Excessive Righteousness 8: The Antichrist(s)

 

 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. … Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:18-23 NKJV)

 

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV)

 

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 7 NKJV)

 

 

 

Are you expecting the “Antichrist” to come to the world soon? Some well-meaning Christians are surprised to learn that the term “Antichrist” occurs only in these few passages and that these passages are ONLY from the first two epistles of John. The term “Antichrist” does NOT appear in Revelation. It does NOT appear in any of the gospels, Acts, or the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, or Hebrews, yet attempts to interject this term into end-time predictions in all of the above sources are myriad. Furthermore, some well-meaning Christians overlook the obvious indication in these passages that the term “antichrist” is primarily a PLURAL entity, not a SINGULAR entity. You may be wondering why we consider the “Antichrist(s)” in the context of “Excessive Righteousness.” We’ll get to that, in a moment.

 

NOT the Man of Lawlessness.

It is not because the “Antichrist(s)” refers to the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness,” although one would think that ANYONE who followed some of the Law of Moses would possess righteousness that would exceed the righteousness of the Man of Lawlessness. Christianity.com (and many others) are wrong when they say: “In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to [the “Antichrist”] as the Man of Lawlessness.” Here are a few reasons that the two are not the same:

1.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:19 (NKJV), “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” In other words, the “Antichrist(s)” fellowshipped with the Church (and were even assumed to be Christians) for a while before going “out from” the Church. By contrast, the Man of Lawlessness is never mentioned in 2 Thessalonians as having once affiliated with the Church.

2.      The “Antichrist(s)” is never spoken of as “sit[ting] as God in the temple of God,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

3.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “exalt[ing] himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

4.      The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “coming … according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 (NKJV). There is no indication that the “Antichrist(s)” possessed any miraculous powers.

5.      True, the “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23 (NKJV), is a “liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ.” While 2 Thessalonians 2:4-5 (NKJV) states that the Man of Lawlessness comes “with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” Paul does not say that the specific lie he breathes is that he “denies that Jesus is the Christ.” According to Brittanica.com, the Book of Daniel “foretold the coming of a final persecutor who would ‘speak great words against the most High … and think to change times and laws’” (7:25).” Antiochus IV Epiphanes has been suggested as the reference in Daniel, but “Early Christians applied it to the Roman emperors who persecuted the church, in particular Nero (reigned [AD] 54–68).” Nevertheless, neither Daniel nor Paul states that the Man of Lawlessness “persecutes the Church,” or is opposed to Christ, in particular—just that he speaks against the “most High God,” according to Daniel. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that he “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” According to J.A.T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament, Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians in AD 50-51 (p. 352), three or four years before Nero even became Emperor, and well before he began persecuting Christians (AD 67) and even before he sent his troops to wage war with the Jews (AD 66). A better candidate for Paul’s Man of Lawlessness is the emperor Caligula, who died just one decade before Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I write in my book Revelation: The Human Drama (p. 82): “There is evidence that Caligula … shocked the whole Jewish world by commanding that his statue be set up in the Temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 40.  Perhaps John's discussion of the image of the beast alludes to this command.  The statue was never constructed, however.  Caligula's untimely assassination was the only thing that prevented his command from being carried out.” I continue on page 88: “It is highly probable that John, with his term ‘image [of the beast],’ is making allusion to the proposed statue of Caligula that would have been placed in the temple in A.D. 40, had Caligula not been assassinated.  If, as Wellhausen claims, ‘[t]he eikôn [image] is the alter ego of the empire just as Jesus was called the eikôn of God’ (cf. II Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15), then a living human being serves as the ‘image’ of the beast, just as the human, Jesus, serves as the ‘image’ of God.” Caligula is the best fit for Paul’s statement that the Man of Lawlessness “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Paul seems to suggest that this “mystery” of a Man of Lawlessness, sitting in the temple of God, had already begun before he wrote: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” Paul clearly knew, writing in 50-51, that Caligula had not actually sat “as God in the temple of God,” since he was assassinated a decade earlier, but knew that such a scenario (mystery) of lawlessness was on its way. John, in Revelation, then interprets this principle of a Man of Lawlessness sitting in the temple in AD 69 as the Jewish High Priest, the image of the Beast (Rome), requiring all Jewish patrons of the temple to worship the Roman Emperor Nero. I continue on pages 89-90 of Revelation: “The high priestly party could easily have been understood to be the talking ‘image’ of the beast who compelled people to worship Rome.  Zeitlin observes:

On … the beginning of January 66, a great assembly … establish[ed] a government to carry out … the war. It chose as head of the government the High Priest Ananus, a Sadducee who inherently was for peace.  ... This government … played a double role.  It thought it would achieve its goal by shrewdness. Speaking openly for war, inwardly it was for peace. It wanted to disarm the extremists so that it should have all power concentrated in its hands and thus be allowed to make peace with Rome. It failed utterly.

6.      The Man of Lawlessness is NOT the Antichrist. Rather, the Man of Lawlessness is the Jewish High Priest(hood), the “image of the Beast,” who lied to the Jewish people. The High Priest actually “sat in the temple,” encouraging the Jews to worship the Beast (Rome), and the High Priest actually offered sacrifices in the temple on behalf of the emperor (who did persecute both the Christians and the Jews: Nero).

 

Who is/are the Antichrist/s?

If the Antichrist(s) is not the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness, who is he (or who are they)?

·         He and they ARE former Christians, at least in name. They “went out from us.”

·         In this respect, he and they are similar to those described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV): “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”

·         He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 10:25-26 (NKJV) who were “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some … For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”

·         He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 12:25 (NKJV) who were cautioned: “See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him.”

·         This “Antichrist” apostasy could be what I refer to (in Apocalyptic Apologetic, 100-1) where I mention J.A.T. Robinson (Redating, 207-8) reporting (regarding the Neronian persecution of Christians following the Roman Fire of AD 64):

[E]xceptional and dangerous circumstances, involving the betrayal of fellow-Christians … [in] the Neronian persecution in Rome. Describing it, Tacitus ... spoke of the “information” given by those who confessed which led to the conviction of their fellow-believers. Clement, reflecting on the same sad story from the Christian side, speaks of “a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among [the Christians].” … [The Shepherd of] Hermas … pictures vividly the various sections under pressure: “As many … as were tortured and denied not, when brought before the magistracy, but suffered readily, these are the more glorious in the sight of the Lord; their faith is that which surpasseth. But as many as became cowards and were lost in uncertainty, and considered in their hearts whether they should deny or confess … that a servant should deny his own lord.”

Even in Asia Minor, where being a Christian might not have cost someone that person’s life in the Neronian persecution, it certainly might have cost one’s livelihood. So, in a move to protect their businesses and business interests, many “Christians” chose to put distance between themselves and the Church. Perhaps, as a show of good faith to Rome, these “Jewish Christians” even participated in pagan festivals. It was just good business. Robinson [Redating, 211-12] comments:

If we ask why now [the Jewish Christians] were … “staying away” from assembling with their fellow Christians ([Hebrews] 10:24f.), we may recall that in his description of the [Neronian]  persecutions, [the Shepherd of] Hermas speaks of those who “were mixed up in business and cleaved not to the saints;” they “stood aloof ... by reason of their business affairs ... from desire of gain they played the hypocrite .... Some of them ... are wealthy and others are entangled in many business affairs;” and the wealthy “unwillingly cleave to the servants of God, fearing lest they may be asked for something by them. ... [T]he Jewish community in Rome had a strong business sense, which was reflected in its Christian members. Their temptation was to allow racial and economic connections to outweigh the commitment of their Christian faith. … [T]hey sought to shelter under the ‘protective colouring’ of the religio licita [=legal religious status] of Judaism.”

In [Revelation’s] terminology, the synagogue of Satan, Jezebel, the Nicolaitans, and the Balaamites sold out their fellow Christians. Since the Jews were exempt from Nero’s persecution of the Christians—because Judaism was considered an “acceptable religion” (religio licita), many Jewish Christians became—like the high priesthood in Jerusalem—“harlots” who committed porneia with Roman authorities. Their garments were “defiled” because they chose to be in league with the Beast.

The Antichrist: a Judas Typology

In the Antichrist(s), we are not looking at the typology of Christians who are struggling with their faith, as may be the case with someone who cannot answer the arguments pressed upon him/her by an unbelieving academic world. To the contrary, like Judas, they know who Jesus is, yet they reject him anyway. Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they “crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” An Antichrist is not an agnostic, unbeliever, or even an honest atheist. Indeed, the Antichrist knows who Jesus is! He “is a liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either” (1 John 2:22 NKJV). One might well say to an Antichrist (just as one could say to Judas): “You know, don’t you!” Nevertheless, for financial gain (“thirty pieces of silver” or business purposes) or for social or academic acceptance, etc., the Antichrist will deny the Son (and, by extension, the Father). Like Judas, the Antichrist will hand Jesus over to be crucified again, all the while knowing the truth “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [and] is of God” (1 John 4:2 NKJV).

 

Similar to the Unforgiveable Sin

Thus, we return to the Unforgiveable Sin. It was identified in my blogpost Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin. There, I point out: “If ‘blasphemy’ consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted … then they themselves are guilty of ‘blasphemy’ when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub.” They knew that there is no actual god Beelzebub who had given Jesus the power to heal. It was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly knew better to lie to and deceive those who believed in them, suggesting that Beelzebub actually existed.

Likewise, it is unforgiveable for Christians who were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” and, therefore, certainly know better to lie to and deceive those who believe in them, denying that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh.

 

How Does This Understanding Contribute to Excessive Righteousness?

The two great (unforgiveable) sins are:

1.      Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (knowing that there is no other God, yet claiming that a power like Beelzebub exists) and

2.      Antichrist behavior (knowing that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh, yet denying that claim and, thereby, crucifying Him all over again).

Since God and Jesus are the only two in existence who can determine what righteousness is (i.e., the only ones who can issue moral commandments), political correctness, wokeness, DEI, Thomas Paine’s “human experience and rationality,” etc., are not the grounds for determining righteousness. If one’s righteousness will exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, one must begin by recognizing the exclusiveness of God’s Law and Christ’s commandments, and then seek to correctly interpret those laws and commandments.

John said that many Antichrists had already come when he wrote his epistles. Some want to speculate concerning the identity of some eschatological Antichrist. The clearest Antichrist known to the world is Judas, who knew who Jesus was and betrayed Him to be crucified anyway. Jesus said at His Last Supper: “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24 NKJV). Whatever we do, we must certainly avoid being another Antichrist, ourselves!

Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin

 

Pharisees … asked Him a question … “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said … “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

Pharisees … said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,

the ruler of the demons.” … “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy

will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men …

either in this age or in the age to come.”

(Matthew 12:24-32 NKJV)

 

It seems logical that the greatest sin it is possible to commit would relate to the greatest commandment. Monotheism is the basis of the greatest commandment (see previous post), so polytheism would be considered suspect as the basis of the greatest sin.

 

Beelzebub

 

Why would Pharisees, who are so protective of monotheism that they accuse Jesus of being blasphemous in claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:33-36), be so willing to attribute the works of Jesus to a Canaanite “god”? That’s who Beelzebub is! The only reference to Beelzebub in the Old Testament is in 2 Kings 1:2-17 (NKJV):

Ahaziah [the northern, Israelite king] fell through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria, and was injured; so he sent messengers and said to them, “Go, inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury.” But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?’ Now therefore, thus says the Lord: ‘You … shall surely die.’” So Elijah … arose and went down with him to the king … he said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron … you shall surely die.’” So Ahaziah died.

Sometimes spelled Beelzebul and (as in 2 Kings) Baal-Zebub, Beelzebub (the putative “god”) is possibly best translated “Lord of the Flies.” There were multiple Baals (the Hebrew plural is Baalim), Baal-Zebub being only one of these Baalim. Bible students are aware of the Canaanite god(s) called Baal, a word (in Ugaritic and Canaanitic) meaning “Lord.” The Old Testament speaks elsewhere of the god/s Baal (Numbers 25:3, Joshua 11:17, Judges 3:3, 7, and 8:33, 1 Kings 18:18, 20-40, 1 Chronicles 5:5, 8:30, 9:36, Jeremiah 7:9, 19:5) who served in Canaan as rival/s of the God of Israel. Zebub probably means “flies,” perhaps indicating the insect pests that were prone to constantly land on feces and then land on humans and were, therefore, suspected of transferring diseases from these feces to humans. Baal-Zebub was a Canaanite god of health. In both the 2 Kings account and Matthew 12:24-32, Baal-Zebub/Beelzebub is credited with healing powers. Ahaziah thought Baal-Zebub could heal him from the injuries of his fall; the Pharisees thought Beelzebub could heal the demon-possessed, so they attributed to Beelzebub the healings that Jesus had performed.

If “blasphemy” consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted (accusing Jesus of claiming to be one), then they themselves are guilty of “blasphemy” when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub. Jesus clearly healed, so they implicitly concluded that there was an actual god Beelzebub who had given Him power to heal. That was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly should have known better.

 

Loving God with All Your Mind

 

Your mind is the center of your thought processes. Your mind allows you to conceive of who you are, how the world came to be, life after death, and, most importantly, who God is! The greatest sin is not murder or stealing or adultery. Those are sins of the body. King David committed all of these, but God forgave him when he repented. The greatest sin is a sin of the mind—holding polytheistic views when you should know better. Polytheistic views are the product of one’s mind (as are atheistic views).

The New Testament Christians’ righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, by holding to a clear monotheism, while the Pharisees embraced polytheism—the belief in Beelzebub, the god of Ekron, a rival to THE LORD. Imagine! They reject Jesus’s claim to be the Son of God (even though all that He taught and the works He did were accomplished by power of His Father), yet they embrace and attribute healing power to the pagan god of the Canaanites: Beelzebub! Jesus called this the blasphemy against the Spirit and said it would never be forgiven men … either in this age or in the age to come! Jews since the time of the New Testament have overwhelmingly repented of that Pharisaic position on Beelzebub (although, they have more repenting yet to do in their assessment of Jesus as not being God’s Son). As an example of rival-god-repentance, Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger states: “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea [of divine forces/angels rebelling against God] the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether.  … The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.” To my Jewish friends: Remember, Jesus was never a “satanic rebel.” He tells the Pharisees He has no connection with Satan (Matthew 12:26). It was His blood that cast Satan out of Heaven (Revelation 12:11).

 

Christians and Beelzebub

 

            Meanwhile, however, Christians since the time of the New Testament have picked up the Beelzebub-error baton and have run with it! They seem to believe that Beelzebub actually exists and that he is a powerful rival to God. Modern day Catholic and Evangelical notions of fallen angels are largely responsible, as they hearken back to Persian dualistic religious influence occurring between the Old Testament and New Testament periods. In my book, Revelation:  The Human Drama (page 73), I comment:

 

Some interpreters of Revelation [wrongly] consider the informing anecdote of the book to be the conflict between God and Satan. This perceived conflict is a vestige of Judaism's contact with Persian religion. Martin Hengel discounts such … [Persian Dualism] in accounting for the scene which, for example, produced the “fallen angel” stories in the centuries preceding the New Testament period. In perusing John's Revelation, examples of a direct rivalry between God and Satan cannot be found. While allusions are made to “fallen angels” in Revelation, it is not clear that they are typical of the Fallen Angel Stories of the centuries preceding the Christian Era.

 

In my book, Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication (pages 19-20), I explain further:

 

“Persian religion developed the concept of an Evil God who was constantly at war with a Good God.” There is no picture in the Old Testament of a Satan who could [or would] rival God. The Hebrew word “SATAN” … means “adversary” or “prosecuting attorney.” That is all Satan was in the Book of Job [an adversary of humans, not of God]. He certainly had not “fallen” from Heaven by then. Job 1:6 has Satan joining the angels (sons of God) in presenting themselves before God. He petitions God for permission to “test” Job. He certainly does not demand anything of God. This “testing” role is also the one he assumes in the New Testament as he “tests” Jesus in the desert, following his baptism. At the end of Jesus’ life (Luke 22:31), Jesus informs Simon Peter that Satan has asked permission to sift him like wheat. This sounds to me like the same Satan who was in the courts of Heaven in Job.

 

Frankly, this point (that the Old and New Testaments do not depict fallen angels who “sin”) is a primary reason I wrote my Indiana University M.A. in Hebrew thesis—“Anamartetous [= Sinless] Fallen Angels”—and my subsequent book, Angels and Demons. I do not find anywhere in the Old or New Testaments Satan or any other angel rebelling against God. Satan (aka, the Devil) is called an “adversary,” but not an adversary of God. In 1 Peter 5:8. He is “your [human’s] adversary, the Devil!” (just as he was the adversary of [the humans] Adam and Eve). This is exactly the view of Satan embraced by Judaism in the past two millennia. In that respect, I think it highly likely that, after the New Testament period, the righteousness of Jews has exceeded the righteousness of Christians on the Beelzebub issue.

The issue of demons as adversaries of God is also problematic, despite what the movies suggest. In gospel texts, “demon-possessed” individuals confess that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 28:29, Luke 4:41). James 2:19 (NKJV) states: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” In John 4:6 God’s Spirit is contrasted with the Spirit of Error. A “spirit of error” fairly well describes a demon (in the New Testament). The Old Testament does not include a single case of demon-possession (nor do John’s Gospel, Revelation, or Paul’s writings; Matthew only includes one—an incident that concludes, according to Mark 5:15, with the man finally being “in his right mind”). Demon is a Greek (not Jewish) concept. The Apostle Paul suggests that “idols” and “demons” are the same thing (1 Corinthians 10:18).  He also states (rhetorically) that “idols” are “not anything.”  In 1 Corinthians 8:4, he states, “We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.” Revelation 9:20 agrees 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.” Those who believed they had demons were actually in error. The physical malady they thought the demon caused existed only in their minds (= psychogenic). The list of illnesses and bodily malfunctions cured by Jesus (which I provide on pages 203-4 of Angels and Demons) does not contain any type of mental illness. Similar to psycho-somatic illness, the demon-possessed (or, as they are also identified: those with “unclean spirits” or “evil spirits,” meaning “spirit of something ‘bad’—not ‘evil’ in a moral sense) just believed the lie and that belief in a lie produced the physical malady. There are no supernatural, divine, or semi-divine beings that are adversaries or rivals of the One True God. This is the heart of monotheism.

When I say that Christians since the time of the New Testament have picked up the Beelzebub-error baton and run with it, believing that Beelzebub actually exists and that he is a powerful rival to God (and that modern day Catholic and Evangelical notions are largely responsible for that doctrine), I include Catholic and Evangelical doctrines of rebel fallen angels (including the view that Satan is a rebel fallen angel) and of demons that war against God. One had better be careful when asserting that such rebels against God exist in the supernatural realm. Why? Because such an assertion is close to (if not precisely) the unforgiveable sin! True: there was a war mentioned in Revelation 12:7-12.  John sees Satan being cast out of Heaven (by Michael, not by God) when Jesus died on the cross.  Satan was thrown out because his job as “accuser” (of men) was no longer needed. Jesus’ blood had secured forgiveness for men.  No longer is an accuser necessary in Heaven.

If you know (with all your mind) that THE LORD our God is one, you cannot allow your mind to believe that He has any rival (including Beelzebub, Satan, fallen angels, or demons). He is the only and absolute king of the world! Love THE LORD your God with all your mind!

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.