yet such a conclusion meets with so much opposition from those who claim to have dealt with demoniacs that it made one author, Unger, change his mind. In his earlier book, Biblical Demonology, Unger wrote:

The very nature of the believer’s salvation, as embracing the regenerating, sealing, indwelling, and filling ministry of the Holy Spirit, placing him “in Christ”, eternally and unforfeitably, is sufficient explanation why he is not liable to demon inhabitation.[14]

Since the publication of this book Unger received so many reports from missionaries claiming to have witnessed repossession that in his later book, Demons in the World Today, he writes:

The claims of these missionaries appear valid, since Christians in enlightened lands where the Word of God and Christian civilization have restrained the baser manifestations of demonism can sometimes become victims of demon influence and oppression.[15]

But he stops short of saying that a Christian can be repossessed, preferring to use the milder terms “demon influence” and “oppression”.

Koch also is hesitant on the question of the extent to which demons can control Christians, though he is willing to admit: “I am more inclined to take the side of those who believe in the possibility of a Christian being possessed”.[16] But like Unger Koch wonders if “possession” is not too strong a word and states:

Perhaps we are confusing the two ideas of possession and obsession. It may be that a Christian we consider to be possessed, is actually obsessed, and that instead of indwelling him, the demons are only surrounding him.[17]

This new concept of “demon influence” or “obsession,” which we also meet in some neo-Pentecostal writings, is one that is alien to Scripture, unless one means by it the unbeliever’s bondage to Satan (Rom 6:16, 1 John 3:8) or the believer’s “sifting” by Satan (Luke 22:31). Definitions of these concepts, where they are attempted, are very vague, and we will not attempt to analyze them here.[18]

Unger’s earlier argument, denying the possibility that a Christian can be possessed, is a very strong one. A demon cannot take possession of a body occupied by the Holy Spirit. Christ told a special parable to show that only the Holy Spirit was a guarantee against repossession. Repossession will only occur when the demon returns to find “the house” empty (Matt 12:43ff, Luke 11:24ff). Commentators are generally agreed that the Holy Spirit is the only other one who can fill this void.[19] Besides this there are many Scriptures which show that God will guard us from the evil one (e.g. 2 Thess 3:3) and that therefore as believers we are assured of eternal life (e.g. John 10:28, 29).

Because we accept Scripture as the highest authority we can only conclude that in those cases referred to above, of Christians supposedly being repossessed by demons, either these people were not Christians or they were not possessed. In either case the signs may have been misread.

The next thing we want to consider is whether the Christian influence on society left its mark also in the area of demon possession. The Bible talks about Christians being the “salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13) and the “light of the world” (v. 14). A common interpretation of this is that by God’s common grace Christians influence society for the good.[20] We see an example of this in the Ephesus of Paul’s time. Ephesus in those days was notorious for its practice of magic. But at the power displayed by those who brought the Gospel, in healings and exorcisms, and in view of the obvious failure of false pretenders like the sons of Sceva, many of the Ephesian magicians rendered up their spells and gave their magic books to be burned (Acts 19:11–20). We find something similar taking place in Samaria at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:9–13), where the followers of Simon the Magician turned to God instead.

The Reformation produced similar effects. As the word of God is proclaimed old superstitions and magical practices are severely curbed. We can agree with Unger when he says: “the Word of God and Christian civilization have restrained the baser manifestations of demonism”.[21] Is demon-possession to be included among these “baser manifestations”? Our conclusions in the previous section would lead us to answer yes. Just as demon-possession was apparently either unknown or very rare among God’s people of the Old Covenant, since it receives no mention in the O.T., and just as it was not a problem to believers in the New Covenant, since it receives no mention in the Epistles, so today we can expect that where the Kingdom of God is established in the hearts of his people demon-possession is restrained.

There is one other argument to support this conclusion. Satan is a master at deception (John 8:44; Rev 12:9), and his most effective deception in a society like ours is to give the impression that he and his demons do not exist. As C. S. Lewis put it:

There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors…[22]

Since demon-possession would only make people aware of Satan’s existence, it is in Satan’s own interest to limit it to those areas where it can be most effectively used.

All the above arguments suggest that if demon-possession were to occur anywhere today, this would most likely be the case in those areas where the Gospel has not yet made a significant impact, and where people show an excessive and unhealthy interest in demons. Indeed if missionary reports about the frequency of demon-possession on the field are correct, this is precisely the case. But for our purpose we must appeal to higher authority.

It is noticeable that in the Gospels nearly all accounts of exorcisms are put in a setting where Hellenism and paganism were rife. By far the most exorcisms took place in the Galilee area, where there are some eleven instances recorded.[23] From a bit further afield came the Syro-Phoenician woman.[24] Then there are a few general references to the effect that people came to Jesus from Syria, Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, beyond the Jordan, Idumea, Tyre and Sidon, but all these people were not necessarily demon-possessed, although some of them were.[25] These general references are the only ones in the Gospels that suggest that there were demon-possessed in the Jerusalem area. John, who concentrates on Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, does not mention any cases of demon-possession. The only definite evidence of demon-possession in the Jerusalem area comes from Acts 5:16, where it is mentioned that Peter healed some demoniacs. Further references in Acts mention demoniacs in Samaria, Philippi of Macedonia, and Ephesus. Although this evidence is not conclusive, it does support the argument that demon-possession is most rife in pagan areas.

Our conclusion on this section is that the Scriptures make it clear that a Christian cannot become demon-possessed since he has the Holy Spirit in his heart. Furthermore there is reason to believe that in societies where Christians have some influence demon-possession is rare in occurrence. If there are cases of demon-possession today, we are most likely to find it in those areas where paganism abounds.

II. The Nature Of Demon-Possession

3. Are demoniacs readily recognizable?

In many societies so-called “possessions” are diagnosed by diviners, specialists who have special powers that enable them to recognize these cases. In the Dark Ages the exorcist was believed to have such powers, since it was his job not only to cast the demons out of “demoniacs,” but also to find them. In the Bible we find none of this. There is no indication that specialists were used to diagnose demon-possession.[26] In fact the diagnosis of demon-possession does not seem to have been a problem. Among those who were able to recognize demon-possession for what it was we must include first of all those who exorcised demons. This list includes: a. Jesus (e.g. Matt 4:24), b. the twelve apostles (e.g. Matt 10:1), c. the seventy disciples (Luke 10:17), d. a stranger (Luke 9:49), e. Philip the Evangelist (Acts 8:7), f. Paul (Acts 16:18). Of a more doubtful nature are the exorcisms of the “sons” of the Pharisees (Luke 11:19), of whom the sons of Sceva may be an example (Acts 19:14ff), and of the false “believers” (Matt 7:22).

But these experts were not the only ones who could diagnose demon-possession correctly. In Matt 15:21ff we have the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman who came to Jesus because her daughter was demon-possessed. We find that in this case it was the woman who had made the diagnosis, and Jesus apparently took her word for it, because he healed her daughter from a distance. In another case a father came to Jesus and asked him to cast out a “dumb spirit” from his son (Mark 9:17).

There are also some instances of a wrong diagnosis of demon-possession, but here the question is, how seriously must we take these cases? When the pharisees accused Jesus of exorcising by the power of Beelzebul (Luke 11:15), and even of being possessed by him (Mark 3:22), did they really mean it? This seems very doubtful. In John 8:48 we find that hostile Jews, no doubt instigated by the Pharisees (8:13), accuse Jesus not only of having a demon but also of being a Samaritan. Obviously they did not really believe that Jesus was a Samaritan, since they knew very well that he was from Galilee. It was clearly meant to be some kind of insult. Most likely we must take the charge that Jesus had a demon the same way. It was an insult, designed to blacken Jesus’ name in the eyes of the crowds. We may well suspect that these malicious rumors of Jesus’ enemies were also behind the occasions mentioned in John 7:20 and 10:20, where some of the people say that Jesus has a demon, and is mad as well. Even John the Baptist is slandered in this way (Matt 11:18). All this shows us that a man who behaved in an unusual manner was open to the charge of demon-possession, just as today such people are often said to be mad. It is not so much a diagnosis of the symptoms displayed, but rather it is a common way for the public to react to something that is strange or that they are unwilling to accept.

From the above it would appear that the recognition of demoniacs was generally no problem. It therefore seems unlikely that in post-Pentecostal times a special spiritual gift should appear for the discernment of demoniacs. Yet this is how some authors would interpret the gift of the “discerning of spirits” mentioned in 1 Cor 12:10. Unger, e.g., maintains that one who is gifted in this way today may possibly find “clear evidence of genuine demonization” in many cases of so-called physical and mental “disease.”[27] Grosheide, too, in his commentary links this gift with demon-possession.[28] But there is no textual evidence to support such an explanation of the gift, whereas 1 Jn 4:1 suggests that it refers to the spirits giving rise to false prophecies and heretical doctrines (cf. 1 Cor 14:29; 1 Tim 4:1).

We conclude that there is every reason to believe that in the time of Christ and his apostles demoniacs were readily recognized. In view of the symptoms they exhibited, which we will examine below, this is not surprising.

4. Did psychosomatic symptoms always accompany demon-possession?

When we ask why Satan sent his servants to take possession of human beings it is clear that their purpose was not to tempt man. It seems to be the purpose of demons rather to torment those whom they possess. Kittel defines possession as “not merely a sickness but a destruction and distortion of the divine likeness of man according to creation.”[29] This definition gives us an idea of the evil purpose of the demon in taking possession of a man. It also gives us a reason for the psychosomatic disorders that so often seem to have accompanied demon-possession in Biblical accounts. In fact it prompts us to ask, did psychosomatic disorders always accompany demon-possession?

Among those who answer in the affirmative there are of course those who believe that demon-possession was nothing else but just precisely that, a psychosomatic disorder. Jensen comes close to that position when he writes: “It is clear that the N.T. often attributed to diabolical possession some purely natural afflictions.”[30] Yet such an identification is clearly false. For one thing the N.T. itself distinguishes carefully between those who were demon-possessed and had some ailments and those who merely had ailments (e.g. Matt 4:24). And furthermore the demoniacs had some quite distinct characteristics, such as their ability to recognize Christ for whom he was (e.g. Mark 5:7, to be more fully discussed below).

When we look at the various cases described in the N.T. we see a great variety of ailments. These include dumbness (Matt 9:32), and blindness together (Matt 12:22), superhuman strength paired with an uncontrollable urge to inflict pain to the body (Mark 5:2ff), again superhuman strength (Acts 19:16), and lunacy (Matt 17:15) paired with dumbness (Mark 9:17, a parallel passage). From the last case it is clear to us that the synoptic authors do not always mention all the symptoms that come with demon-possession. Whereas Matthew mentions lunacy, Mark mentions only dumbness, while Luke puts no name to the disease but describes symptoms of epilepsy. (Luke 9:39). Similarly with the blind and dumb man (Matt 12:22), where Luke records only his dumbness (Luke 11:14). From this it is clear that where no ailment is mentioned we must not conclude that no ailment was present. It was not the Gospel authors’ aim to describe exhaustively all that took place. So how must we judge those three cases where no ailment is mentioned by name?

In the case of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:23ff, Luke 4:33ff) there is no mention of a particular disease, but the symptoms displayed by the man suggest epileptic hysteria.[31] In the case of the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter it is clear that the demoniac herself never appeared before Jesus or his disciples, and hence they never witnessed her symptoms. The third case concerns Mary Magdelene of whom it is said only in passing that she bad been possessed by seven demons (Luke 8:2, Mark 16:9). One rather unusual symptom is displayed by the slavegirl in Philippi, Luke records that she had a “spirit of divination” by which she did soothsaying (Acts 16:16). Although we may hesitate to classify this as a psychosomatic disorder, we must admit that it certainly defies the norm.

From the above it is clear that most of the accounts of the demoniacs mention besides demon-possession some other ailment with which the victims were afflicted. In those cases where no such ailment is mentioned there are either symptoms suggestive of an ailment, or there is a reasonable explanation for the silence of the author on this point. Now it may be argued that the reason why accounts of demoniacs so frequently mention psychosomatic disorders is that the authors of the Gospel wanted to concentrate on the more spectacular cases. However a careful study will show that cases were selected because of their context, e.g. the arguments they provoked between Jesus and the Pharisees (e.g. Matt 9:32ff), the reception Jesus got from the local populace (Matt 8:34), etc.

It is tempting to conclude that psychosomatic disorders always accompanied demon-possession, especially in the light of what we know of the destructive urge of demons (e.g. Matt 8:32).

But although this may be true, it cannot be strictly proven. Our source material on this point is only descriptive and not normative. All that we can say is that there is strong reason to suspect psychosomatic disorders where demon-possession occurs.

5. Do demons possessing demoniacs have distinct personalities?

It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with the exact nature and identification of demons. We will accept the more usual explanation of their origin, namely that they are fallen angels,[32] and that as such they are the subjects of Satan (cf. Mark 3:22, 23). In the accounts of demon-possession there are many terms used to designate these demons. They are: a) demon (daimoon, Matt 8:31, daimonion, e.g. Matt 7:22), b) spirit (e.g. Matt 8:16, c) evil spirit (Luke 7–21), d) unclean spirit (Matt 10:1), e) dumb spirit (Mark 9:17), f) dumb and deaf spirit (Mark 9:25), g) spirit of an unclean devil (Luke 4:33), and h) spirit of divination (puthoona, Acts 16:16).[33] This terminology clearly shows that demons were spirits, that they were evil and unclean, and that they were responsible for various physical ailments.

From the N.T. accounts it is clear that these demons or spirits have distinct personalities. Their use of the first person pronoun (e.g. Mark 5:7, 9; Luke 4:34) shows that they are separate entities, although they spoke of themselves either in the plural or in the singular. We see something of the complexity of the demons in Mark 5:9 where the possessing power calls itself “Legion,’ and refers to itself both in the singular (moi) and in the plural (esmen). What is clear, however, is that the hostile possessing force is quite distinct from the person possessed, so much so that in the case of the Gerasene demoniac the exorcised spirits took refuge in swine (Mark 5:12, 13). Koch is wrong, therefore, when he talks of demon-possession as a “disintegration” and a “splitting of the personality.”[34] A more accurate description comes from Foerster who states that the demoniac’s “ego is so impaired that the spirits speak through him.”[35]

It is here that we find a very definite criterion for true demon-possession. There are always two or more personalities present in the demoniac, that of the person who is possessed, and that of the demon or demons who have possessed this person. This does not solve the difficulty of recognizing the distinct personalities. For one thing we have to distinguish between a demoniac and a medium. In the first case the possessed is an involuntary victim, in the second case the medium voluntarily allows another party to take over his vocal organs. Also we must distinguish between possession and certain psychological ailments, e.g. schizophrenia, where there may be an appearance of a dual personality.[36]

At this stage we also want to examine the nature of the demon which possessed the girl at Philippi, Luke calls it a “spirit of Python” (pneuma puthoona, Acts 16:16). Is Luke here saying that the girl prophesied by means of a demon who identified himself as a python? Not necessarily, in the LXX the same Greek word is used for those who had a familiar spirit, like the witch of Endor.[37] On the other hand according to the Encyclopedia Britannica “In Hellenistic belief, a python was a spirit which possessed certain persons and prophesied unknown to them through their mouths.”[38] We must therefore consider the possibility that Satan and his demons accommodated to the local pagan beliefs, appearing to the Philippians as a python. This matter becomes important when we consider the many accounts of alleged demon-possession from the mission fields. In these instances there is nearly always an element peculiar to the paganism of the area, e.g. Chinese “demoniacs” will frequently want to be worshipped in a shrine, and in Japan they often take on the characteristics of foxes or weasels.[39] Now we may agree with VanderLoos that “we nowhere find it stated in the New Testament that a man was possessed by an animal.”[40] But if Acts 16:16 is an indication that Satan and his demons can adapt their deceitful practices to the local culture, there is no reason why demons may not appear posing as local deities. 1 Cor 10:20 suggests that although idols in themselves are nothing, there may be demons behind them.[41]

6. Do demoniacs have some supernatural knowledge by virtue of their demons?

A fourth century author called Lactantius wrote that philologists (grammatici) named demons “demons” because they are “knowing ones” (scios).[42] Plato, at a much earlier date, gave a similar etymology.[43] There is no doubt that both authors refer to a superhuman knowledge, especially concerning future events. In the N.T. we also find instances of prophetic knowledge. This is very clear in the case of the servant girl of Philippi, who did soothsaying by virtue of her demon (Acts 16:16). We also find that demons know of the doom that awaits them (Mark 1:24), and even have some idea of the time in which this doom will catch up with them (Mark 8:29). But the superhuman knowledge of the demons is most marked in their knowledge of the identity of Christ. When Peter confessed Jesus to be the “Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16), Jesus replied, “flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee” (v. 17). But long before Peter made this confession many demoniacs had already addressed Jesus in very similar terms, calling him “Jesus, thou Son of the most high God” (Mark 5:7), “the Holy One of God” (Mark. 1:24), etc.[44] Again it is clear that this was not revealed to them by “flesh and blood,” but by the indwelling demon.

Although we may conclude that demoniacs have a certain supernatural knowledge, there is a difficulty in using this as a criterion for the diagnosis of demon-possession. Even if we find evidence of a supernatural knowledge, how do we distinguish it from telepathy, and prophecy through a medium? The answer is that this criterion can only be used in conjunction with other evidence, and thus it may serve as further confirmation of demon-possession. Supernatural knowledge by itself is not enough evidence to mark a demoniac.

7. Are demoniacs compelled to acclaim the authority of Jesus when confronted by him or by one of his representatives?

There is a remarkable difference between what the sick call Jesus and the form of address used by the demoniacs. The most common form of address used by the sick was “Lord” (e.g. Matt 8:2, 8), but they also called him “Lord, son of David” (Matt 15:22; 20:30, 31), “son of David” (Matt 9:27; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39), “Jesus, thou son of David” (Mark 10:47; Luke 18:38), “Master” (Mark 9:17; Luke 9:38), “Jesus, Master”. (epistata, Luke 17:13), and “Rabboni” (Mark 10:51). These are all lofty titles, but they do not compare to what the demoniacs called him. The latter addressed him as “Son of God” (Matt 8:29), “Jesus, thou Son of God most high” (Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28), “Thou art the Son of God” (Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41), and “Jesus of Nazareth… I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34).

We have already noted that the demoniacs recognized Christ by virtue of the supernatural knowledge of the demons. But that does not explain why they should publicly acclaim Jesus’ high status and his authority. From Mark 1:34 and 3:12 we gather that they did so or tried to do so without fail. The same passages show that Jesus did not want this public recognition from the demons, so that he “suffered not the devils to speak.” The reason for this rebuke of Christ is not given, but probably Calvin is right when he suggests that the time for Christ’s public identification was not ripe, and also that he would not be praised by those who would defile him.[45] Yet we cannot maintain that the demons were deliberately trying to give away Jesus’ messianic secret, or that they sought to defile him by praising him. The fact that they “fell down before him” (Mark 3:11) shows that there was an attitude of subjection, Unger calls it “the mere bending of a lower to a higher will, in hate and resentment.”[46]

It seems that somehow the demoniacs are under a compulsion to acclaim Christ’s greatness, whenever they meet him. But does the same thing happen when it is not Christ but one of his followers who confronts the demoniac? Unfortunately there is only one example of someone other than Christ casting out a demon, apart from some general references. This is the case recounted in Acts 16:16ff, where we read that the slave girl possessed by the spirit of divination followed Paul and his followers around for “many days,” crying out, “These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.” But from this one case we cannot draw the conclusion that such an acclamation is the norm.

We strongly suspect, however, that when a demoniac is confronted with the name and claims of Jesus Christ by one of his followers, he will show some signs of recognition. Because not only do demons believe in God, but this knowledge makes them tremble (James 2:19).

III. The Nature Of Exorcism

8. Do demoniac ever come of themselves to be cured?

When we study the biblical accounts of demon-possession to find out what brought the demoniac and the exorcist together we find that there is no instance in which the demoniac came voluntarily and of himself to be cured. In most cases we read that the demoniacs were “brought” to be cured (προσφέρω, Matt 4:24; 8:16; 9:32; 12:22; 17:16; φέρω, Matt 17:17, Acts 5:16; cf. parallel passages). In the case of the Syro-Phoenician woman her demoniac daughter never came at all (Matt 15:22ff). Then there are also cases in which the demoniacs and their exorcists met, at which occasions the demoniacs were compelled to acknowledge the authority of Christ (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:2, 6; Acts 16:16ff; cf. parallel passages). In Mark 5:6 we read that the Gadarene demoniac ran to Jesus, and Koch interprets this “the demoniac runs to Jesus for help”.[47] However the Greek text ties the running very closely to the act of “worship” (ἔδραμεν καὶ προσεκύνησεν, lit. “he ran and prostrated himself before…”), which suggests that he ran to Jesus in order to “worship” him.

The consistency of these accounts strongly suggests that no demoniac will of himself come to have the demon cast out. In view of the strong claim that demons seem to have on the possessed, this is not surprising, since these demons obviously want to maintain the hold they have on their victims. In every instance of exorcism they are reluctant to leave (e.g. Mark 5:7, Matt 12:43, etc.).

We can therefore conclude that in those cases where a person comes to be counseled because he thinks he has a demon, the counselor has every reason to suspect that he is not dealing with a demoniac.

9. Is an authoritative word, spoken in faith, the only biblical way of exorcising a demon?

“Probably the most striking feature of the exorcism per-formed by Jesus was the fact that they were without any accompaniment of the ritual of incantation. He simply commanded, and the demons came forth,” writes Edward Langton.[48] In Matt 8:16 we read that Jesus cast out demons “with a word,” and it is clear that this word was a word of “rebuke” (ἐπιτιμάω, Matt 17:18; Mark 1:25; etc.). This clearly shows us the authority that Jesus had over demons, a fact which is further brought out by the response of the demons who fall down before him (Mark 5:6).

Christ’s disciples followed his example, also commanding demons to come out of their victims, but their commands were made in Jesus’ name (e.g. Acts 16:18). It is clear, however, that the disciples did not use the name of Jesus in a ritualistic way. Rather they regarded him as the power and the authority by which they could cast out the demons. The error of using Jesus’ name ritualistically is clearly demonstrated in Acts 19:13ff, where the sons of Sceva are shown trying to exorcise a demon by using Jesus’ name. It ended up a disaster because the demons refused to recognize any authority in the words of the exorcists.

The disciples also had to learn that using Christ’s name was not enough by itself. One day when they attempted to cast out a demon they failed, so that the father of the demoniac had to appeal to Christ himself for help. When later the disciples asked for the reason of their failure Christ answered that it was “because of your little faith” (Matt 17:20). Christ also added “this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer” (Mark 9:29). There is a textual problem here in that some manuscripts add “and fasting.” But for our purposes this is not so important, because what Jesus is saying here is not that prayer and fasting will drive out the demon, but that prayer, and possibly fasting, are necessary for a strong faith.[49] The faith that is needed for exorcism is not just saving faith, but the charismatic faith that is mentioned in 1 Cor 13:2, a faith that is kept strong through close communion with God in prayer.

It may be argued that religious relics can be used in legitimate exorcisms, since we not only read that Peter’s shadow healed demoniacs (Acts 5:15), but even Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons (Acts 19:12). But surely we must interpret this in the light of what we read in Mark 5:25ff. Here we read that a woman was healed by touching Christ’s garments. However Christ made it clear that this was not what healed her, because he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well” (v. 34). Now Christ did not demand the faith of the demoniacs themselves, since they were in no position to have any. But he did demand faith of the demoniac’s father in Mark 9:23, 24, and in another case of a demoniac’s mother (Matt 15:28).

It is clear that many so-called exorcisms both in the history of Christianity and in paganism do not measure up to this biblical norm. We have already examined some examples from early Judaism and from the Dark Ages, but let us look at some more contemporary accounts. Unger cites a case from India of a woman sinking into deep melancholy and being possessed by a demon after the death of both her parents. At a local shrine the girl is first subjected to beating, questioning and enchantments, and when that failed oil-soaked wicks were lit in her nostrils. This apparently had the desired effect.[50] However not only do we have to maintain that such a mode of exorcism defies the scriptural norm, but also the circumstances of the case and the healing of it suggest that this was rather a psychological ailment.

When we look at contemporary accounts of “Christian” exorcisms we often note a similar, even though a less crude method. In Catholic circles crucifixes, Latin chants and other rituals apparently still play a great role.[51] In Neo-pentecostalism the laying on of hands, ecstatic praying and singing and other awe-inspiring rituals often accompany the exorcisms. Again we note that this is a long way removed from the authoritative word of rebuke that came from Christ and his disciples. And again we note that the method of exorcism is such that it would have a strong effect on psychologically disturbed people. And so we may well ask, are these cases of genuine demon-possession?

Also in the counseling of demon-possessed by Kurt Koch and Dr. Alfred Lechler we must ask whether they follow the scriptural norm for exorcism. Unfortunately both are very unclear in defining the difference between demoniacs and those who are “demonized.” We therefore wonder if they really expect a confession from a demoniac.[52] Christ never did, neither did he ever state that their sins were forgiven. From all appearances it would seem that Christ did not hold the possessed responsible for their misfortune. We also wonder if “loosing from the powers of darkness”[53] is really a scriptural concept in the area of healing. The text Koch quotes in support of that, Matt 18:18, clearly refers to the matter of discipline, and not to the loosing of a person from the grasp of a demon.

We must seriously question whether in those cases where exorcism did not follow the Scriptural pattern there was really a case of demon-possession. This is not to say that where genuine faith is present Christ will not lend his power despite the human additions to the ritual. But where there is not even a pretence of exorcising by the power of Christ, can there be a genuine exorcism? Or to put the question a different way, does Satan cast out Satan? This is what Christ asked the Pharisees. But this does not mean that Jesus thought such a thing impossible. Although it may seem so at first sight, we must agree with Unger that:

Upon closer scrutiny, however, it will be discovered that Jesus’ reference is solely to the hostile invasion of the kingdom of darkness by the actual and effectual power of light, wherein Satan suffers real and permanent injury. There is no allusion to Satan’s own deceptive, and seemingly self-injurous methods…[54]

Hence we cannot say that there are no exorcisms within the kingdom of darkness.

We must conclude that in Scripture there is only one method of exorcism, and that is that through faith a demon may be cast out by an authoritative word in the name of Christ. Where the exorcism takes any other form we must conclude either that we are not dealing with a genuine case of demon-possession, or that we are not dealing with a Christian exorcism.

Conclusion

How then can we recognize a genuine case of demon-possession in the light of what the Bible says? We noted first of all that we have every reason to suspect that there are not as many demoniacs about today as there were in the days of Christ, which were times of extraordinary activity on a demonic level. The only exception to this situation will be in the time immediately prior to Christ’s return, when demonic activity may again intensify. Secondly, we know that if demon-possession does still occur today we will not find it among genuine Christians, and we suspect not even in “christianized” societies, but most likely in those areas where the light of the Kingdom of God has not yet penetrated the darkness of paganism.

We furthermore believe that demoniacs should be reasonably easy to recognize, partly because of the psychosomatic disorders which they seemingly always exhibit, but mainly because of the distinct personality of the indwelling demon. This personality may show himself to have a supernatural knowledge, especially when challenged about the lordship of Christ. We strongly suspect that a challenge in the name of Christ cannot go unanswered.

Lastly, we may be fairly certain that those people who come for counseling because they think they have a demon are not demoniacs. We also strongly suspect that many alleged cases of exorcism were not dealing with demoniacs, because the exorcism did not follow a biblical pattern.

We admit that few of the above criteria are absolute. But the reason for this is that we have few normative statements about demon-possession. All the accounts of demon-possession and exorcism are descriptive, and from this we can only arrive at a pattern that may have been influenced by the cultural milieu. However by “good and necessary inference” we can make one clear statement, and that is that no Christian with the Holy Spirit in his heart need fear that he is open to possession by demons.

Notes

1. Kurt Koch, Occult Bondage and Deliverance. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1970, pp. 147-153. Cf. Merrill F. Unger, Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971, p. 103.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. In defining demon-possession in terms of the symptoms of supposedly paradigm examples of our own time there is a great danger that we stray from the biblical concept of this malady. For example, here is a list of criteria that were believed to be indications of true possession in the seventeenth century: a) to think oneself possessed, b) to lead wicked life, c) to be persistently ill, falling into heavy sleep and vomiting unusual objects (either natural objects: toads, serpents, worms, iron, stones, etc.; or artificial objects: nails, pins, etc.), d) to blaspheme e) to make a pact with the Devil, f) to be troubled with spirits, g) to show a frightening and horrible countenance, h) to be tired of living, i) to be uncontrollable and violent, j) to make sounds and movements like an animal. (R. H. Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology. New York: Crown Publishers, 1959, p. 395.)
5. Even John, while not mentioning any examples of demon-possession, does mention the topic on three occasions (10:19ff; 8:48f; 7:20).
6. Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951, p. 174.
7. Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952, p. 80.
8. Sydney H. T. Page, Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1971, pp. 30,31.
9. Tobit and Antiquities, loc. cit.
10. Quoted in B. B. Warfield’s Miracles: Yesterday and Today, p.239.
11. For tales of possession see R. H. Robbins, op. cit., pp. 392ff.
12. It is not necessary to conclude from Matt. 12:27 that the “sons” of the pharisees had indeed been casting out demons.
13. Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1969, p. 113.
14. Unger, Biblical Demonology, op. cit., p. 100.
15. Unger, Demons, op. cit., p. 117.
16. Koch, op. cit., pp. 68,69.
17. Ibid.
18. For a treatment of this subject see Jay E. Adams, The Big Umbrella, Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973, p. 119.
19. e.g. John Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949; and Geldenhuys, op. cit.
20. e.g. A. Hovey, Commentary on Matthew.
21. Unger, Demons, op. cit., p. 117.
22. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters. New York: The Macmillian Company, 1961, p. 3.
23. Matt 8:16, 17, 28–34; 9:32–34; 12:22; 17:14–21; Mk 1:21–27, 38–39; 3:7–12; 6:7–13; 9:38–41; Lk 8:1–3. (Cf. parallel passages.)
24. Matt 15:21–28.
25. Matt 4:24; Mark 3:7–12.
26. 1 Cor 12:10, used to prove the contrary, will be discussed below.
27. Unger, Biblical Demonology, op. cit., p. 98.
28. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953, p. 287.
29. “Daimwn,” G. and G. Friedrich Kittel (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, II. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964, p. 19.
30. “Diabolical Possession,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, IV. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1967, p. 839.
31. “Demoniac,” The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, III. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1952, p. 402.
32. See Unger, Demons, op. cit., p. 13ff for other theories.
33. In Lk 13:11 we read of a “spirit of infirmity,” but commentators are by no means agreed that this is a case of demon-possession. Kittel’s TWNT puts it in the class of ordinary sickness.
34. Koch, op. cit, p. 58.
35. TWNT, II, p. 19.
36. Hugh W. White, Demonism Verified and Analyzed, Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press, 1922, identifies the two.
37. 1 Sam 28:7–25.
38. “Pythons,” Encyclopedia Britannica, XVIII. 1963, p. 805.
39. See e.g. White, op. cit.; and John L. Nevius, Demon Possession, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1894.
40. H. Van Der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus. Leiden: Brill, 1965, p. 347.
41. It is not necessary to think that every idol has demons behind it; this verse can also be interpreted that idolaters are subjects of Satan.
42. Lactantius, Divine Institutions, II:5.
43. Plato, Cratylus, I, 389.
44. See below.
45. Calvin, op. cit., I, p. 252.
46. Unger, Biblical Demonology, op. cit., p. 67.
47. Koch, op. cit., p. 58.
48. Quoted by Page, op. cit, p. 53.
49. See Calvin, Lenski, van Leeuwen, etc. who give this interpretation in their commentaries in loco.
50. Unger, Demons, op. cit., pp. 118,119.
51. See article on “Exorcism,” Robbins, op. cit.
52. Koch, op. cit., p. 89.
53. Ibid., p. 104.
54. Unger, Biblical Demonology, op. cit., p. 104.