Yetzer, Free Will, Entelechy, TULIP

 

… just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will … (Ephesians 1:4-5 NKJV)

 

 

 

If one were to envision a “Judeo-Christian Church,” one should begin with the issue of Monotheism and how Jesus fits into monotheism (entelechially), but I have already discussed those matters in my blogposts: Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism and (my more recent post) Can Jews Accept Jesus? Of secondary importance to the question “Who is God (and Jesus)?” is the question “Who is man?” Is man, analogically, a virtual robot, pre-programmed by God to do whatever God predestines him to do? Calvinist theology seems to answer that question in the affirmative. In its doctrines of “Unconditional Election” and “Irresistible Grace” (The U and the I in TULIP theology) Calvinism affirms that the Elect are chosen by God without respect to any free will on their part and that those so-chosen are helpless to resist such election. Furthermore, Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity (the T in TULIP) affirms that humans have no capability of choosing Good and God on their own.

Nevertheless, Calvinist theology is neither inspired nor inerrant. Although the New Testament certainly discusses “foreknowledge” and “predestination,” as in the Ephesians passage cited at the first of this post, such passages are better interpreted in light of the concept of entelechy. The New Testament contradicts the three TULIP doctrines mentioned in several locations (for example):

·         2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV): The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

·         John 6:40 (NKJV): And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

·         Romans 1:16 (NKJV): For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

It sounds to me like it is God’s Will that EVERYONE believes, repents, and has everlasting life—not just Calvinists or a few whom God has hand-picked to be saved before the world began. Furthermore, passages exist that might suggest that man is “inclined” to behave wickedly, such as:

·         Romans 3:23 (NKJV):  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

·         Genesis 8:21 (NKJV):  Then the Lord said in His heart, “… the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

Jews certainly would not dispute the assertion that humans possess an inclination toward wickedness. The Hebrew word translated “imagination” (above) in Genesis 8:21 is yetzer. As I commented in my post Excessive Righteousness 4: Cardiac Commitment (Quid Pro No!),

“Jesus uses the term ‘heart’ to signify the center of our decision-making processes. In Genesis 6:5, God saw that the ‘intent (yetzer)’ of man’s ‘heart (levav)’ was ‘evil (ra‘)’ all of the time. Jews teach that the center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his ‘heart [levav]’) has a ‘good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)’ and an ‘evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).’ These two inclinations at conflict in our hearts … sprang, perhaps, from when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of ‘Good (ha-tov)’ and ‘Evil (ha- ra‘)’.”

A conflict, therefore, exists between Judaistic and Calvinistic anthropological theology regarding man’s total depravity. Although I have attended a Calvinistic church for more than a decade, at which the “pastor” has repeatedly cited the entire litany of Calvinist scholars (most of whom he knows personally) and their arguments on the issues of TULIP, I remain unpersuaded by them. Arminians, certainly, dispute the views of Calvinists. The Jews have the more correct anthropological theology, biblically. Even Cain, who became deadly jealous of his brother Abel, was told by God that he had the power to “rule over” the sinful inclination of his heart: “So the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.’” (Genesis 4:6-7 NKJV).

If Cain (after the Fall) had the capacity (even though he did not exercise it) to “rule over” sin, assertions that man is totally depraved are erroneous. Man (although having powerful evil inclinations) also has free will and can “rule over” his own evil inclinations, if he chooses to. There are some exceptions, however, to the principle of the free will of humans—even in Jewish theology:

1.      Do Children Have Free Will?

Not sufficiently. Once, my 4-year-old grandchild was throwing a tantrum. I demanded sternly: “Stop that!” The response: “I can’t.” There may have been some truth to that response. As I commented in my post Angels & Demons 7:  Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?, 

[A]ccording to official Jewish teachings—for the same reason animals cannot sin. Children do not possess the YETZER HA-TOV, according to the Jewish Mishnah, until they reach the age of 12 or 13 (12 for girls, 13 for boys). Prior to that age, they possess only the YETZER HA-RA. They—like animals—are essentially selfish. This is why at age 13, Jewish boys are given a BAR MITZVAH (literally: “son of the commandment”). Girls, at the age of 12, have a BAT MITZVAH (“daughter of the commandment”). They are not even expected to be able to live according to the Commandments until that age. They are considered sinless, even though they are (like animals) essentially selfish. 

Hence, one could say that children do not have free will; their behaviors are determined by their YETZER HA-RA. Contrarily, one might argue that children often do nice things for others. Even so, those “nice things” are often explained by the Santa Claus entelechy. Being nice instead of naughty earns the child a reward from Santa (or whoever else is in a position to offer the reward). Such behavior is still selfishly-motivated despite the fact that it appears to be altruistic. Your dog might bring you your slippers, but he probably expects a treat or a pat on the head, in return. (Likewise, for children.) Even the avoidance of punishment may be sufficient motivation to produce behavior that appears to be self-less, but is essentially still selfish. Continuing the dog analogy, I am trying here to “throw a bone” to those who argue that children (and dogs) can behave altruistically, selflessly. Consider: if you never praised or rewarded self-less-appearing behavior on the part of your child (or dog), would they, nevertheless, persist in the good behavior?

2.      Do the Mentally Handicapped Have Free Will?

Not according to Jewish teaching. I commented in my post Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism: “Nevertheless, [the Jews in the time of the New Testament] still believed that God could speak to humans through the occasional words of children and the mentally handicapped (indelicately called ‘fools’ by the Jews). This was still the Holy Spirit operating.”

The assumption is that, if children are considered sinless (having only the YETZER HA-RA), the mentally handicapped should qualify as sinless (and, therefore, like children, be fit conduits for delivering messages from God) since their good inclination is not fully functional. Jesus may be referring to the “sinless” phenomenon when He deals with the Pharisees in John 9:41 (NKJV): “Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, “We see.” Therefore, your sin remains.’” This teaching appears to contradict Leviticus 5:17 (NKJV) somewhat: “If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.” I believe that the best explanation of this seeming contradiction is that “blindness” is a metaphor for being mentally handicapped. If the Pharisees were mentally handicapped, they would have no sin, but since they say “We see,” their sin remains.

3.      What About Those Whose Mental State is Altered by Drugs/Alcohol?

Unless they were administered the drug/s against their will, there does not appear to be a carve-out for drug-altered mental states. Admittedly, individuals under the influence are frequently not entirely in control of their actions.  One might argue that they, therefore, do not at that time have free will. Women who become inebriated at a bar may engage in sexual activity that they might otherwise have resisted. (Of course, if they were the victims of deceptive drugging by men who subsequently raped them, they are considered innocent victims. See Deuteronomy 22:25-27.) Men (and women) who become inebriated or high might engage in spouse and child abuse or even murder.

In a very sad recent event, Rob Reiner’s son Nick (who had a history of substance abuse) allegedly stabbed both of his parents to death. Studies (such as the one at Yale Behind the Smoke: Unmasking the Link Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia | Yale School of Medicine) have indicated that marijuana use contributes to psychotic behavior and may even be a factor in the recent rash of mass shootings. Are those who kill others by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs innocent because they could not control themselves after imbibing? The Greek word φαρμακεία/pharmakeia (which is transliterated “pharmacy”) means simply the use of drugs. Since drugs were/are used in witchcraft and sorcery, the term took on those secondary meanings. Galatians 5:19-22 lists φαρμακεία and drunkenness among the works of the flesh (along with adultery, fornication, murder, etc.) and states that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 9:21 lists φαρμάκων (from the same root) alongside murder and sexual immorality, which required (but lacked) repentance. If one is capable of repenting from φαρμάκων, free will (regarding its use) is implied. Revelation 18:23 states that φαρμακεία deceives (though, in this instance, it has the connotation of drug-induced sorcery). Revelation 21:8 and 22:14 lists murderers, fornicators, and drug users (φάρμακοι) among those “outside the” New Jerusalem whose punishment is the Lake of Fire.

There is no indication that God views drug-or-alcohol impaired individuals to be absent free will. Rather, they exercise their free will in choosing to imbibe, inhale, shoot-up, etc. It is that sinful exercise of their free will that condemns them to the Lake of Fire—not inheriting the kingdom of Heaven.

4.      What About the Demon-Possessed?

If the modern-day Catholic and Evangelical Christian doctrine of demon-possession were actually correct, one might argue that these demon-possessed individuals do not themselves enjoy free-will. Rather, following such reasoning, one might conclude that the wills of the so-called possessed have been confiscated by wicked spiritual entities. However, I have insistently argued that such a view of what certain Gospel writers have termed “demon-possessed” is totally erroneous. It effectively provides an excuse for bad behavior and renders the individual diagnosed as demon-possessed personally innocent of his or her actions—the responsibility for which actions resides solely with the wicked spiritual entity. Some Evangelical Christians have suggested that the killer of Charlie Kirk was demon-possessed. I disagree. At least, I do not agree in the way they mean.

Repeating my teaching on the subject of demons, however, I frequently point out that both the Apostle Paul and John the author of Revelation teach that demons do not exist as actual entities. They are simply falsehoods that people believe. In I Corinthians, Paul makes “idols” and “demons” synonymous and teaches that “idols” are “not anything,” that no idol really exists; there is no God but one. John in Revelation agrees that demons and idols are not able to see, hear, nor walk. Demons are not found at all in the Old Testament or in John’s Gospel. Where the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) do mention them, they appear to be something like psychosomatic illnesses. The possessed believe they have a malady, but there is no physical proof of illness. For example, there is never an account of having a demon of fever because a fever is proof of an actual illness. In the same way that I suggest that transgenders are affected by “demons” (they believe falsely that they are members of the opposite sex), the false belief takes hold of them. Since the term “demon” is so misunderstood, these days, I refer to this problem not as demon-possession, but as being the product of psychotic entelechy. As an example of psychotic entelechy, Pharaoh believed that Egyptian gods were superior to Moses’s God, so he demanded that his magicians replicate the plagues. So willing was he to disbelieve Moses, and resist the command to “let My people go,” the Bible says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:13-8:19). The operative word in Pharaoh’s hardened heart is the word “heart.” As I mention above, Genesis 6:5 asserts that “the ‘intent (yetzer)’ of man’s ‘heart (levav)’ was ‘evil (ra‘)’ all of the time. … [T]he center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his ‘heart [levav]’) has a ‘good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)’ and an ‘evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).’” The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart would emphasize his free will rather than diminish it.

1.      What About Angels?

In my blogpost Angels & Demons 7:  Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?, I state: “Angels, on the other hand, are not credited with having “free will.”  Neither are animals nor children.   For Rabbinic theologians, adult humans have that “watershed” of which Burke writes—both the good and the evil inclinations--the YETZER HA-RA‘ (evil inclination) and the YETZER HA-TOV (good inclination).  Adult humans (past the age of puberty) have the knowledge of both good and evil.  …  If a being (such as a child or an animal) does not have the full capability to choose freely between good and evil alternatives, that being is not held “accountable” for any sins.

While Calvinism presents a strange and upside-down picture of free will in which humans have no free will (predestination) yet angels possess free will in the teaching on fallen angels, Jewish theology paints the more correct picture: Angels, animals, children, and the mentally handicapped have no free will. All other adult humans possess free will. No excuses for drug and alcohol users or the (so-called demon-possessed) humans who succumb to psychotic entelechy.

Angels & Demons 32: Diagnosis: Demon Possession or Illness?

Jesus is presented in the gospels as one who could cure any type of malady—demon possession or illness. Nevertheless, the synoptic gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) find it useful to distinguish between these two major types of maladies. The gospel writer John, on the other hand, only presents Jesus as curing diseases or other bodily malfunctions (not casting out demons), and Paul (as I have pointed out in past commentaries) considers demons to be the equivalent of idols: false gods, who really have no existence whatsoever. Incidentally, John the author of Revelation (in 9:20) appears to agree with Paul—that demons (like idols) are nothing. He writes of unrepentant men who worshiped the “works of their hands”—“demons and golden idols, and silver, and bronze, and wooden, which are not able to see, nor hear, nor walk.”
The following list of illnesses and bodily malfunctions cured by Jesus is fairly complete:

• bent spine Lk. 13:10-21 (crippled woman)
• blind Jn. 9:1-41 (man born that way); Mk. 10:46-52; Mt. 20:29-34; Lk. 18:35-43; Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35
• deaf Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35
• diseases Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35
• epileptic Mt. 4:23-25
• fever Jn. 4:46-54; Mk. 1:29-34; Mt. 8:14-17; Luke 4:38-41
• lame Jn. 1:5-47; Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35
• leprosy Lk. 17:11-37; Mk. 1:40-45; Mt. 8:2-4; Lk. 5:12-16; Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35
• palsy Mk. 2:1-12; Mt. 9:1-8; Lk. 5:17-26 (paralytic?); Mt. 4:23-25; Mt. 8:5-13; Lk.7:1-10 (near death)
• plagues Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35
• raise dead Mt. 11:2-19; Lk. 7:18-35; Jn. 11:1-44 (Lazarus); Lk. 7:11-17
• sick on their beds Mk. 6:53-56; Mt. 14:34-36
• various illnesses Mk. 1:29-34; Mt. 8:14-17; Luke 4:38-41
• withered hand Mk. 3:1-6; Mt. 12:9-14; Lk. 6:6-11

Conspicuously absent from this list is any type of mental illness. There seems to be a strongly psychosomatic element in virtually all of the cases the synoptic gospel writers term “unclean spirit,” “evil spirit,” and/or “demon-possession.” Even though these gospel writers use this terminology, they do not themselves appear to be diagnosing the maladies. Rather, the diagnoses seem to be generated by the culture, sometimes, even by the families of those who have the maladies (and frequently, by the demon-possessed individuals, themselves).

In my previous commentary, I observed that a possibility existed “that the boy [in Matthew 17:14-20, Mark 9:14-29, and Luke 9:37-43] actually had epilepsy and that the father had misdiagnosed it as demon-possession.” A closer look at those accounts shows that, while Matthew 17:18 terms this demon-possession, in Mk. 9:14-29, the father diagnoses the malady as a dumb (or speechless) spirit. In Mt. 17:14-20, the father says he is epileptic; whereas, in Lk. 9:37-43, the father simply says he has a spirit. I have already offered my opinions concerning what may have transpired in this case. I mention the case here to demonstrate that the diagnosis of demon-possession was not always clear or conclusive in the various texts. Did the father believe his son was demon-possessed, truly epileptic, or just the victim of a false belief? Does the father even know? Whatever the diagnosis, the gospel accounts are in unanimous agreement that Jesus solved the problem.

The gospel writers themselves differ, even when discussing the very same cases, on whether the various cases should be termed “demon” or (unclean or evil) “spirit.” What Mt. 4:23-25 calls demon, Lk. 6:17-19 calls unclean spirit. What Lk. 4:31-37 terms demon, Mk. 1:21-28 terms unclean spirit. What Mt. 8:28-34 and Lk. 8:26-39 refer to as demon, Mk. 5:1-20 refers to as unclean spirit. Lk. 8:1-3 mentions Mary Magdalene from whom seven demons had gone, but Lk. 8:1-3 also refers to evil spirits. Mk. 6:13, Mt. 10:8, and Lk. 9:1 all use the word demon, but Mk. 6:7 and Mt. 10:1 refer to the same event with the words unclean spirit. Lk. 7:18-35 describes a case referred to only as evil spirit. Mt. 12:22-32, Mk. 3:20-30, and Lk. 11:14-23 and 12:10 describe another case with all gospel writers agreeing to the demon terminology. It appears that the gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, perceived no difficulty with substituting between the terminologies. This does not seem to support a conviction that demons in the Greek sense of the Greek word existed. I suspect that “demon” terminology had simply become a conventional way of referring to a problem with a “spirit.”

As I have been demonstrating ever since my commentary “Angels & Demons 23: Angels as the Personification of God’s Word,” the word “spirit” is the equivalent of the word “word.” When the New Testament contrasts the spirit of truth with a spirit of error, it is indicating that these “false words” (or spirits of error) are capable of “possessing” humans who believe them. This is especially true with highly suggestible individuals (including children). As a college professor, I have observed this phenomenon in more than one student. I know of male students who--because they speak with a lisp or have a high pitched voice or are interested in music, dance, or theater—have been told by their contemporaries that they appear to be homosexual. Thinking logically, lisping, voice pitch, and performance aptitudes have nothing to do with one’s sexual behavior. But, to the highly suggestible, the insinuation or suggestion that the male may be homosexual is enough to produce corresponding behavior. Likewise, a similar case exists with females who may have lower-pitched voices or athletic builds. Such suggestions or insinuations have the force of “spirit” for the individuals involved.

I have had students who were told they had aggressive tendencies, and they promptly lived out the implications of the terminology. I have had students who were told they were suicidal, and they succumbed to the force of this “spirit”/suggestion. Bi-polar. ADHD. Name the diagnosis, and, frequently, suggestible individuals so diagnosed will respond with the “appropriate” set of behavioral acts. I am not suggesting that there are not individuals who are truly bi-polar or who truly suffer from ADHD. I just wonder how many individuals who have received a “false diagnosis” or a “spirit of error” become somewhat “possessed” by the false word.
While it is easier to understand the terminology “spirit of error” as a “false word,” allow me to unpack the terms “unclean spirit” and “evil spirit.” Kosher is the Hebrew term designating proper dietary habits. Kosher is translated “clean.” Whatever is not Kosher is “unclean.” Hence, eating mutton, beef, or venison is Kosher or clean. Eating pork, horse meat, or dog meat, on the other hand, is unclean. Jews were promised, in the Law of Moses, that if they would eat Kosher foods, they would be afflicted with fewer diseases. We all know that anyone who eats pork that has not been thoroughly cooked, for example, may be susceptible to Trichinosis. The dietary laws were designed, primarily, to keep the population healthy. There were also Kosher laws concerning cleanliness and what one should do if one becomes ill. Those afflicted with leprosy, for example, were required to quarantine themselves from the healthy population. To warn others of their illness, they were required, even in New Testament times, to cry out “unclean.” Notice that the New Testament does not provide for anyone the diagnosis that he or she has “a demon or spirit of leprosy.” That is because leprosy had quite visible and empirically-detectable physical symptoms. Likewise, while Jesus healed many with “fevers,” no one had a demon or spirit of fever. If someone has no specific, empirically-verifiable physical symptoms, but still behaves as if he or she is afflicted with a disease, you could say that the person is not actually “unclean,” but had a “spirit” of “uncleanness”—or, an “unclean spirit.”

Similarly, the less-used terminology “evil spirit,” the word “evil” as applied to a spirit is used seven times by Luke (in his two works, Luke and Acts). Other than those seven times, the term “evil” is only applied to the term “spirit” once—in Matthew 12:45, discussed in the next paragraph—and even there, Matthew did not use the phrase “evil spirit.” The Greek term translated “evil” in all of these cases is the same term Jesus uses in his prayer: “Deliver us from evil.” It corresponds to the Hebrew word used in the name of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in Genesis. After Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they and all their descendents were infused with both good and evil inclinations. This is not a term that refers primarily to the spirit world; it is a term that refers primarily to HUMAN characteristics (albeit, less than desirable characteristics). The word does not conjure up for Luke super-human “evil” beings. It describes that human nature that leads one to sin. As Jesus’ prayer states (in a parallellism): “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” Whether the “evil words or thoughts” affecting the one who was afflicted were the words or thoughts of that person so afflicted, or whether they were the “evil words” inflicted upon the victims by the malicious “curses” of other humans, they could be termed “evil spirits.”

Jesus himself is never specifically quoted as diagnosing a case as demon-possession, but in Mt. 12:38-45, Jesus offers a parable of someone having an “unclean spirit.” I think Jesus was saying that the man in his parable believes that he has an illness and that that sheer belief is enough to produce those “unclean” (or illness-like) symptoms. If the man is cured of this false belief, but does not replace this false belief with true beliefs, he is susceptible to many other false beliefs (or spirits) more evil than the one that first afflicted him. In other words, unless he learns the truth, he remains very suggestible—very susceptible to erroneous spirits.

Many times, in the New Testament, the one doing the diagnosing of the presence of a demon or unclean spirit is the individual who is so possessed. The case of the Gadarene/Gerazene demoniacs is a case in point. They identified the name of the demon/s who possessed them: Legion (because they diagnosed themselves as having many demons). They also knew who Jesus was and believed him capable of casting out the demon/s. When Jesus taught in the town of Capernaum—a village very close to Jesus’ home town of Nazareth—Mt. 4:23-25, 8:14-17, Mk. 1:29-39, Lk. 4:38-41 write of several unspecified cases of demon-possession. Interestingly, all demon-possessed individuals knew who Jesus was. He grew up in the region. Similarly, in Acts 19:15-16, a man possessed of an “evil spirit” knows who Jesus and Paul are, but Jesus and Paul are not the ones performing the exorcism. It seems that whenever the “demon-possessed” individual has a (self-diagnosed) self-recognition of his or her own demon-possession, and a belief in the ability of the one exorcising the demon to do so effectively, success results. In the Acts 19 case, some Jews (unknown to the demon-possessed man) tried to perform the exorcism and failed.

Before we leave the discussion of diagnosis, we should list the several clear cases of misdiagnosis of demon-possession in the New Testament. In Mt. 11:19 and Lk. 7:33-34, Jewish opponents misdiagnose John the Baptist as having a demon. In Mk. 3:19-30 and Mt. 12:22-37, scribes misdiagnose Jesus as having an unclean spirit (Mk.) and using power of Beelzebub to cast out demons. This accusation, Jesus calls the unforgiveable sin. I believe he does so, because the scribes should know (as Paul does) that there is no god or demon called Beelzebub. Rather, Beelzebub is a transliteration of the words Baal Zebul--one of the Canaanite gods. These idols or false gods did not exist! Any scribe who has personally completed hand-written copies of the Old Testament would know that! It is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to suggest that such false gods are capable of acting at all--let alone attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to these false gods! In Mt. 9:27-34, Pharisees misdiagnose Jesus as using power of Beelzebub to cast out demons. In Jn. 7:20 and 8:48-52, Jewish opponents misdiagnose Jesus as having a demon. In Jn. 10:20-21, Jewish opponents misdiagnose Jesus as having a demon and being insane. In Acts 17:18, Paul’s Stoic and Epicurean opponents falsely accuse him of being an announcer of foreign demons. Just because culture or society (or even very religious people) diagnoses someone as being demon-possessed, the diagnosis is not necessarily accurate.

Who is doing the diagnosing? It may be the demon-possessed person himself or herself, the demon-possessed person’s parent, malicious individuals who may have cursed the individual, or the culture in general who cannot discover empirically-recognizable reasons for the unclean or illness-like symptoms. Jesus is not reported as diagnosing any specific individuals, himself—just curing them. Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to use indiscriminate diagnosis terminology—demon, unclean spirit, evil spirit—but it is not clear whether they are attempting to diagnose or just reporting the consensus (cultural) diagnosis. John the gospel writer does not use any such terminology; he reports no case of casting out spirits or demons. John the author of Revelation sees “demons” as he sees “idols”—the works of human hands. And, Paul says that demons are like idols and false gods—they don’t exist.

Angels & Demons 32: The Rite, The Exorcist, and Severe Demon Possession in the Bible

Last weekend brought the debut of the movie “The Rite,” starring Anthony Hopkins. The film opened at number one at the box office for the week. In the film, Hopkins’s character is an exorcist, in Rome. The demon-possessed characters do not levitate or spin their heads around in complete circles, as the demon-possessed Linda Blair had done in the 1973 movie “The Exorcist.” Other than appearing to know things that the demon-possessed character should not have otherwise known—like, that a U.S. dollar bill was hidden in a bag and that a young priest’s father would soon die—the demoniacs of “The Rite” do not seem to accomplish any super-human feats. A pregnant girl who is chained to her bed apparently loses her unborn child and fatally hemorrhages. Eyes turn red, bodies experience contortions, and fingers are cramped into claw-like configurations, but “The Rite” moves the genre of exorcism movies much closer to the believable than some of its famous predecessors.

“The Rite” even incorporates significant counterarguments to the thesis that the individuals presented as being demon-possessed are so in actuality. As I discussed in Angels & Demons 30, the Apostle Paul argues that “idols” and “demons” are the same thing. He also states (rhetorically) that “idols” are “not anything.” In I Corinthians 8:4, he states, “We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.” In “The Rite,” the character portrayed by Colin O'Donoghue, a skeptical American priest (presented almost as an atheist), also resists the notion that demons exist, but he does not offer any argument from scripture. Instead, his argument is presented as an atheistic argument.

The O’Donoghue character argues that, rather than being demon-possessed, the individuals so presented just believe that they are demon-possessed, and their false belief is what motivates their behavior. I also made this argument in my previous commentary, Angels & Demons 31, but “The Rite” offers the argument in such a way that it must be considered atheistic. Why? I guess it makes for better theater.


The O’Donoghue character even argues that some individuals are actually psychotic—that they need psychiatric attention, rather than an exorcism. I have written an entire book on what I call “psychotic entelechy.” While asserting that there are several major secular psychotic entelechies, I focus the book on the dangers of Spiritual Gifts Theology. This is the notion that someone actually receives personal communiqués from the supernatural realm. While, similar to Kenneth Burke following John Dewey, I do not use the term “psychotic” in the psychiatric sense, I do argue that if one believes one hears voices or receives messages from the supernatural realm, the messages one receives have the capacity to induce extremely dangerous behavior on the part of the one receiving the messages. This is, in my opinion, in the realm of what the Bible might term “demon-possessed.”

When I say “the Bible,” I mean “only the New Testament.” The Old Testament does not include a single case of demon-possession. I state in Angels & Demons 1:

“What is significant, however, is that the discussion of the creation of angels and the Fall of the Angels did not occur until much later than the supposed event. It was not until the Hellenistic period of Jewish history (between 300 and 50 B.C.) when Jews were under the control of the Greeks (Alexander the Great and his successors) that the Fall of the Angels became a topic of much conversation. Yet, in those years following the completion of the Old Testament, there is a flood of literature containing information on the subject.”

What is true of Fallen Angels is also true of Demons. Demons are a Greek concept, not a Jewish concept. They are not even always bad or evil, in Greek thought. Socrates, with a positive air, claims to have a demon, in his Apology. At his trial, he says he is not an unbeliever, because he hears a voice that is a demon instructing him to be a philosopher. The Greek word for “fortunate” is EUDAIMŌN—meaning “(having a) good demon.” That the Apostle Paul—who has received an education as a Roman citizen—would reject the existence of demons on the basis that they are the same as idols is not surprising. They are false gods who make up a part of the Greek pantheon.


Demons in the New Testament are never capable of inducing levitation or head-spinning, as with Linda Blair’s character in “The Exorcist.” The vast majority seem to be less remarkable in the sense that the demon-possession was exemplified by a physical malady, such as non-speaking, that was effectively cured by casting out the demon. In Angels & Demons 31, I report:

“Acts 19:13 suggests that some Jews had the power to cast out demons and Jesus seems to corroborate this fact in Matthew 12:27 and Luke 11:19. One might assume that ANYONE who is capable of persuading someone who believes in the existence of a nonexistent physical malady that the nonexistent malady does not exist might, thereby, effectively cast out a demon.”

Such is the case with the vast majority of New Testament demoniacs. However, a few do deserve closer attention. In Matthew 8:28-32, Mark 5:1-17, and Luke 8:26-33 one or two demoniacs dwelt in tombs and menaced people who traveled nearby. They wore no clothes and were very ferocious. People were fearful to travel past them. People had even attempted binding them with chains, but the chains were broken by them. When Jesus traveled there, the demoniacs called him “Son of God” and pled with him to cast (the demons) into a herd of swine. Jesus granted the request; the herd of swine, then, ran down the steep embankment into the lake and were drowned. The demoniac/s surely would interpret this visible development—a herd of swine racing down an embankment into a lake—as a sign that he or they were no longer demon-possessed. Apparently, the former demoniacs were freed from whatever ailed them. Luke 8:35 reports that the people came out to see what had happened. They found the formerly possessed man sitting at Jesus’ feet, dressed, and sane.

So, what happened here? If we take Paul’s word that demons are like idols and false gods—and, hence, do not exist—we have men who mistakenly believed they were demon-possessed. They, therefore, behaved as they assumed the demon-possessed behaved. They even believed that they were possessed of multiple demons, because, when Jesus asked, “What is your name?” the answer was “Legion,” because (t)he(y) believed (t)he(y) had many demons. We have men who believed not only that they were demon-possessed, AND that Jesus was the Son of God, but ALSO that Jesus had the power to cast out demons. Hence, when Jesus granted the request they believed had come from the inner demons, they believed that he had, in fact, rid them of the demons. Except for the possible super-human act of breaking chains and for the notable occurrence of a herd of swine racing into a lake, there is no compelling evidence of the existence of a supernatural being (in the form of a demon) at work, here. Perhaps, Jesus granted the request to see swine run into the sea as a means of thoroughly persuading the demon-possessed that they had no demons. So long as the formerly possessed BELIEVED they were free of demons, they behaved sanely.

Another possible explanation that would be short of granting the existence of personal beings called demons would be that whatever mental problem the men were experiencing was transferred into the minds of the swine. In other words, the men may have been psychotic in the psychiatric sense and this psychosis was, then, transferred to the swine. However, the psychotic behavior of the men caused them to ferociously attack humans. The swine displayed no such antisocial behavior. Instead, they committed suicide. I am more inclined to believe that Jesus created a sense of panic in the swine, as a visual means of persuading the possessed men that the demons were gone. Incidentally, even this (counter-argument) explanation of exorcism was presented in the movie, “The Rite,” as Anthony Hopkins’s character appeared to use a frog—pretending to extract it from a young man--to persuade the young man that he had removed the demon.

In another demon-possession case, in Matthew 17:14-20, Mark 9:14-29, and Luke 9:37-43, a boy since early childhood displays epileptic symptoms. He cannot speak, convulses, rolls on the ground, foams at the mouth, and sometimes falls into the fire and sometimes into the water. While Jesus could have simply “healed” the boy and, thus, corrected any actual physical malady he may have had, this case was diagnosed (by the father) as demon-possession, as Jesus’ disciples attempted in vain to cast out the spirit. The boy’s father says to Jesus, “If you can do anything, help us.” Jesus calls attention to the implicit doubt in the words the father has used—“If you can do anything?” (In Luke, Jesus exclaims, “O faithless and perverse generation!”) Jesus states that everything is possible for a believer. The father changes his tune: “I believe.” The child throws himself into another fit, Jesus rebukes the spirit, and the boy is cured.

In this case, the child appears to believe what his father believes. In the field of communication, we call this a type of “altercasting.” It is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The father does not believe it is possible for Jesus’ disciples to cast out the spirit (so, neither does the child). The father even questions Jesus’ ability, but after some confrontation, he tells Jesus he believes. Then, Jesus is able to successfully cure the child. While it is true that an actual physical malady such as epilepsy exists, there is no compelling reason to believe that this child had that illness. He did, however, display such symptoms. If the symptoms were related only to a psychosomatic illness, as I discussed in my previous commentary, Angels & Demons 31, just removing the belief that the boy had an incurable disease was required.

Another possibility, in this instance, is that the boy actually had epilepsy and that the father had misdiagnosed it as demon-possession. This possibility suggests the need to look at the cases of demon-possession in the New Testament to discover WHO is actually doing the diagnosing. I will follow that thread in my next commentary.

Angels & Demons 31: Demons, Voodoo, Hypnosis, Hexes, and Psychogenic Illnesses

What do demons, voodoo, hypnosis, hexes, and psychogenic illnesses have in common? They are all physical manifestations of things that do not exist in any realm other than the symbolic. They do not actually exist in the physical realm and they are not truly divine beings. Nevertheless, they do have the power to affect human beings, because humans are by nature symbol-using animals, according to Kenneth Burke. As I stated at the end of my previous commentary, one might even go so far as to suggest that the “false information” itself becomes a spiritual force that affects humans.

Since the author of I John contrasts the Spirit of Truth with the Spirit of Error, we may assume that a spiritual force of false information does indeed exist, according to the Bible. And, as I have demonstrated in “Angels & Demons 23: Angels as the Personification of God’s Word,” the word “spirit” is to be equated with the word “word.” A spirit is a word. Hence, the Spirit of God may be understood as God’s communicative nature. Angels are also God’s spirits, as Hebrews 1:7 claims: “And of the angels he says, ‘Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.’” The author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 104:4. If we stipulate that, according to the Bible, angels represent the communication of true information, demons represent the communication of false information. The huge difference for the Apostle Paul, as I discussed in my previous commentary, is that the true information emanates from an actual being—the one true God. But, Paul disputes that there is any actual divine being from which the false information emanates. Demons are the same thing as idols—which, for Paul, are nothing/nonexistent.

Kenneth Burke attributes a good deal of power, however, to hexes and psychogenic illnesses. In Language as Symbolic Action, pages 6-7, Burke explains:

“In referring to the misuse of symbols, I . . . think of ‘psychogenic illnesses’ . . . . A certain kind of food may be perfectly wholesome . . . . But our habits may be such that it . . . may be nauseating to us. (The most drastic instance is, of course, the ideal diets of cannibals.) . . . Instances of ‘hexing’ are of the same sort (as when a tribesman . . . finds . . . that . . . those in authority have decreed his death, by magic, and he promptly begins to waste away and die . . . .”

Burke tells of the anthropologist Franz Boas. Trying to establish rapport with a tribe of Esquimaux, he ate from a pot of what he thought to be whale blubber. Overwhelmed by the disgusting nature of this thought, he rushed outside to vomit. When he found out that the food was not blubber—but dumplings—Boas was able to eat the food without vomiting.

Similar to symbolically-induced food-based nausea, hexing, and psychogenic illness, is the practice of casting spells on voodoo dolls. According to the (voodoo-sympathetic) website, http://www.calastrology.com/voodoo.html, “Voodoo is a powerful mystical practice that can bring spectacular gifts and rewards to anyone who believes . . . .” That much is probably true: that the mystical practice brings results to anyone who BELIEVES. Even though the information is false, if someone BELIEVES it, s/he is under the power of the false information.

As a high school student, I viewed a demonstration of hypnosis. While under hypnosis, a student was given a post-hypnotic suggestion. He was told that there was a bucket on stage in the path of his exit. He would not actually see the bucket as he exited the stage, but that upon taking three steps toward the stairs to exit, he would trip over the bucket. There was no actual bucket on stage. Yet, upon being brought out of the hypnotic state, the student walked toward the exit stairs, and (as suggested) tripped over the nonexistent bucket. The audience exploded with laughter.

Demons may often be understood to be in the same category as voodoo, hypnosis, hexes, and psychogenic illnesses. While there are a few biblical accounts of demons that are difficult to fit into this description, the vast majority of demon-possession cases fit easily. I previously mentioned Mark 19:17-25, which refers to a “speechless spirit,” and Luke 13:11, which refers to a “spirit of weakness.” Both terminologies possibly indicate the type of affliction each spirit visited upon its host. Both physical results—speechlessness and weakness—could be replicated by post-hypnotic suggestion, hexing, or voodoo (for the believers in those practices). David Edwin Harrell, in his book, Oral Roberts: An American Life, states: “Oral was keenly aware of the emotional and psychosomatic nature of much of the healing under his tent. . . . He unashamedly laid claim to psychosomatic healings.” I assume that, so long as someone who believed s/he had an illness or physical condition that DID NOT ACTUALLY EXIST believed that Oral Roberts (or Jesus working through Oral Roberts) had the power to heal that nonexistent physical malady, the symbolic act of healing imposed by Roberts would effectively cure the nonexistent malady. Acts 19:13 suggests that some Jews had the power to cast out demons and Jesus seems to corroborate this fact in Matthew 12:27 and Luke 11:19. One might assume that ANYONE who is capable of persuading someone who believes in the existence of a nonexistent physical malady that the nonexistent malady does not exist might, thereby, effectively cast out a demon.

I, therefore, wonder how many “demons” exist in people as a result of the preaching and teaching of Bible-believing Christians who seek to persuade the populace that (contrary to the teaching of the Apostle Paul) DEMONS DO EXIST AS ENTITIES! How many novice Christians have been led to believe that they are under the influence of these entities (that Paul says do not exist)? Perhaps, even my writing of this commentary will be capable of exorcising some demons. I will address the more difficult demon-possession passages in the New Testament in future commentaries, but for now, just as is the case with those who believe the “false information” communicated in voodoo, hypnosis, hexes, and psychogenic illnesses, those who are willing to replace such false information with the true information may see their resulting physical maladies disappear.