Angels & Demons 33: Revelation and Aggadah Concerning the Origin of Demons

Bernard Bamberger, in his book Fallen Angels, pages 22-23, summarizes the story of how demons originated, as that story is presented in the Ethiopic book of Enoch, a second century B.C. work:

“One passage states that the giants [who were the offspring of the fallen angels and the daughters of men] became evil spirits; another, that the fallen angels became evil spirits, leading men astray to sacrifice to demons, while the women they married became sirens. But the usual view is that when the giants were slaughtered, in accordance with the punishment decreed for them, the evil spirits emerged from their bodies. In any event, the demons, once they made their appearance, remain at large until the final judgment.”

John, the author of Revelation uses this “usual view” of the origin of demons as a literary allusion, to describe the connection between the Roman Emperor Nero (the last of the Caesarean family) and the three primary Roman emperors who followed him (from the Flavian Dynasty): Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. Revelation 16:12-13 states:

“And the sixth angel poured out his bowl onto the great river Euphrates. And its water was dried up so that the way of the kings from the land of the rising sun might be prepared. And I saw out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits coming out as frogs. And they are spirits of demons doing signs, which go forth to the kings of the land—even of the whole inhabitable world to gather them together to the war of the great day of God Almighty.”

For a thorough analysis of the identities of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, I refer the reader to my book, Revelation: The Human Drama. Nevertheless, in the interest of brevity, I will summarize:

• All scholars agree that the Dragon is Satan.
• The vast majority of scholars agree that the Beast is Nero.
• Ford and others agree that the false prophet is the Jewish High Priestly Family in Jerusalem.

In my book (pages 41-42, and others), I discuss why the Roman Emperor Vespasian and his two sons who followed him as emperors (Titus and Domitian) are the clear referents to John’s literary allusion concerning the origin of demons. With G. B. Caird, I agree that Vespasian, Nero’s general whom he sent to wage war on Jerusalem in 66 A.D. is the easiest and clearest understanding of the Beast (Nero) who received a death blow and then came back to life. Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D., but in 69 A.D. his Jerusalem general Vespasian became Emperor. Vespasian then promptly sent his son Titus as general to Jerusalem to finish the devastating war on the Jews. Titus became Emperor after Vespasian, and then his brother Domitian became Emperor after Titus. It was as if the Beast died, but these three “demons” came out of his mouth (and the mouth of Satan and the mouth of the anti-Christian Jewish High Priest). John is able to tie a very negative connotation to Satan, Nero, the Jewish High Priesthood, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian by the very force of a demonic literary allusion.

While the story of the origin of demons in the Ethiopic book of Enoch is certainly Aggadah (Jewish folklore), John is not using the Aggadah as Homiletic Aggadah, as did I Peter, II Peter, and Jude (See Angels & Demons 10). John is not preaching a sermon as Peter and Jude were doing. Neither does the fact that John is alluding to this Aggadah suggest that John believed the Aggadah to be a true account of the origin of demons. As I pointed out in my previous commentary, Revelation 9:20 appears to agree with Paul—that demons (like idols) are nothing. John 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.” If demons are the works of men’s hands--neither able to see, hear, nor walk—demons do not exist as super-human forces that can take over the bodies of humans.

John is also illustrating the fact that one needs not believe in the historical truth of the stories from the various books of Enoch in order to use them for literary purposes. Likewise, Peter and Jude could use Fallen Angel stories from the various books of Enoch as sermon illustrations without believing them to be true historical accounts.

With this commentary, I conclude my series of commentaries on Angels and Demons. Perhaps, owing to my own scholarship in the field of Communication, I have a perspective on the nature of angels and demons that not many other scholars have. I can see that it is sometimes necessary to “personalize” our communication. We give “names” to our books, speeches, and literary documents and endow them with powers that make them seem to stand alone as separate from those who wrote the documents or spoke the words. Hence, the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence exercise authority over us as if they were actual people—even super-human people. The false teachings that are broadcast over our airwaves may have even demon-like power to possess the minds and behaviors of those who listen to and believe these falsehoods. Let listeners and readers beware! Angels and demons (in the form of godly and false communications) are floating in the air all around you. Be careful about those communications that possess you!

In my next series of commentaries, I will be exploring the “hidden” messages in the films of the Walt Disney Corporation. You may even find some angels and some demons lurking in the messages of those films!

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.

Angels & Demons 30: Demons as False Entities

The communication of God has elements that stand in direct opposition (“vs.”--in Burke’s shorthand) to elements on the false communication side:

Prophet vs. False Prophet

Spirit of Truth vs. Spirit of Error (or Unclean Spirit or Evil Spirit)

Angels vs. Satan

There is no direct opposite of “God.” This is uncomfortable for the human psyche that derives comfort from identifying such polar opposites. Some religionists have, therefore, attempted to present Satan as the opposite of god. The ancient Persians taught that there was a good god constantly at war with an evil god. See my commentary “Angels & Demons 4: ‘The Great Satan’ of Iran” for my discussion of why Judaism and Christianity rejected this dualism. The huge theological obstacle that blocks such dualism for Jews, Christians, and Muslims is the doctrine of Monotheism. Deuteronomy 6:4 states the doctrine: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God --the Lord is one.” The first commandment (found in Exodus 20:3) states: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

Hence, the Apostle Paul is not particularly bothered by the possibility that Christian believers might accidentally eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols. He reasons this way in I Corinthians 8:4-6:

“Relative, then, to the food that has been dedicated to idols, we know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one. In case there are so-called gods either in heaven or on earth,--such as there are gods many and lords many,--yet for us there exists one God, the Father, from whom all things come and who is our goal; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist and through whom we are” (Berkeley).

Paul, then, regards the eating of any meat (whether or not it has been sacrificed to idols) to be innocent (not a sin). Nevertheless, he recommends not eating meat offered to an idol, if a Christian brother might mistakenly interpret the eating to indicate that we are worshipping the idol. He states in I Corinthians 8:13: “Therefore, if my eating causes my brother to stumble, I shall eat no meat forever, so that my brother shall not be tripped up” (Berkeley).

In I Corinthians 10:18-26, Paul returns to the issue of eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, and introduces the way he understands and uses the term “demons”:

“Observe those physically the people of Israel! Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers of the altar? What then is my suggestion? That an idol offering amounts to anything or that the idol itself is anything? No, but that what they sacrifice, they are offering to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and a demon’s cup. You cannot participate in the Lord’s table and in a demon’s table. Or shall we provoke the Lord to indignation? Are we mightier than He? Everything is allowed, but not everything is helpful. Everything is allowed, but not everything is constructive. . . . Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscientious scruples, for the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s” (Berkeley).

Clearly, the question of whether one should eat meat that has been offered to idols is not a major issue in the Christian world today. I am not citing this passage in order to resolve that issue. I am writing about demons, and whether they exist, according to Paul. Paul has asked a rhetorical question: “What then is my suggestion--that an idol offering amounts to anything or that the idol itself is anything?” When asking a rhetorical question, no answer needs to be given, because the answer is obvious. Nevertheless, Paul actually answers this one—just to be sure that everyone understands: “No, but that what they sacrifice, they are offering to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to fellowship with demons.” In a Burkean sense, Paul has made “idols” equal “demons.” He has stated (rhetorically) that “idols” are “not anything.” Earlier, in I Corinthians 8:4, he had stated, “We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.”

If there is no God but one, and idols do not therefore exist, and offering to idols is the same as offering to demons, we may conclude that “DEMONS DO NOT EXIST.” THEY ARE FALSE ENTITIES. If Paul had thought that there really were true entities called demons, who were at war with God, could he ever have concluded that eating meat he claims is “offered” to them might be called innocent? Could he ever have suggested, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, without asking questions,” if he thought the meat had been associated with an existing entity at war with God? The entire basis of his reasoning that allows the conclusion that it is not sinful to eat meat sacrificed to idols is that idols are nothing. They are like demons—they do not exist.

Now, of course, the carved or sculpted statues that represent the false entities do exist. Paul was not claiming that the graven images, themselves, do not exist. He was claiming that there is no personal identity in existence who is represented by the graven image. Likewise, he was not claiming that the “false communication” about the existence of a god other than the Judeo-Christian God does not exist. He is simply claiming that such an alternative god (or demon) does not exist. One might even go so far as to suggest that the “false information” itself becomes a spiritual force that affects humans. I will follow that thread in my next commentary.

Angels & Demons 29: Demons as the Communication of False Information

In I John 4:6, the Spirit of Truth is contrasted with the Spirit of Error. The Spirit of Error seems to be connected with false prophets, in I John 4:1. It is clear that the biblical authors believed that God communicated truth, but that there is also the communication of error in the world. I have already equated the terms Spirit, Angel, and Word, in my commentaries. For Kenneth Burke, the relationship between terms that mean roughly the same thing in a certain symbol system is indicated by the use of the equals sign (=). Although Burke correctly teaches that each INDIVIDUAL has his or her own individual symbol system, I think that LANGUAGES WITHIN SPECIFIC MILIEUS approximate Burke’s application in some respects. Therefore, I assert that in the First Century A.D., the Hebrew/Judeo-Christian symbol system contains the following equation: Spirit=Angel=Word. All three terms represent the communication of God, as the Jews and Jewish Christians used the terms. In the New Testament Period, we could also add to this list of equations the following terms: =Bat Qol=prophecy=spiritual gifts (and all of the terms that = spiritual gifts).

While Burke teaches that an equals sign is operative in symbol systems, he teaches that a “vs.” sign is also operative. In other words, while Angel, Spirit, and Word all equal each other, they all also stand in opposition to certain other terms, such as Spirit of Error, Demon, False Prophet, etc. The Spirit of Error is the opposite of the Spirit of Truth, in I John. Likewise, False Prophets are the opposite of Prophets and Spiritual Gifts. Demons are the opposite of Angels. Using Burke’s shorthand, it looks like this: Demons vs. Angels, Spirit of Error vs. Spirit of Truth, and False Prophets vs. Prophets (=Spiritual Gifts). Lest my readers misunderstand, I am not painting a picture of an actual warfare being waged between angelic beings and demonic beings; I am simply pointing out that the list of terms “Spirit=Angel=Word” stand in strict opposition to the list of terms “Spirit of Error=Demon=False Prophet.” The terms in the first group are the opposite of the terms in the second group.

To the list of negative term equations, I add the term “unclean spirit,” since in the synoptic Gospels, Matthew 4:23-25 uses the terminology of demons, while, in a parallel passage, Luke 6:17-19 uses the term “unclean spirit” in place of demon. In another parallel, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:26-39 use demonic terminology, while Mark 5:1-20 uses the term “unclean spirit” in place of demon. Luke 4:33 even uses the combination: “spirit of an unclean demon.” In Luke 8:2, the term “evil spirit” is used. I, therefore also add the term “evil spirit” to the list of negative term equations. Because Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub--and because Jesus responds to this charge (in Matthew 12:26 and Luke 11:18) with the rhetorical question, “If Satan casts out Satan . . . how then shall his kingdom stand?” and (in Mark 3:23-26) with the rhetorical question, “How can Satan cast out Satan?”--we might also add the terms “Beelzebub” and “Satan” to the list of negative term equations. Mark 19:17-25 refers to a “speechless spirit” and Luke 13:11 refers to a “spirit of weakness”--possibly indicating the type of affliction each spirit visited upon its host. Acts 16:16 reports that a girl had a “spirit of Pytho” (meaning, I suppose, she prophesied using the Delphic oracle?). Paul “cured” her of that.

Using Burke’s system of charting, then, I find the following negative list of equations:

Spirit of Error=
Demon=
False Prophet=
Unclean Spirit=
Evil Spirit=
Beelzebub=
Satan

This negative list is the opposite of (or, according to Burke, “vs.”) the following positive list of equations:

Spirit=
Angel=
Word=
Bat Qol=
Prophecy=
Spiritual Gifts (and all of the terms that = spiritual gifts)

Beginning with I John’s contrast between the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error, one can easily see the primary distinction between Demons and Angels. Angels are the personification of TRUTH communication, while Demons are the personification of FALSEHOOD communication. Clearly, “error” is falsehood communication (or the communication of false information). I John links the Spirit of Error to False Prophets, the human “communicators” of FALSE INFORMATION. However, one need not have a human mediator to be given false information. A snake will do nicely. When Jesus brings the word Satan into the discussion of casting out Demons, he draws to mind the primal account of someone communicating false information—the serpent of Eden. I point out in Angels & Demons 5:

“Johns gospel quotes Jesus (8:44): ‘You have the devil for your father and you wish to practice the desires of your father; . . . he could not stay in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks according to his nature; for he is a liar and the father of liars.’ . . . Jesus is probably referring to Satans role as a tempter. If as the New Testament asserts, the serpent of Genesis is actually Satan, it is clear that he lies. He said, ‘You shall not surely die.’ . . . Revelation calls him the ‘deceiver of all humanity.’”

But, is a snake even necessary? James 1:13-14 seems to effectively eliminate the need for the role of a personified Satan in the temptation process. In his place, James seems to suggest that the process of temptation is conducted entirely within the mental processes of the human who is being tempted:

“Let no one who is tempted say, ‘I am tempted of God,’ for He tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts. Then when the passion has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and the sin, when it reaches maturity, produces death.” (Berkeley Version)

Despite what James argues, it seems easier for the human to comprehend his or her own intrapersonal struggles by personifying his or her Id, as Freud names that selfish element in the psyche. As I discuss in Angels & Demons 7, Jewish writers name that element the YETZER HA-RA. So, who or what, in fact, induced Eve to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Was it the Serpent? Was it Satan? Was it Eve’s YETZER HA-RA? Was it her Id? Was it primarily just Eve’s own mental processes? Genesis 3:6 discusses those:

“The woman saw the tree as being good for food, delightful to the eye and a tree desirable to render one wise, so she took of its fruit and ate; she also gave to her husband, who ate with her.” (Berkeley Version)

This account of Eve’s thought processes does not even include the FALSEHOOD communicated by the Serpent (“You shall not surely die”). If one suggests that Eve was Demon-possessed, she is effectively let off the hook. How could God hold Eve accountable for an act that she committed while under the control of a Demon? And yet, this is precisely the type of implication that enters into scenarios in which Demon-possession is discussed. Consider, however, this possibility: the term Demon is used not only to indicate that the person is the recipient of false information, but also the term Demon represents a FALSE ENTITY itself. I will follow that thread in my next commentary.

Angels & Demons 28: Angels as Agents of Divine “Feedback”

In my scholarly capacity, I have frequently served as a referee for articles submitted for publication to scholarly journals. Recently, an article I was refereeing identified a perplexing problem for many believing Christians--unanswered prayer. The article analyzed the issue from the standpoint of contemporary evangelical rhetorical strategies used to defend God for His failure to answer. Although the article neither compared prayer to nor contrasted prayer with advertising in the mass media, a case could be made that there are definite similarities. Mass communication tends to be more unidirectional, as compared with intrapersonal communication, interpersonal communication, small group communication, and online communication (which are all much more interactive than mass communication). Even public communication (in which one speaker addresses an audience) has a more easily obtained feedback than does mass communication. In public communication, the speaker can, at least, see the nonverbal facial expressions and body language of his or her audience. S/he can hear the applause, gasps, or heckling. In mass communication, on the other hand, the communicator is separated from his or her audience by some “medium”—radio, television, newspaper, magazine, billboard, etc. The communicator cannot “see” how his or her messages are being received. Advertisements in the mass media are impersonal and there are problems associated with discovering whether members of the intended (target) audiences even paid attention to the advertisements, let alone whether they decoded the messages in the same sense in which the advertisers encoded them. Nor do advertisers know whether the persuasion strategies used in the advertisements were successful. Hence, advertisers seek some sort of “feedback” from their target audiences (which those audiences do not typically offer without additional prodding). I submit that to the extent advertisers are unable to secure the desired feedback, they are in much the same boat (in terms of communication feedback) as are Christians who do not sense that their prayers are being answered.

Prayer, for many Christians, is a fairly unidirectional form of communication. As is the case with the target audiences of advertisers, the intended audience (God, in this case) cannot be “seen.” He may be paying attention and may be decoding the messages in the same sense in which those offering the prayers encoded them. Whether the persuasion strategies used in the prayers were successful may sometimes be adduced by whether specific requests were granted, but even then—absent some accompanying message from God--skeptics may easily question whether the granting of requests was accomplished by God or was simply a matter of coincidence. Christians, like advertisers, are desirous for some form of feedback. Unfortunately, while advertisers have developed quantitative and qualitative methods of discovering feedback, Christians face a far more daunting task.

The very words for “angel” in Greek and Hebrew denote a “messenger.” The Hebrew word MALACH (from which we also derive the name of the last book of the Old Testament: Malachi) means “messenger.” A MALACH may be either an angel or a human messenger. The same holds true for the Greek word AGGELOS. One can easily see, for example, the word “angel” in the word “evangelist”—one who is a human messenger of good news. In prior commentaries, I have demonstrated that angels are the personification of God’s creative fiats, His intrapersonal communication, and His own unidirectional messages. I have indicated the role they play in God’s communication network. So, here I offer a few examples of angels representing God’s tangible “feedback.”

Although Mary and Joseph never requested a miraculous birth, according to Luke 1:26-38, the Angel Gabriel appears to Mary to announce her pending pregnancy. Matthew 1:20-23 reports that an unnamed angel also visited Joseph in a dream to verify that Mary’s pregnancy was divine. Since these two angelic visitations, however, were not prompted by a prayer request, they are not to be classified as “feedback.” They are, instead, in the category of God’s own unidirectional messages. Joseph’s angelic message was presented as entirely unidirectional; Mary’s encounter with Gabriel included interaction between Mary and Gabriel, as Mary questioned how the virgin birth would be possible.

While the angelic encounters of Mary and Joseph were classed as God’s own unidirectional messages, the similar encounter between Zachariah (the father of John the Baptist) and an unnamed angel, in Luke 1:11-20, fits the category of “feedback.” In Luke 1:13, the angel says to Zachariah, “Your prayer has been heard.” The old man Zachariah and his old, barren wife Elizabeth are to have a child. This is angelic/divine feedback.

In Acts 10:31, the gentile Cornelius reports being visited by a man in bright clothing (no doubt, an angel) who says, “Cornelius, your prayer was heard and your alms were remembered before God.” The angel directs Cornelius to the house where Simon Peter was staying and Cornelius becomes the first gentile Christian.
Acts Chapter 12 relates an account of Herod persecuting the church. He has the Apostle James executed and, since that act appears to please some Jews, he next proceeds to arrest the Apostle Peter (with a similar result in mind). The church meeting in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark, fearing an impending murder of Peter, prays fervently. The night before Herod planned to bring Peter to judgment, Peter is bound with two chains, sleeping between two soldiers, with more soldiers guarding the door to the prison. An angel comes to Peter, breaks his chains, tells him to get dressed, escorts him past the guards at the prison door, and takes him to the gate in the wall of the city, which opens for them automatically. Once on the street to John Mark’s mother’s house, the angel leaves Peter. Peter proceeds to the house and knocks on the door. He explains what has happened and then flees to another place.

These New Testament accounts of angelic encounters exemplify God’s angelic feedback. Old Testament examples include angels responding to the cry of Abraham’s son Ishmael to preserve him from dying in the wilderness (Genesis 21:17), responding to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac--telling him not to do so (Genesis 22:11-12), answering the prayer of Manoah, the father of Samson--confirming that he had indeed visited Manoah’s wife with instructions about Samson (Judges 13:8 ff.), answering the prayer of Elijah concerning the threat to his life (1 Kings 19:7), answering the prayers of Isaiah and King Hezekiah to defend Jerusalem (Isaiah 37 and 2 Chronicles 32:21), and of course, answering the prayers of Daniel by protecting him in the lions’ den. Perhaps, the account of the angel confronting Balaam and his donkey, in Numbers 22, is also an example of divine feedback.

Angels are not the only means of feedback used by God in the Bible. Gideon’s fleece, the Urim and Thummim of the high priest, and fire sent from heaven to consume sacrifices are other representative examples of feedback. The point here, however, is that angels are the personification of God’s communication. Feedback is but one aspect of communication.