Demon Possession and Exorcism In the New Testament

Demon Possession and Exorcism

In the New Testament

ROBERT M. JOHNSTON

Belief in incorporeal beings who interact with human beings was al-

most universal among ancient peoples, both pagan and Jewish. They were

called spirits or demons. These terms were originally morally neutral but

came to signify evil forces. A good survey of how the meaning of daimon

developed is provided by Evere Ferguson (2003:236–238).

Pagan and Jewish background

For Socrates daimōn meant something like a conscience. Plato

sometimes used the word as a term for divine intermediaries or demigods,

sometimes as something like the guardian angel of a person or a city. From

this developed the idea that everyone has two demons, one good and

one bad. As we approach New Testament times, as seen in authors like

Xenocrates, Apuleius, and Plutarch, demons were viewed as malevolent

spirits which were everywhere and caused trouble for humans. The idea

that the demons are demigods (see Plutarch Moralia in Babbi 1993:63,

65) prepares the way for the identication of pagan deities with demons

in 1 Cor 10:20 and other early Christian literature. A demon could take

possession of a person, a condition for which the verb was daimonizomai

(literally “to be demonized”), resulting in physical or mental aiction,

and pagans had sorcerers (magoi) who performed exorcisms by means of

incantations and magical techniques (Ferguson 2003:236–238). “Sorcerers

[would] advise those possessed by demons to recite and name over to

themselves the Ephesian leers [a magic formula]” (Plutarch Moralia in

Minar, Sandbach, and Helmbold 1999:55).

Intertestamental Judaism had parallel ideas. Tobit 6:21 speaks of a

person’s guardian angel. But the demons are not demigods but fallen

angels. In Jubilees10:5–9 most of the angels who sinned are imprisoned in

the netherworld, but a tenth of them are allowed to remain to aict sinful

Johnston: Demon Possession and Exorcism In the New Testament

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2015

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

human beings. In 1 Enoch 15:11–16:1 they are the disembodied spirits of

the dead giants begoen by the angels who copulated with women; their

work is to aict and deceive humankind. An alternative opinion, found in

the Qumran literature and some rabbinic literature (see Cohen 1949:260),

was that these spirits were created by the Lord during the creation week.

Demons could enter into a person (for citations and discussion see Cohen

1949:260–270), and the Jews had exorcists such as one Eleazar, reported

by Josephus, who drew out the demons through the victims’ nostrils by

means of techniques and incantations supposedly passed down from

Solomon (Antiquities 8.46–49 (8.2.5), in Whiston 1987:214). The Pharisees

were thought to be especially adept at exorcisms, though later Rabbis

sought to explain the practice away (for citations and discussion see

Urbach 1979:98–102). Jesus said to the Pharisees, “If I cast out demons

by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?” (Ma 12:27). Acts

19:13–16 tells of seven Jewish exorcists in Ephesus who sought to employ

the name of Jesus as a magical formula, with disastrous results.

Terminology

In the Greek New Testament several terms are used apparently inter-

changeably: daimōn, but more commonly its diminutive form daimonion;

pneuma, usually described as pneuma akatharton (unclean spirit); and some-

times pneuma poneron (evil spirit); and in the plural pneumata plana (deceit-

ful spirits), and pneumata daimoniōn (demonic spirits, or spirits of demons).

We need also to note a verb common in the gospels, daimonizomai, mean-

ing to be in a condition of being possessed by a demon or demons.

The interchangeability of these terms is obvious from so many examples

that I will cite only two representative instances. In Mark 3:15 Jesus grants

his twelve apostles the authority to cast out demons, while in Mark 6:7 he

gives them authority over the unclean spirits. Mark 7:25 tells us about a

Greek woman who was possessed by an unclean spirit, while in the next

verse she begs Jesus to cast the demon out of her daughter.

The signicance of the epithet unclean spirit may be that it had the ef-

fect of separating a person from the worship of God.

Occurrences in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts

The Synoptic Gospels are replete with stories and references to demon

possession and exorcisms, in fact more than sixty. In Mark, commonly

considered the rst Gospel, the rst recorded miracle of Jesus is the ex-

orcism of a man with an unclean spirit in the synagogue of Capernaum

(Mark 1:21–28). In the rst half of this Gospel the only ones on earth who

know the identity of Jesus are the demons. This man is made to cry out,

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 11 [2015], No. 2, Art. 4

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol11/iss2/4

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32597/jams/vol11/iss2/4/

2015, vol. 11 no. 2

“What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to de-

stroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”

There are several points to notice. The speaker uses both a plural pro-

noun and a singular one. Is the speaker the man or the demons? That

the possessed person could be under the spell of multiple demons was

common. Luke 8:2 tell us that Jesus cast out seven demons from Mary

Magdalene, and when Jesus asked the Gerasene demoniac his name, the

reply was Legion, “for many demons had entered him” (Luke 8:20). It

seems that when a person was possessed a distinction could not always

be made between his own voice and that of the demons. Also noteworthy

is what has been called the Messianic Secret, which here is really the Son

of God Secret. Jesus commands the demons to be silent and not disclose

his real identity. The title Holy One of God was not the self-designation

that Jesus preferred, which was Son of Man. Finally, it is worth noting that

Jesus employed no incantation or magical technique, but rather gave the

simple command: “Come out!” According to Mark 1:28 Jesus rst became

famous as an exorcist.

In Mark 3:13–19 Jesus called to him the twelve men who would become

his apostles. “He appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to

preach, and to have authority to cast out demons” (v. 15). When Jesus sent

them out on their rst mission “they cast out many demons and anointed

with oil many that were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:13). Throughout

the Synoptics sickness and demons are closely associated.

The apostles continued to have the authority to cast out demons after

Christ’s ascension, and several incidents are recorded in the book of Acts,

some of which may reect the superstition of the multitude. Acts 5:12–16

tells us that people thought they could be healed if Peter’s shadow fell on

them. The people brought “the sick and those aicted with unclean spir-

its, and they were all healed” (v. 16). The terminology is worth noting: they

were healed (Greek therapeùō). This usage is not found in Mark, who never

uses this term for demonized persons, but in Luke exorcism is a healing.

Another curious incident is narrated in Acts 19:11–12. People thought that

if they could be touched by cloths that had come in contact with Paul’s

body, diseases would leave them and evil spirits would come out of them,

and indeed it seemed to work. Consequently some Jewish exorcists, the

seven sons of Sceva, sought to do their work by using the name of “Jesus

whom Paul preaches” as a magic formula, but the demoniac man leaped

on them and injured them (vv. 13–16). The power to cast out demons was

from God, not in the words used.

How was the mistake of these sons of Sceva worse than that of the

man in Mark 9:38, who was casting out demons in the name of Jesus with-

out being a follower of Jesus? We canot be sure, but perhaps the sons of

Johnston: Demon Possession and Exorcism In the New Testament

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2015

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

Sceva were closer to using the name of Jesus as a magic formula that they

thought would work ex opere operato. One clear dierence between Jesus’s

exorcisms and those of pagans and Jews is that Jesus did not use incanta-

tions and magic. To cast out a demon he simply said: “Come out!” Ma

8:16 says that Jesus cast out the demons “with a word.” Disciples expelled

the demons in the name of Jesus (Luke 9:17). What was important was not

the words used, but the spiritual state of the exorcist. When the disciples

were not able to cast out the demon from an epileptic boy and asked Jesus

why they had suered such a humiliating failure, he replied, “This kind

cannot be driven out by anything except prayer [some manuscripts add

“and fasting”]” (Mark 9:29).

Since casting out demons was such an important part of the apostolic

mission, it is surprising that this function is never explicitly listed among

the spiritual gifts (charismata) in the Epistles. It may quite legitimately be

asked whether exorcism is subsumed under the gift of healing (charismata

iamatōn) in 1 Cor 12:9, 28. The answer is not completely clear, because the

distinction between naturally occurring illness and the disability arising

from demons is often unclear, as will be noted below. In some texts the

casting out of demons and the healing of diseases and inrmities are

mentioned side by side as if distinct activities, as for example in Ma 8:16,

10:8, and Luke 13:32. In other texts the casting out of the demon is called

a healing, as in Luke 7:21, 8:2, and 6:18. For example, in Ma 15:28 the

Syrophoenician woman says that her daughter “is severely possessed by

a demon,” but in v. 28 it says “her daughter was healed instantly.” Luke

6:18 tells of people who came to be healed (iaomai) of their diseases,” and

“those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured (therapeuomai).”

Notable also is Acts 10:38, where Peter declares that Jesus went about

“doing good and healing (<iaomai) all that were oppressed by the devil.”

Sometimes the healing and the exorcism may be yoked together like a

hendiadys. In view of all this the inclusion of exorcism within healing is

not certain but certainly possible. It is also worth noting that among the

gifts of the Spirit is the ability to distinguish between spirits (1 Cor 12:10),

something also mentioned in 1 John 4:1, where believers are admonished

to “test the spirits” (cf. 1 Thess 5:21).

This section cannot end without giving special aention to Mark 3:22–30

and especially its parallel in Ma 12:24–32. The Pharisees declared, “It is

only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.”

Beelzebul, originally a title for the Canaanite god Baal, had come to be a

name for Satan, the supreme demon. Jesus had healed a blind and dumb

demoniac, and the response of the people was amazed admiration. The

assertion of the Pharisees was their response to that. Then Jesus responds,

rst making the argument that it is illogical to think that Satan would

aack his own realm, for a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 11 [2015], No. 2, Art. 4

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol11/iss2/4

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32597/jams/vol11/iss2/4/

2015, vol. 11 no. 2

Furthermore, how can Pharisaic exorcisms be acceptable if those of Jesus

are not? Then Jesus declares: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out de-

mons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (v. 28), thus declar-

ing that the plundering of the house of Satan is a sign of the in-breaking of

the reign of God by the coming of Jesus. Gerd Theissen has remarked that

no other charismatic miracle-worker ever claimed that his miracles por-

tended the end of the old world and the beginning of a new age (in Reese

1992:2:141a). Jesus’s exorcisms were an eschatological sign.

Finally, Jesus warns that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be

forgiven. This implies that the Pharisees in making their accusation were

in danger of commiing that sin, which was ascribing the work of God to

Satan. Davies and Allison observe:

In 12.22–37 Jesus’ ministry of exorcism is subject to two radically dierent

interpretations. That is, the one undeniable fact is ambiguous and capable

of bearing antithetical meanings. How, then does one get to the truth? The

text implies that there are good reasons for embracing one view of Jesus

rather than another (12.25–39). . . . Faith cannot abide with ill-will and

disagreeable natures: for good fruit cannot be found on a bad tree (12.33).

(Davies and Allison 1991:2:365, 366)

Jesus’s warning should make us very careful about aributing good

works to the devil.

The Works and Effects of the Demons

The picture that the Synoptic Gospels and Acts gives us of the work of

the unclean spirits does not seem to dier greatly from the popular beliefs

of the time. It was believed that evil spirits favored certain kinds of loca-

tion, such as dark places and ruined buildings. Everyone believed that

these spirits especially liked to be where there is water (Cohen 1949:262,

264). Jesus utilized this belief in Luke 11:24–26 (see also Ma 12:43–45):

When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless

places seeking rest; and nding none he says, “I will return to my house

from which I came.” And when he comes he nds it swept and put in order.

Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and

they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse

than the rst.

We note that exorcism was reversible. We also note that, if the words

are more than colorful rhetoric, some demons are worse than others.

It was also believed that evil spirits aack not only people but animals,

which then become dangerous (Cohen 1949:266), thus mad dogs were

believed to be the victims of demons. When Jesus exorcized the Gerasene

Johnston: Demon Possession and Exorcism In the New Testament

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2015

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

demoniac (Mark 5:1–20 and parallels) the demons begged Jesus to let

them enter a herd of pigs, “And the unclean spirits came out, and entered

the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down

the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea” (v. 13).

Quite in line with what is found in the Greek and Jewish traditions,

the people of the New Testament believed demons to be the cause of most

physical problems and most or all mental problems. These include epi-

lepsy (Luke 9:39), loss of speech (Luke 11:14, Ma 9:31), inability of an

old woman to straighten her back (Luke 13:10–13), inability to hear (Mark

9:25), blindness (Ma 12:22), and a tendency to self-destruction (Ma

17:15). But the distinction between naturally occurring illness and disabil-

ity arising from demons is often unclear. The same symptoms are ascribed

to sickness in Ma 4:24, where demon-possession is listed separately from

other illness, and to a demon in Ma 17:15. But it is of interest to observe

that, whatever the nature of the aiction, and especially in the case of

demon-possession, the victim was never blamed for it.

Most mental aberrations, including unconventional opinions, were as-

cribed to demon-possession, which is most clearly illustrated in the Gos-

pel of John, as we shall see below. However, in Mark 3:21 Jesus’s fam-

ily, concerned about his mental state, says “he is out of his mind (Greek

exestē).” The Greek term used here is existēmi, which means being in a state

of confusion, which may or may not have demonic causation. The scribes,

however, in the same pericope, do not hesitate to accuse Jesus of demon-

possession of the highest order (v. 22).

Another striking eect of demon-possession, at least in some cases,

was the impartation of superhuman strength. Mark 5:3, 4 tells us that the

Gerasene demoniac “had often been bound with feers and chains, but

the chains he wrenched apart, and the feers he broke in pieces; and no

one had the strength to subdue him.” Demons also bestowed other abili-

ties, such as in the case of the slave girl who had the spirit of divination

and foretelling the future (Acts 16:16). When the demon left her, so did the

ability (v. 19).

The Gospel of John

When we turn to the Fourth Gospel we nd ourselves in many ways

in a dierent world from the Synoptic Gospels. We nd no exorcisms and

no one possessed by demons. But we see Jesus himself accused of having

a demon. We already saw this in the Synoptics, in Mark 3:20–27 and

parallels, that the Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus of being demon-

possessed. But whereas in the Synoptics the Pharisees said Jesus was

demon-possessed because he successfully performed exorcisms, in the

Gospel of John the charge is based upon what Jesus says.

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 11 [2015], No. 2, Art. 4

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol11/iss2/4

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32597/jams/vol11/iss2/4/

2015, vol. 11 no. 2

In John 7:20, after Jesus tells “the Jews” that they were ploing to kill

him, thus disregarding the commandments, they retort: “You have a de-

mon! Who is seeking to kill you?” In this instance “You have a demon” is

essentially a way to say “You are crazy.”

Again, after an unpleasant interchange “the Jews” replied, “Are we not

right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” Samaritans

were heretics, so here having a demon basically means holding to an out-

rageous opinion. Jesus denied the charge (John 8:48, 49), and made an

even more sensational claim: “If any one keeps my word, he will never

see death,” to which “the Jews” replied, “Now we know that you have a

demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say,’ If any one keeps

my word, he will never taste death’” (8:51–52). In their minds, heretical

opinions are prompted by indwelling demons.

In John 10:20, 21 we nd the same division of opinion noted in Ma

12:24–32: “There was a division among the Jews because of these words.

Many of them said, ‘He has a demon, and he is mad; why listen to him?’

Others said, ‘These are not the sayings of one who has a demon. Can a

demon open the eyes of the blind?” Once again what Jesus did and said

could lead the hearers to diametrically opposite conclusions about the

speaker. To some Jesus’s claim that he had the power to lay down his

life and to take it up again (v. 18) was nonsense. To others it seemed that

one who could perform such miraculous works of mercy should be taken

seriously. But what is of interest is the belief that seemingly nonsensical

claims are the result of demon-possession.

If there is an exorcism in the Fourth Gospel it is only the casting out of

Satan from the world through the Passion (John 12:31). A reading of the

fourth Gospel has the eect of discrediting the concept of demon-posses-

sion, because the only One so described was manifestly innocent of it. The

contrast with the Synoptic Gospels is dramatic.

The Epistles and Revelation

The mention of demons in the rest of the New Testament is sporadic,

and none of the instances are cases of demon-possession in the Synoptic

sense. Paul call his “thorn in the esh” a messenger of Satan (1 Cor 12:7),

but he hardly considers himself to be demon-possessed. But “Babylon” is

demon-possessed (Rev 18:2).

We see agreement with the idea that the pagan gods and idols are de-

mons (1 Cor 10:2, 20–21; Rev 9:20), and with the idea that heretical opin-

ions are propagated by deceitful spirits and demons (2 Tim 4:1), yet they

believe correct doctrines (“Even the demons believe and shudder,” Jas

2:19). Unclean spirits deceive the rulers of nations (Rev 16:13, 14).

Johnston: Demon Possession and Exorcism In the New Testament

Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University, 2015

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

Conclusion

Demon-possession was an almost universal belief of all peoples in the

Mediterranean world of New Testament times, and it is a prominent fea-

ture of the Synoptic Gospel narratives and the book of Acts. The Gospel

of John witnesses to Jewish belief in the phenomenon but strikingly lacks

mention of actual demon-possession or exorcisms. In the rest of the New

Testament we do not nd these things at all, though there are several men-

tions of demons. But a robust belief in demon-possession as a cause of

physical or mental aictions, or even of heretical doctrines, seems to have

evaporated from Christian literature in later years, at least for a time. A

search of the Apostolic Fathers turns up a few mentions of demons, but

nothing approaching demon-possession of the Synoptic kind .

As we move from the Synoptics and Acts into the rest of the New Tes-

tament, we seem to move from exorcism of individuals to a focus on the

exorcism of the planet, from the inauguration of the Kingdom of God to

its consummation.

Works Cited

Babbi, Frank Cole, ed. and trans. 1993. Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 5. Loeb Classical

Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, A. 1949. Everyman’s Talmud. New York: E.P. Duon.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. 1991. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the

Gospel According to Saint Mahew. Vol. 2. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark.

Ferguson, Evere. 2003. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids,

MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Minar, Edwin L., F. H. Sandbach, and W. C. Helmbold, eds. and trans. 1999.

Plutarch Moralia. Vol. 9. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Reese, David George. 1992. Demons. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, 141a,

edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

Urbach, Ephraim E. 1979. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Jerusalem, Israel:

The Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Whiston, William, trans. 1987. The Works of Josephus. New updated ed. Peabody,

MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Robert M. Johnston was a missionary in Korea and the

Philippines for twelve years, and he has traveled and taught in

many countries. Since 1973 he has taught in the Seventh-day

Adventist Theological Seminary of Andrews University, rst in

the theology department, and then in the department of New

Testament, of which he was chair for some ten years.

Journal of Adventist Mission Studies, Vol. 11 [2015], No. 2, Art. 4

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/jams/vol11/iss2/4

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32597/jams/vol11/iss2/4/