Jesus of Nazareth

JESUS OF NAZARETH -

THE GREAT EXORCIST

By

MARTIN ANDERSSON

(#502100)

A Paper

Submitted to the Theological Faculty

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Course of

BIB 499 SENIOR PAPER

Dr. Anders Gerdmar

Spring 2009

SCHOOL OF HIGHER BIBLICAL STUDIES AND MISSIONS

LIVETS ORD UNIVERSITY

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………........2

2. THE DEVIL AND DEMONOLOGY.....…………………………………….....4

The Origin and Nature of the Devil.….………………………………………....4

The Serpent.............……………………………………………………….....4

The Satan...................................................................…..………….…….....10

Satan in the Old Testament......................................................................10

Jesus and Satan........................................................................................14

The Authority of Satan............................................................................15

The Fall of Satan......................................................................................17

The Origin of Demons........................................................................................21

3. DEFINITION OF EXORCISM.............................………………………..…...24

4. EXORCISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT……………………….……...…....28

5. JESUS THE EXORCIST............................………………………....………....32

Jesus’ Worldview................................................................................................32

Demonic Possession and Illnesses......................................................................33

The Blind and Mute Man...............................................................................33

The Daughter of Abraham.............................................................................34

Multiple Possession............................................................................................37

Mary of Magdalene........................................................................................38

The “Legion”.................................................................................................40

The Demoniacs...................................................................................................41

The Gerasene Demoniac.....................................................................................42

The Authority of Jesus........................................................................................46

iii

Authority Received from Above....................................................................46

Authority Known and Feared by the Demons................................................48

Authority Delegated to his Disciples..............................................................49

6. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………….......…....52

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................55

1

INTRODUCTION

Most modern readers of the Bible might be surprised by the many demon encounters the

Biblical Jesus had. These Gospel narratives may seem odd and anachronistic to a secularized

and intellectual person of the western hemisphere. Van Der Loos hits the nail when stating:

“[f]or the great masses, belief in the actual existence of demons is something that belongs in

the enormous repository of religious antiquities.”1 The same is the case for some

contemporary Christians. Demons and angels are viewed as fictional characters fitting in only

in fairy tales or old folklore. The physical manifestations of the demon possessed can be

studied scientifically and acknowledged by a medical expertise. Today, modern science would

say that a person exhibiting syndromes such as shivering, foaming at his mouth with rage or

speaking with different voices suffers from mental and psychological traumas rather than

spiritual. Donald A. Hagner understands the contemporary time of the west very clearly and

sees the problem it struggles with:

In the modern, scientific world of the West, few take the existence of demons (or the

devil) seriously. This hardly means, however, that we have a shortage of evil. We have

merely demythologized it and given it new names. This is far from an unhappy

development. But the mystery of evil and the web of malevolent causation behind it

remain. We are unduly confident, therefore, if we assert that demons cannot exist and

demon possession cannot occur. If we today have more rational explanations for much that

in earlier eras would have been attributed to demon possession, that does not mean that we

can rule out the phenomenon altogether. The Gospel presents Jesus as the answer to every

manifestation of evil-that which can be explained ‘naturalistically’ and that which may

find its causation in a realm inaccessible to our scientific instruments.2

Jesus, when facing people with these symptoms did not see the symptoms as signs of

mental or inner conflict; he rather spoke to the people and commanded the evil spirits to leave

these people.

1 Van Der Loos 1965, 339.

2 Hagner 1993, 229.

2

Although demonic encounters exist in the Old Testament, they are rather few and

ambiguous. However, the New Testament clearly says that there is a real spiritual battle going

between God and his hosts of angels, and the devil and his subjects, the demons.3 Jesus was

well aware of and indeed involved in this dualistic supernatural battle. Jesus was not just

affected by his time and symbolic worldview; the demonic encounters he had were real and

therefore should not be explained by contemporary psychological, anthropological or medical

answers. Jesus was the ultimate example of exercising heavenly authority in the spiritual

warfare by his successful exorcisms. He was able to deliver the demoniacs from their

oppressors and show them God’s light and healing.

In this paper I will claim that Jesus was a true exorcist to his nature. He literally cast out

demons that dwelt within people, delivering them from satanic influences. The accounts of

Jesus facing demonic forces in the Gospels are not fictional, they are literal. In several

narratives, demons are given specific names that are attributed to them due to the kind of

affliction they are transferring to the demoniacs. Thus, illnesses may be caused by an

inhabitant demon. I will also claim that Jesus’ ministry of exorcism was never intended to

cease at his death and resurrection. Jesus commanded every future disciple of his to continue

in the spiritual battle, exorcising demons.

Jesus’ authority to exorcise demons came from his father in heaven and was felt and

recognized by the demons who immediately had to leave their victims when confronted by

him. Jesus was always successful when delivering an innocent demoniac from his/her

oppressor or multiple oppressors. This authority he passed on to his disciples when he sent

them out in ministry.

In this paper I will start with investigating some topics that will serve as necessary

background information to my main thesis. This paper begins with a research on the origin

3 The terms ”demon” and ”evil spirit” will be used synonymously in this paper.

3

and nature of the devil since he is said to be the head of the demons. Gen 3. will be looked

upon in order to find out whether the serpent has anything to do with the devil. A longer study

of the origin and nature of the name of “Satan” will also be included in this work. In fact it

seems as if “Satan in the New Testament is conceived to be the prince or lord of evil spirits,”4

therefore it is equally important to study his nature and origin as well as his lower subjects.

The question of the origin of the demons will then be discussed in a following section. It will

also serve the interest of the readers of this paper to be able to understand what I consider to

be an exorcism. Therefore one chapter will define what it is that constitutes a Biblical

exorcism. An overview of Old Testament exorcisms will also be provided in order to see if

there are any connections to the exorcisms of the New Testament.

Then this paper will come into its main point, the exorcisms of Jesus. Jesus’ worldview

will be the starting point. Thereafter a section concerning the ability of evil spirits to transfer

illnesses to human beings will be looked at. Another section will treat the potentiality of a

person being possessed by a plurality of numbers of demons. This paper will then continue to

look at some significant New Testament examples of demoniacs, the demon possessed

people, and see if there is anything specific about them. A specific case study of the

commonly known Gerasene demoniac will be included. This paper then lastly deals with a

section about Jesus’ authority to exorcise demons and his command to his disciples to

continue in his ministry of exorcism.

Due to the limited length of this paper and to the limited existence of exorcism passages,

the synoptic Gospels will be the focus of this paper. Thus, the non-narrative parts of the New

Testament will be left outside of this study.

4 Langton 1946, 26.

4

THE DEVIL AND DEMONOLOGY

The Origin and Nature of the Devil

The Serpent

A common Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is to trace the first encounter

with the figure that we call the devil to Gen 3. The belief that the serpent, introduced in Gen

3, is the devil is widespread but this is certainly not the only interpretation. The serpent was

said to be “more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.” (Gen 3:1)5

The Hebrew noun vx'N" simply means ‘snake’ or ‘serpent’.6

The account of the serpent, found in Gen 3, was not a unique literary theme only to the

people of Israel. There is evidence of a serpent being portrayed as a special figure in both the

literature and art of the ancient Near East. Walton suggests that the notion of serpents being

connected with not only death, but also wisdom, was widespread due to the fact that the

poisonous nature of serpents gave them the character as creatures threatening to human life.

The author thinks the Genesis story fits into both these categories of wisdom (dialogue

between Eve and the serpent) and death (introduced after Adam and Eve had been expelled

from the Garden of Eden). Walton writes that “in the ancient world the serpent was viewed as

possessing mystical wisdom and as a demonic and hostile creature.”7

5 For a further analysis on the word and meaning of “crafty”, see Walton 2003, 737. Walton shows that the

word ”crafty” is a rather neutral word and does not necessarily have negative, evil connotations.

6 Koehler and Baumgartner 1995, 691.

7 Walton 2003, 736.

5

Even Jesus would describe serpents as wise creatures, encouraging his disciples to be as

wise as them (Mt 10:16).8 The serpent has been found depicted quite often on boundary

stones from Mesopotamia. In their culture, the serpent was viewed as a chthonic deity. These

deities were believed to be the underworld gods. In Egypt, serpents were seen as

embodiments for primeval gods. These deities were the ones controlling the seasons of time

and human life. In the land of Canaan, the myth of the underworld god H�oron’s marriage with

an unknown goddess was told. The symbolic animal connected to these deities was a serpent.9

Rather contrary to common Christian theology, Israelite theology has chosen not do

ascribe all evil to one key character, or blame the consequences of evil to one specific

historical event, e.g. the fall of Satan. It was not until the rabbinic and Christian time that the

serpent as a symbol of evil became identified with Satan.10

Among the people of Israel, there

seems to have been a common notion to acknowledge the serpent as an evil agent, although

not connecting the animal to an initial and foremost source of evil. Walton points out that the

serpent is put into the same category as the rest of the wild animals, thus indicating a more

natural character of the serpent.11

Williams states that “the Bible does not identify it [the

serpent] with the Devil incarnate but as a very subtle creature created by God (3:1).12

Hamilton sees that no detailed description is given concerning the serpent in this account,

concluding that at this point he is not given the name Satan.13

Moreover, the author states that

“[t]here is no room here for any dualistic ideas about the origins of good and evil. Clearly

8 Joines 1975, 5.

9 Fabry 1998, 362-63.

10

Ibid., 364.

11

Walton 2003, 737.

12

Williams 1981, 274.

13

Hamilton 2005, 39.

6

Gen. 1-3 makes no room for the idea that in the beginning there were two.”14

Regarding the

animalistic nature of the serpent, Hamilton writes “[t]his information immediately removes

any possibility that the serpent is to be viewed as some kind of supernatural, divine force.”15

Sarna captures the very much classical Jewish view arguing:

In sum, the serpent is here reduced to an insignificant, demythologized stature. It

possesses no occult powers. It is not demonic, only extraordinary shrewd. Its role is to lay

before the woman the enticing nature of evil and to fan her desire for it. The serpent is not

the personification of evil; in fact, its identification with Satan is not encountered before

the first century B. C. E., when it appears for the first time in the apocryphal Wisdom of

Solomon 2:24.16

Although one should not stress the evilness of the serpent too much, Sarna goes too far in

his argumentation, demythologizing the serpent. The fact that the serpent speaks seems to

point to a more supernatural picture of the serpent than a mere snake. Martens, however,

admits the possibility of the serpent having more than animalistic features stating: “[t]he

serpent, as a biological snake, is almost certainly the mouthpiece of ‘another’.” 17

Erickson

says that in “Genesis 3 we read that the serpent (presumably the devil) tempted Eve.”18

Alden

thinks that only from a naturalistic theological point of view is it possible to claim the snake

being anything than a mere snake.19

Day and Jordan also view the serpent more than a mere

creature:

The resulting alienation between God, mankind, and the serpent is specifically stated in

Gen. 3:14-19 and referred to throughout the remainder of the Bile. Although Satan...is not

explicitly mentioned by name in this periscope, the serpent’s activity is consistent with

Satan’s adversial role elsewhere in the biblical writings (cf. Job 1:9-22; 2:1-10; Mt. 4:1-

11; Lk. 4:1-13).”20

14

Hamilton 1990, 188.

15

Ibid.

16

Sarna 1989, 24.

17

Martens 2003, 773. 18

Erickson 2007, 453.

19

Alden 1980, 571.

20

Day and Jordan 1988, 417.

7

A good point made by the authors reluctantly seeing the serpent as a supernatural being is

that it seems as if the serpent was a created animal, on the same level as the other animals. But

at the same time, a severe problem arises already here. How is it that an ordinary animal

(being more crafty than the rest) all of a sudden begins to speak and address a human being?

True, the donkey in Num 22:28-30 speaks to Balaam, but it is clearly on behalf of God who

opens the mouth of the donkey, it is able to speak to Balaam.

Then, the question of why a snake came unto the scene and tempted the woman must be

asked.21

Is it possible that more animals than the serpent were able to speak the human

language before the fall of man? This does not seem probable, since there is nothing in the

Bible which would indicate anything like it. Was God then the one (in the same way as in the

case of the donkey in Num 22) who opened the mouth of the serpent and spoke through it?

Theoretically this may have been the case, but it is still very unlikely. It would be a paradox if

God himself would be the one who enticed Adam and Eve to break his own commandment. In

that case, the corollary would be that God was only playing with Adam and Eve, striving for

their expulsion from the Garden of Eden from the very beginning. Such characteristics of God

are not to be found within the Old Testament, neither are they to be found within the New

Testament.

Due to the intent and later consequences of the serpent’s enticing and provoking dialogue

with the woman, it seems that it is not just an ordinary crafty serpent. The consequences of his

deceit of Adam and Eve speak for themselves; broken relationship with God, expulsion from

the Garden and curses attached to their daily life. Another interesting remark to be made is

that the root of the Hebrew noun vx'N" is the same as for the Hebrew verb vxN. The meaning of

this verb is to seek and give omens, foretell.22

Divination and the practice of sorcery are

21

Wenham 1987, 72.

22

Koehler and Baumgartner 1995, 690.

8

strictly prohibited in Lev 19:26 , Dt 18:10 and condemned in 2 Ki 17:17.23

The same root of

the verb and the noun may point to a supernatural character of the serpent in Gen 3. Hamilton

raises the question if is there is a possible connection between the noun and the verb but fails

to answer it.24

No convincing argument of a possible connection between the noun and the

verb has been found. It is therefore difficult to prove that this verb comes from the noun, with

the explicit meaning of the serpent practicing occult and demonic powers.

Due to the same root, some have suggested the verb to mean “snake charming”. There are

some scholars who claim there is a similarity between serpents and the hissing sound of

enchanters.25

Still, these two suggestions are far from satisfying as evidence to prove the

possible close connection between the noun and the verb. Although the majority of scholars

disagree with a satanic interpretation of the serpent, the ones who do agree seem to have the

better arguments. The evidence for a satanic supernatural influence in the serpent is somewhat

more convincing than the ones speaking against such an interpretation. Thus, these

consequences point toward a more satanic nature of the serpent than the majority of the above

mentioned scholars do admit.

Moreover, there are certain passages in the New Testament shedding light on the crafty

serpent in Gen 3. Rev 12:9 says: “The great dragon was hurled down-- that ancient serpent

called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and

his angels with him.” G. K. Beale claims John “identifies him [the ancient serpent] as the

diabolical character of Gen. 3:1, 14.26

J. Ramsey Michaels agrees to Beale’s statement writing

the “dragon’s remote past is defined by the term ancient serpent, which links him to the story

23

Alden 1980, 572.

24

Hamilton 2005, 40.

25

Alden 1980, 572.

26

Beale 1999, 655.

9

of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1, 14-15).27

These scholars seem correct in

their analysis of the verse. Thus, John seems to implicitly portray the serpent as Satan in this

verse.28

The serpent led Adam and Eve astray, astray from God and his presence. Here John

claims that he is the one who has led the whole world astray. Another striking verse is Rev

20:2 which reads: “He [the angel] seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or

Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” Beale argues that this passage of scripture “is an

allusion to Gen. 3:1, 14...”29

It seems most probable that John is referring to the serpent in

Gen 3 as the devil. Paul might refer to the saying in Gen 3:15 when he writes “The God of

peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Rom 16:20) Evans states that “the ‘serpents’

(opheis) of Luke 10:19 may be an allusion to the serpent of the garden of Eden, which in the

LXX is translated ophis (cf. Gen 3:1-14; Rev 12:9; 20:2).”30

Evans’s argument is, however,

not so strong since there are other passages in the New Testament where o ; f i j is clearly not

used to refer to the serpent in Gen. 3 (e.g. Mt 7:10, Lk 11:11, Jn 3:14).

The fact that the author of Genesis portrays the serpent as an ordinary animal cannot be

overlooked. Still, the serpent’s deceitful character and its ability to speak make a satanic

interpretation of the serpent more probable. Moreover, in light of the New Testament, the

evidences for at least a satanic and evil influence31

in the serpent are more satisfactory than

not admitting any supernatural influence on the serpent.

27

Michaels 1997, 150.

28

The discussion of the authorship of the book of Revelation will not be dealt with in this paper. For

practical reasons, the name of John will be used as the author of the book.

29

Beale 1999, 988.

30

Evans 2001, 43.

31

The question of to what degree Satan was able to influence the serpent (if he was incarnated into the

serpent or merely able to exercise authority through the character of the serpent) will not be discussed in this

paper due to its limited length.

10

If we assume that this account is of the devil, not much is said about his origin or about his

fall. However, from the Genesis account more can be studied and known about his

characteristics and features. Due to the nature of the serpent we may understand that Satan is

not stupid. He is rather crafty and wise. He was able to trick Eve into sinning by the art of

persuasion. Furthermore, he was able to question the things God had said to Adam and Eve

(Gen 3:1) and succeeded in sowing doubts into Eve’s mind questioning and doubting God’s

commandment (Gen 3:4-6). After realizing she had been fooled, Eve knew that the serpent

had deceived her (Gen 3:13). This clearly indicates that the serpent has a deceiving character,

striving for human mistrust and unbelief towards God and his commandments. The next name

attributed to the devil is a more familiar and recognized one.

The Satan

Satan in the Old Testament

“Satan” is probably the most ascribed name to the character known as the devil. In the Old

Testament, as will be shown, Satan is not unanimously understood to be the name of the

supernatural figure, said to be the oppositional character to God. The Hebrew noun !j"ßf'; can

mean either adversary or opponent (in the political and military realm or in jurisprudence) or

Satan (as a personal name without the definite article h; ).32 It can also mean plaintiff or

heavenly prosecutor with the definite article h;.33

32

Koehler and Baumgartner 1996, 1317.

33

Ibid.

11

Kluger notices that in Num. 22:22, the hw"±hy> %a:ôl.m; ‘the angel of the Lord’ stood on the

road Al= !j"åf'l .. ‘as an adversary to him’. The author says this adversary is not at all the

demonic figure later to be called “Satan”. The character in this verse is merely an adversary,

standing in the way of Balaam. Kluger moreover states that here a divine character functions

as an adversary in regard to a human being. In this case, God is the one responsible for the

“resistance”. Thus, the author says, is Satan not a character of mythological features so far,

but works more as a “functional concept, not a proper name.”34

Peggy L. Day agrees with

Kluger, confirming the concept rather than the proper name in this context.35

Kluger seems

correct in his analysis of the scriptural reference. Langton points out that out of all the

occurrences of the word !j"ßf' in the Old Testament, only three of those passages depict Satan

as a spiritual nonhuman figure. These are found in Job 1-2, Zech 3:1-2 and 1 Ch 21:1.36

Now,

the dating of the book of Job is a hard question to solve. Different time periods have been

suggested and argued for.37

This paper will not enter into the prevailing discussion, although

noting that Langton sides with a rather late, post-Exilic dating. The author has either way

seen the obvious in the passages in Job and Zechariah, namely that “the term ‘Satan’ is not yet

a proper name; it is rather an epithet or descriptive title, and is used with the article-‘the

Satan’; that is, ‘the adversary’.”38

Looking at the Hebrew text, one finds that Langton has

made a sound analysis. The only instance of the different !j"ßf' passages in the Old Testament

where !j"ßf' is found without the definite article is in 1 Chron 21:1. Hamilton observes the same

thing arguing that “[t]his indicates that ‘the satan’ is a title, not a personal name. Satan is not

34

Kluger 1967, 38-39.

35

Day 1988, 64-65.

36

Langton 1946, 9. See also Brown, Driver and Briggs 2000, 966.

37

See Dillard and Longman 1994, 200., for further insights.

38

Langton 1946, 9.

12

who he is, but what he is. He does not merit a name, and in antiquity, not to have a name was

to be reduced to virtual nonexistence.”39

However, in 1 Chron 21:1 Kluger claims that the

word !j"ßf' functions as a proper name.40

Leslie C. Allen also states that !j"ßf' is here used as a

name contrary to a descriptive noun, since “the intertextual links with Job and Zechariah

suggest hermeneutical dependence on both passages.”41

Roddy Braun agrees, claiming that

“the text of Chronicles probably represents the final stage in the OT’s development of a figure

of Yahweh’s heavenly council who not only brings charges against his people but actually

incites them to evil.”42

Martin J. Selman thinks “the Chronicler’s version takes place against a

more overtly spiritual background in which Satan (v. 1) and Yahweh’s angel (vv. 12-30) are

prominent.”43

The fact that !j"ßf' is anarthrous, makes it very probable to interpret the noun as a

proper name in this context.

Day, however, claims !j"ßf' is not a proper name in this context. She argues it should be

interpreted as ‘a divine accuser’, acknowledging it is hard to determine whether he is a

celestial or terrestrial adversary. Day thinks a celestial adversary is more probable, arguing the

earliest sources using !j"ßf' as a proper name (Jub 23:29 etc) are from the second century B. C.

E., whereas 1 Chronicles ought to be dated within the time span of 520 to 400 B. C. E. Thus,

according to Day, this time gap makes it improbable that !j"ßf' was used as a proper noun 200 –

320 years earlier.44

Day’s argumentation might be possible, but her conclusion is not

conclusive. It cannot be taken for granted that the notion of !j"ßf' as a proper name could not

39

Hamilton 2005, 40.

40

Kluger 1967, 39.

41

Allen 1999, 422.

42

Braun 1986, 216-17.

43

Selman 1994, 200.

44

Day 1988, 127-142.

13

have appeared in the 4th

century B. C. E., simply because there is (yet) no historical writings

found from this era that clearly speak about !j"ßf' as a proper name.

Looking at the context of 1 Chronicles, Kluger notices something interesting:

But what is new in the Chronicles is that Satan is divested of his character as a divine

function. He no longer appears, as in the Book of Job, as part of the divine court; he is

an independent figure, apparently separated from God, who no longer stands in dialectic

confrontation with God or his angel, as in Job and Zechariah. This is expressed

linguistically by the fact that [!j"ßf] has here become a proper name.45

Thus, it seems as if it is more plausible to interpret !j"ßf' as a proper name for the first time

in 1 Chron 21:1.

In inter-testamental times, there are two sources of Rabbinic literature that speak about the

background of Satan. The least prevailing (found in Bereshith Rabbah XVII) is that Satan,

about the time of Eve’s creation, was created on the second last day. This view leads to

finding a bridge between the fall of man and Satan. The more prevailing theory, however,

says that Satan became a fallen angel. In Debarim Rabbah XI Satan is said to be Sammael,

supposedly the throne-angel of highest rank, seated above the Seraphim and living creatures

(spoken of in Ez 1:5ff and Rev 4:6ff).46

More depictions of Satan than these are to be found in

the Rabbinical literature. All of these depictions have one thing in common; they develop

Satan’s character more into an evil character. This evil nature is not so easily found in the OT.

He is now not only attached to the serpent in Gen 3, but also to the fall of man and God’s test

of Abraham. Satan now begins to be called “the old serpent”.47

In order to reach a fuller

understanding of the nature of Satan and his kingdom, the teaching of Jesus and the New

Testament will be dealt with.

45

Kluger 1967, 154-55.

46

Langton 1946, 11.

47

Ibid., 12.

14

Jesus and Satan

Jesus both encountered Satan and taught about his kingdom. In Mt 4:1-11, Mk 1:12-13

and Lk 4:1-13 Jesus is tempted by Satan. In the Markan and Lucan narratives, the name Satan

is not attributed to the Devil. However, the NKJ version, following the majority text adds the

phrase “Get behind Me, Satan!” (Lk 4:8). Looking at the apparatus of the NA27

text, one sees

that the sources omitting the phrase are both older and more widespread, whereas the sources

including the additional phrase are both younger and less widespread.48

Metzger does not

comment on the issue.49

Thus it seems that the additional phrase was a later redaction of the

original Lucan text. When it comes to the version in Matthew, the phrase “{ Up a g e ( Sa ta n a/\”

‘Go away Satan!’50

(Mt 4:10) does seem to be original. The phrase is encountered in the

oldest sources as well as in many geographically distant sources.51

It seems clear that the

original Matthean witness did include this phrase. The corollary seems to be that Jesus

identified the d i a,b o l o j ‘the devil’ (Mt 4:1, 5) to be the same person as the S a ta n a whom he

commanded to depart from him (Mt 4:10). Hagner argues for the identification writing “Satan

is...essentially the equivalent of d i a,b o l o j ...”52

Moreover, in verse 3 Matthew53

identifies the

devil as “o p e i ra,z wn” ‘the tempter’.54

48

NA27

1994, 163.

49

Metzger 1994, 113-14.

50

Notice that the noun “S a ta n a” is anarthrous. Jesus probably addressed the devil with a proper name in this

case and not with a title – “the Satan (the adversary)”.

51

NA27

1994, 7.

52

Hagner 1993, 68.

53

As in the case of John above, no discussion about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew will be dealt

with in this paper. For simplicity, the name of Matthew will be used.

54

The participle “o pe ir a ,zw n” comes from the word peir a ,zw (to tempt, test) Twelftree explains that the

word does not necessarily have negative connotations, but in this narrative it stands clear that it does, see

Twelftree 1992, 821. Seesemann agrees stating the “pe ir a ,zw n attempts to turn Jesus from the task which God

has laid upon him in his baptism, and therewith to render His mission impossible. He exerts himself in every

possible way to deflect Jesus from obedience to God.”, Seesemann 1980, 34. Hagner compares “the tempter” in

15

From this account one thing can be learned, namely that Jesus seems to have authority

over Satan and was able to exercise that authority in a concrete way. Yet, it seems as if Satan

is not entirely lacking authority. Therefore it will be fruitful to examine what kind of authority

Satan actually has or had.

The Authority of Satan

It will be beneficial to examine and try to understand the authority of Satan. This is so

because he seems to be the head of all lesser demons that this paper focuses on. If one can

understand and grasp Satan’s authority and tactics, one can also better understand his

subjects’ authority and tactics. To make a complete and comprehensive analysis of Satan’s

authority is due to the limited length of this paper not possible. Therefore this section will be

focused on investigating Satan’s authority in relationship to his subjects, the demons. It will

serve as useful background knowledge to a later discussion in this paper, when the origin of

demons will be dealt with.

Maclaurin notices that the word “Beelzeboul” occurs in Mt 10:25; 12:24 ff.; Mk 3:22 and

in Lk 11:15, 18 ff.55

Graham H. Twelftree makes a short study on the name and explains that

the term “is probably derived from the Hebrew words ba’al (‘lord,’ Hos 2:18), used mostly of

local manifestations of the Canaanite fertility god who was the chief adversary of the Israelite

religion (1 Kings 18:16-40), and zebul (‘exalted dwelling,’ 1 Kings 8:13)”

56

Sorensen states that the synoptics give the king of the demonic hierarchy the names

‘Satan’ and ‘Beelzeboul’ whereas John’s gospel calls him the ‘devil’ or ‘the ruler of this

this account to the serpent account in Gen 3:1-7, saying he now comes to fulfill his purpose, see Hagner 1993,

64. 55

Maclaurin 1978, 156.

56

Twelftree 1992, 164.

16

world’.57

France claims it is most probable that Mark (in Mk 3:22) identifies B e e lz e b o u.l as the

same person as Satan, only with a different name.58

In Mt 12:22-30 Jesus seems to identify

Satan with the name of Beelzebul. Hagner argues that the word Beelzebul in Mt 10:25 is “a

play on words opposite Jesus as the ‘lord of the household..,’”59

He also draws the conclusion

that the “imagery of the housemaster and household members refers here to the one who

heads and those who belong to the kingdom.”60

Similarly, Nolland notes that the “thought is

that the inferior will gain from contact with the superior and may well act for the superior (cf.

Mt. 10:40-42)...”61

Commenting on Mt 10:25, Maclaurin claims Beelzebul to be the master of

the house, “and so it would follow as a matter of course that those who dwell in the house

would also be demonic.”62

The corollary of this, according to Maclaurin, is that in Jesus’

mind, Beelzebul was the ruler of a community of demons.63

Although Jesus is here called the master of the house, Maclaurin’s connection is not

wholly convincing with regard to this verse. In this passage it seems as if the Pharisees give

Jesus the name of Beelzebul, and not the devil. Thus it is not as clear as Maclaurin claims to

draw any conclusions concerning Satan from this verse alone. However, from Mt 12:24 the

conclusion seems more probable. Maclaurin convincingly comments on the “N.T. phrase

Beelzeboul a ;rco n t i t w/n d a im o ni,wn [found in Mt 12:24, Mk 3:22, Lk 11:15] [and says it]

refers to Ba´al’s position as ruler of the angelic sons of God-destined to become ‘fallen

57

Sorensen 2002, 121.

58

France 2002, 170.

59

Hagner 1993, 282.

60

Ibid.

61

Nolland 2005, 434.

62

Maclaurin 1978, 156.

63

Ibid., 157.

17

angels’...”64

Making a comment on the situation in the Marcan narrative (Mk 3:22), Robert A.

Guelich states that “[i]nherent to the charge and Jesus’ counter lies the assumption of a

hierarchical structure among the demons, which at one time was considered atypical of

Judaism...”65

France is in agreement, also acknowledging that this pericope portrays

B e e lz e b o u.l as having authority over the more insignificant demons with the hierarchical

structure as the implication.66

The Fall of Satan

In all accounts of Jesus when he encounters and practices exorcism of demons he is

successful when he does so. The demons all sooner or later submit to his authority and are

compelled to leave their victims. Therefore, it is worth while studying the fall of Satan and

what consequences this fall brings into the ministry of exorcism.

One account of particular notice in the Old Testament is Ez 28:12-16. Leslie C. Allen

comments on this pericope and mentions that some early Church Fathers alongside with some

contemporary conservative popular teachings attach this passage, in connection with the

account in Is 14:12-15, to Satan. The author is correct in pointing out that although this

passage includes the words “Garden” and “Eden” and thus echoes the Genesis 2-3 account,

the passage in Ezekiel does however not speak of a serpent, or of a woman. Allen is also

noticing the similarities; the Garden of Eden and God’s command of expulsion from it.

Moreover, the author sees the pre-fall situation of moral perfection and one cherub as the

64

Ibid., 159.

65

Guelich 1989, 175.

66

France 2002, 171.

18

source of the expulsion.67

The author however disregards the potential possibility of

interpreting this account as an explanation of the fall of Satan from the heavens, claiming it is

“a case of exegeting an element of Christian belief by means of Scripture and so endeavoring

to provide it with extrabiblical warrant and to fit the passage into the framework of the

Christian faith. However, it is guilty of detaching the passage from its literary setting.”68

Although Allen notes the similarities of the two passages in Genesis and Ezekiel, he puts too

little stress on them and too much stress on the differences.

Barton J. Payne disagrees with Allen’s view, noting that the “verses [in Ex 28:12-16]

condemn the king of Tyre, but go beyond him by comparing him to a figure of perfection who

was in Eden, who was created holy and later fell.”69

The author also notices that the phrases

‘mountain of God’ and ‘stones of fire’ are not reminiscent of the Garden of Eden narrative in

Gen. 3.70

Payne seems sounder in his argumentation. The fact that Ezekiel mentions Eden and

gives credit to the king as having been a Cherub does seem to point to a figure who is

something more than a mere earthly king. Thus it is probable that the Ezekielian pericope

refer to Satan’s fall.

The second Old Testament account of major interest is in Is 14:12-15. The passage reads:

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast

down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13

You said in your heart, "I will

ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the

mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. {13 Or the north;

Hebrew Zaphon} 14

I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the

Most High." 15

But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit.

John D. W. Watts reasons that this pericope ”tells of a tyrant king who is overcome, not by

resistance of a god, but by his own ambition to be as high as a god, to ascend to heaven, to

67

Allen 1990, 94.

68

Ibid., 95.

69

Payne 1980, 874-75.

70

Ibid., 875.

19

reign above the stars, to sit in the mountain assembly, and to be like the Most High.”71

He also

states that the Mountain Assembly comes forth as a synonymous word to heavens in this

context.72

According to Watts, a satanic interpretation of this account is not probable.

Watts concludes his explanation on the account in Isaiah claiming it “is significant that the

account of the fall of Satan (Rev 12) makes no reference to Isa 14.” This last argumentation

by Watts seems to be an argumentation ex silentio. As such it cannot carry much weight. John

could very well have been aware of the account in Is 12 when writing the Book of Revelation.

He might have thought it to be superfluous to refer to the account in Is 12, but no one can

surely know. J. Alec Motyer interprets this passage from a natural, terrestrial perspective. The

author may be correct in doing so, but fails to mention the possibility of a potential

supernatural character being depicted in this drama.73

Regarding the verses both preceding

and succeeding the account in Is 14:12-15, Robert B. Chisholm does not see the fall of Satan

in the account, because it “is contextually unwarranted.”74

Acknowledging the fact that the Church Fathers put this account in connection with Lk

10:18 and Rev. 12:8-9, interpreting it as the fall of Satan, John W. Oswalt disagrees, claiming

the account is dealing with human pride and thus not supernatural.75

These scholars seem

correct in their analysis of the text in Isaiah. There does not seem to be any real conclusive

indicators that clearly exhibit Satan and his fall in these verses.

Kent Philpott, however, admitting that the foremost interpretation of these verses refer to

the king of Babylon, claims that there is a deeper meaning in the account.76

Philpott may be

71

Watts 1985, 210-11.

72

Ibid., 211.

73

Motyer 1999, 119-20.

74

Chisholm 2002, 50.

75

Oswalt 1986, 320.

76

Philpott 1974, 71.

20

correct in that the passage may carry a sensus plenior. Yet, it is hard to come up with any

conclusive arguments as to what that is. Thus it is less likely that Satan’s fall is described here

than in the account in Ezekiel 28.

It seems as if the evidence speaking for a description of the fall of Satan in the Ezekielian

account are somewhat more convincing than the ones speaking against. Thus it would seem

probable that Ezekiel (whether or not he was aware of it) give some details to the fall of

Satan. The evidence for the fall of Satan being at hand in the account of Isaiah is less

convincing. His fall may be described but it is not probable.

Lk 10:18 states: e i =p e n d e. a uvt o i/j \ evqe w,ro un t o .n sa t an a/n wj a vst ra ph .n evk t o u/ o uvra n o u/

p e so,n t a ‘and he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like a lightening from heaven”’. Julian V. Hills

makes an interesting suggestion concerning this verse and context. He argues, based on the

immediate context, that evqe w,ro un more likely ought to be translated ‘they saw’, referring to

the demons in the preceding verse.77

Grammatically and contextually, the author’s proposal is

fully plausible.

Marshall interprets the passage in the traditional way:

But Jesus is triumphant over Satan. On the return of the Seventy from their mission with

the news that even the demons were subject to them, Jesus replied with the climactic

statement that He had beheld Satan falling like lightning from heaven, and went on to

promise them power over all his might (Luke 10:17-19). It is hard to say precisely what

Jesus had in mind when He spoke of the fall of Satan.78

The author continues and claims: “The defeat of the demons is the sign that their master,

Satan, has been overcome. Probably Jesus is using metaphorical language rather than

describing an ecstatic vision.”79

Maclaurin argues that: “Jesus had actually been a witness of

77

Hills 1992, 25-40.

78

Marshall 1970, 137.

79

Ibid.

21

this fall of pride (Lk. x 18).80

Twelftree claims that “Luke is emphasizing that the

eschatological expectation pf Satan’s downfall was not only already taking place, but that it

was an ongoing process and linked to the exorcistic ministry of the church.”81

This paper will not further discuss the issue. It is however of interest and importance to

this paper to state that the fall of Satan did take place. Erickson suggests that the fall of Satan

took place sometime between the seventh day of creation (when God had proclaimed that it

was ‘very good’) and the serpent’s (probably the devil) temptation of Eve.82

Richard Atwood

comments on the verse and says it “seems to imply that Satan was in existence before the

world was made.”83

Whether Satan fell before the world was created, as Atwood suggests, or

in the time proposed by Erickson is not of major significance to this paper. What is important

to state, and where all of the above scholars agree, is that the verse unambiguously reveals

that Satan has fallen and has thereby also been defeated (as seen also in the success of Jesus’

disciples’ ministry of exorcism). This may be why all demons had to submit to Jesus’

authority. They knew that their leader had fallen and was subject to God’s authority and

power. Now when Satan – the archenemy has been studied and examined it will be fruitful to

look at his subjects, the demons. In the synoptic Gospel narratives, Jesus’ interaction with

these evil spirits is given quite some space.

The Origin of Demons

The existence of demons is clearly supported by New Testament sources and the synoptic

Gospels in particular. Graham W. Twelftree claims that “[a]lthough indeterminate in the OT,

80

Maclaurin 1978, 159.

81

Twelftree 2007, 97.

82

Erickson 1998, 453.

83

Atwood 1993, 32.

22

demons in the NT are seen as evil or unclean spiritual beings with the capacity to harm life or

allure people to heresy or immorality.”84

The pseudepigraphical literature of 1 Enoch gives a quite extensive picture on how the

demons were formed85

, their limitations and curses. The name of Enoch will (fully

recognizing that it was not the Biblical Enoch who wrote this piece of literature) for

convenience be used in this paragraph. The chapters containing this demonology in 1 Enoch

(6-16) are inspired by the Genesis account in Gen 6:1-4. This passage seems to be used as a

source for the argument of the fall among God’s angels.86

It seems that Enoch tries to explain

the many questions that are left with every reader of this specific Genesis account. 1 Enoch 6

reveals that there were some angels (Semyaz being their leader) in heaven that saw some

beautiful women on earth. 200 angels swore an oath to commit to the evil act and not

withdraw from it. The angels took one woman each and began to teach them practical things

on earth. The women gave birth to big giants (cf. Gen 6:1-4). These giants began to terrorize

the ordinary people and spread horror. God pronounces judgment upon these evil angels

through his good angels, judgment of torment and eternal death. Then Enoch started to

intercede on behalf of the fallen angels. It seems as if the fallen angels wanted forgiveness for

their sins and asked Enoch to pray to God on their behalf. In a dream Enoch is given God’s

answer to his requests. The answer Enoch receives is that God will not forgive the sins of the

fallen angels and that his judgment stands.87

Moreover, God says: “[f]rom now on you will

84

Twelftree 2007, 91.

85

For more proposed theories concerning the origin of demons, see Van der Loos 1965, 339-347. Due to the

limitations of this paper, a full cover of all of them cannot be given.

86

Elgvin 2000, 153.

87

Charlesworth 1983, 15-20.

23

not be able to ascend into heaven unto all eternity, but you shall remain inside the earth,

imprisoned all the days of eternity.”88

1 Enoch 15:6-12 reads:

Indeed you, formerly you were spiritual, (having) eternal life, and immortal in all the

generations of the world. That is why (formerly) I did not make wives for you, for the

dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven. But now the giants who are born from

the (union of) the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because

their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil spirits have come out of

their bodies. Because from the day that they were created from the holy ones they became

the Watchers; their first origin is the spiritual foundation. They will become evil upon the

earth and shall be called evil spirits. The dwelling of the spiritual beings of heaven is

heaven; but the dwelling of the spirits of the earth, which are born upon the earth, is in the

earth. The spirits of the giants oppress each other; they will corrupt, fall, be excited, and

fall upon the earth, and cause sorrow. They eat no food, nor become thirsty, nor find

obstacles. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of the people and against the

women, because they have proceeded forth (from them).89

Now, this passage gives a detailed description on the origin of demons. However, the

passage is not canonical and must therefore not be regarded as authoritative. Yet, the

proposed theory seems somewhat plausible and understandable. Once again, the explanation

cannot be taken for granted and the conclusion is that the origin of demons is ambiguous. It is

no use in speculating further on. It will better serve the interest of this paper to define what an

exorcism really is and its consequences.

88

Charlesworth 1983, 20.

89

Ibid., 21-22.

24

DEFINITION OF EXORCISM

It is of major importance to define what actually constitutes an exorcism. This is so

because it is not beneficial to make too wide a definition, including areas such as healings

from illnesses without demonic aetiologies, which would be better to study systematically on

their own. Neither is it fruitful to make too narrow a definition of exorcism, since some

features may come forth from some passages whereas other exorcism accounts from the Bible

may focus on other details. There are attempts that try to reduce the spiritual reality of

demonic possession. Stevan L. Davies makes references to a number of anthropological

studies and claims that “Jesus’ clientele who came (or were brought) for exorcism were

probably, more than anything else, victims of abusive family relationships.”90

The author also

admits a second rational possibility for ‘demonic possession’. This, Davies sees from

psychiatric studies and is labelled MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder). This is said to

possibly occur within a person when a traumatic event in the past is affecting the person.91

Thus he comes to the conclusion “that becoming a demon is normally a mode of response, a

coping mechanism, and not a supernatural event per se.”92

The logical conclusion to be drawn

from Davies’s reasoning is then that a supernatural exorcism does not take place when

reported in the gospels. The strength of Davies’s point of departure is that he gives credit to

the witnesses of these Biblical events. 93

The author realizes that according to them, demonic

possession was a reality. At the same time, Davies fails to give any rational answers to the

successful outcomes of the so called exorcisms performed by Jesus.

90

Davies 1995, 86.

91

Ibid., 86-89.

92

Ibid., 86.

93

This will be shown in the discussion of Mary of Magdalene.

25

If he on the one hand is able to provide psychological and rational explanations to the

initial state of the demoniacs, believed to be demonic possession by the truthful witnesses, he

is as silent providing the readers with rational answers to the gospel writers’ reported

successful outcome of the exorcisms performed by Jesus. Affirming modern medical science,

that there are people of today who suffer from MPD and other mental illnesses, the Gospel

narratives do seem to portray something else, they seem to depict a true spiritual background

to the problems and afflictions of the demoniacs.

Gerd Theissen sees the potential problem in labelling the categories of healings and

exorcism as one and the same:

The exorcism motifs in healings also tell in favour of rather than against a distinction

between the two themes. The motifs may be divided into two groups: demonological

aetiologies of illness and techniques of healing which use exorcism. Demonological

aetiologies can be clearly distinguished from the possession which requires exorcism: in

the latter the demon inhabits the victim, in the former it causes the disease. The healer

deals with the effects of the demon’s action, the exorcist with its presence.94

Theissen also lists three characteristics that are specific to the genre of exorcism, i) The

person must be in the power of the demon, ii) There is a battle between the demon and the

exorcist, iii) The victim is affected by the destructive activity which is in the nature of the

demon.95

In many New Testament pericopes of exorcism, these characteristics seem to apply.

Still, there are others where Theissen’s list does not apply. His list is thus too specific for a

general definition of an exorcism.

Campbell Bonner claims that:

the exorcist’s work is most thoroughly and effectively carried out when the demon does

not merely leave the possessed person, but before doing so is compelled to do one or more

of the following things: (1) to speak in answer to the operator’s conjurations; (2) to tell his

name or at least his nature, i.e. the class of demons to which he belongs, and to describe

the kind of mischief that he is wont to do. To all this there is sometimes added (3) a visible

proof, in the form of some violent action, that the possessing force was actually a demon,

94

Theissen 1983, 86.

95

Ibid., 87-89.

26

and that he has left his former abode in the body of his victim.96

It seems as if Jesus was always successful no matter what circumstances or no matter what

detailed descriptions are given concerning the response of the demons. Thus Bonner’s claim

on effectiveness seems somewhat misleading. Such a detailed description is not needed. F.

Scott Spencer defines exorcism as the ”supernatural expulsion of harmful spirits or demons

from afflicted (possessed) persons or places.”97

. Spencer’s list seems to be one of a general

nature. Acknowledging modern medical science that some people with these syndromes may

suffer from MPD, the Gospel narratives do seem to convey a spiritual realm and spiritual

aetiologies to the demoniacs’ behaviour. These occurrences may be out of reach for a

scientific and natural explanation. The causes for the syndromes clearly exhibited in the

Biblical accounts are spiritually demonical. The lists both Theissen and Bonner contribute

with correctly exhibit some characteristics of demonical possession seen in the New

Testament accounts. However, their lists are not all conclusive and therefore Spencer’s

shorter and more conclusive definition is preferable.

The act of exorcism, recognizing that demons might be the cause of sicknesses, must be

separated from the act of a physical healing. Twelftree correctly notices that the “NT writers

made a distinction between demonic and other types of sicknesses (e.g., Mark 1:32-34).”98

An exorcism is a spiritual act, that causes an evil spirit, demon to leave its victim (the

demoniac) and cease to cause any evil problems (physical, mental or likewise) that in one way

or another have affected the person negatively or even altered the state of the person

possessed. Thus, the potential physical manifestations after a performed exorcism is not what

defines an exorcism, it is that a spiritual demon has inhabited a person and is forced out.

96

Bonner 1943, 41.

97

Spencer 2007, 383.

98

Twelftree 2007, 94.

27

There are several Greek words used to describe this action of exorcism, e.g. e vkb a,l l w ‘to

cast out’ (Mt 9:33, 10:1; Lk 13:32), a vp o l u,w ‘to be released, set free’ (Lk 13:12), e vxe ,rco m ai ‘to

come out’ (Mk 1:25, 5:8, 9:25; Lk 4:35, 8:29), qe r a p e u,w ‘to heal’ (Mt 4:24, 12:22; Lk 6:18),

and sw,z w ‘to heal’ (Lk 8:36). From the contexts it seems most reliable to conclude that these

words all relate to exorcism.

Having defined exorcism, this paper now turns to the Old Testament in order to find out if

there are any passages that may shed some light on exorcisms.

28

EXORCISM IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

In order to shed light on Jesus and his ministry of exorcism, it is fruitful to look at the

possible examples of demonic possession and activity in the Old Testament. Jesus was born

and raised in the Jewish culture and tradition and was well versed in the Hebrew Bible (Lk

4:14-27). There are scriptures speaking about spirits, and evil spirits in the Old Testament.

However, it seems as if there are few passages speaking of demonic possession in the Hebrew

Bible. The most probable instances of demonic possessions are the ha'²n>qi-x:Wr ) ‘spirit of

jealousy’ in Num 5:14-15, 30; the spirits of deception working in the mouths of the prophets

of Ahab (rq,v,ê x:Wrå) in 1 Kings 22:19-24 and 2 Chron 18:18-23; the spirit God sends in order to

make Sennacherib return to Assyria in 2 Kings 19:7 and Is 37:7; and the ~ynIWnz> x:WrÜ ‘spirit of

fornication’ in Hos 5:4. There might also be demonic activity involved in the account of

Saul’s visit to the medium in En Dor. Sorensen explains that the spirits of deception working

in the mouth of Ahab and the spirit at work in the medium in En Dor are the only certain

places of real spiritual involvement, the other passages might speak about changes in

personality instead.99

Payne also sees the supernatural character of the spirit in the account of

1 Kings 22:19-24, claiming Satan to be a big spirit of accusation.100

Chisholm agrees with

Sorensen with the uncertainty as to the reality of God actually sending a spirit in order to

cause Sennacherib’s withdrawal from Jerusalem, writing: “[the statement in Is 37:7] is not

99

Sorensen 2002, 50-51.

100

Payne 1980, 837.

29

entirely clear. It may refer to a personal spirit sent by God to control the king’s mind (see 1

Kings 22:19), or it could refer to a disposition of concern and fear. In either case the Lord’s

sovereignty over the king is apparent.”101

The word used for spirit is in all the above examples the Hebrew noun x:Wrå. This word can

mean breeze, breath of God, wind, breath which supports life, a sense, mind or intellectual

fram of mind, the spirit of Yahwe, spirit of God, a holy spirit or particular types of spirit.102

According to the BDB, in the accounts of Is 37:7 and 2 Kings 19:7, the word x:Wrå connotes the

meaning of a disposition, an “unaccountable and uncontrollable impulse.”103

Payne agrees

concerning the account of Sennacherib in 2 Kings 19:7, writing it connotes a change of

attitude or disposition of mind.104

John N. Oswalt states that in Is 37:3 the meaning of “spirit”

is not a supernatural being, nor the Holy Spirit, but is on the contrary a disposition, feeling or

an attitude.105

Admitting the meaning is not totally clear, Schweizer puts this account under

“the seat of emotions” as an “inner disquiet.”106

According to William L. Holladay, the

account of 2 Kings 19:7 indicates a “granting of the spirit....into king of Assyria.”107

T. R.

Hoobs also agrees to the probability that it is a real spirit (supernatural being) involved in this

passage. The author writes the verse is reminiscent of the account of the false prophets of

Ahab in 1 Kings 22:22 in that it depicts the lying spirit as the source of the false prophets.

This lying spirit is however under Yahweh’s control.108

It seems as if the simplest reading of

101

Chisholm 2002, 85.

102

Koehler and Baumgartner 1996, 1197-1201.

103

Brown, Driver and Briggs 2000, 925.

104

Payne 1980, 836.

105

Oswalt 1986, 647.

106

Schweizer 1968, 361.

107

Holladay 1988, 335.

108

Hobbs 1985, 275.

30

the text would indicate an actual supernatural spirit. Although the scholars interpreting the

passage in this way are lesser in number, they correctly open up for the possibility and

probability of a real non-human spirit.

In both 2 Kings 19:7 and Is 37:7, the text reads that God will put x:Wrê ‘AB ‘a spirit in him’.

The preposition B can mean in, in the eyes of, among, within, on, according to, into, with,

against, from, because of.109

Both NRSV and NIV translate the preposition AB as “in him,”

whereas NKJ translates the preposition “upon him”. Commenting on Is 37:7, John D. W.

Watts argues the preposition “against him” is to be preferred rather than “in him”.110

It seems

difficult to establish the correct translation of the preposition in this case. It seems more

probable to translate the preposition B with “in” in this case. Thus, the scholars claiming a real

supernatural spirit are more credible in their interpretation of the account. Although it is not

unambiguous, the interpretation of these scriptural references speaking of actual supernatural

spirits seems to be plausible, acknowledging that the account in 1 Kings 22:19-24 is the most

probable of all (as Sorensen does, see above).

Another significant account to look at is in the courts of Saul, 1 Sam 16:14; 18:10-12;

19:9-10. Sorensen sees that in these passages where the evil spirit is tormenting Saul, the evil

spirit does not actually come into or work in his body. The scholar notices that the account

portray a “transferal of spirits: the departure of ‘the spirit of the Lord’ (hw"±hy> x:Wrô...) from Saul

allows an ‘evil spirit’ (h['(r"h' x:Wrï...) to approach the king and trouble him.”111

Payne sees the

same “spirit [a supernatural being] from God” in this passage as well as the evil spirit.112

Just

as Sorensen highlights, this is not an exorcism per se. The scholar finds the closest similarity

109

Holladay 1988, 32.

110

Watts 1987, 35.

111

Sorensen 2002, 51.

112

Payne 1980, 837.

31

between this account and the one in Zech 3:1-2 compared to the New Testament’s accounts of

exorcisms. He argues: “although the evil spirit is not actually said to possess Saul’s body,

David’s lyre playing serves an exorcistic function by causing the evil spirit to depart, and thus

restores Saul to a state of well being, however temporary.113

Spencer notes “David’s music

achieved only a temporary exorcism.”114

Although, as mentioned, this account does not totally

resemble an exorcism account as found in the New Testament, the fact that different spirits

are involved and that the evil spirits are forced to depart seem to resemble some features of

New Testament exorcisms as will be shown further on in this paper.

As proposed in the introduction to this chapter, the Old Testament does speak about evil

spirits of various kinds. These accounts are however few and not satisfactorily reminiscent of

the many accounts found in the New Testament. Still, it seems clear that the contemporaries

of Jesus would be aware of the fact that supernatural beings did exist in their worldview. This

paper will therefore continue into the time of Jesus and his ministry of exorcism.

113

Sorensen 2002, 53.

114

Spencer 2007, 383.

32

JESUS THE EXORCIST

Jesus’ Worldview

As will be seen, Jesus recognized the existence of demons in this world. The gospel

writers always seem to portray Jesus as calm, knowing who he is up against and what to do

when faced with a demon. Richard Atwood notes this portrayal:

The existence of demons is taken for granted in the Gospels. Jesus himself accepted

without hesitation the teaching which prevailed among the Jews. Never for a moment does

he seem to doubt that demons exist, and that they afflict the lives of men as they were

popularly believed to do.115

Twelftree agrees on Jesus’ understanding of the real presence of demons and the battle he was

engaged into, claiming:

From what can be recovered of the historical Jesus, exorcisms were the most common

form of healing or miracle he is said to have performed. He understood these exorcisms

not only to be relieving suffering (e.g., Mark 5:1-20) but, as is most clearly shown in the

so-called Beelzebul Controversy (Mark 3:22-27; Mark 9:32-34/12:22-30/Luke 11:14-23),

to be a battle with Satan, in which he plunders his possessions.116

It seems very clear that Jesus accepted the reality and effect of demons in the physical

world. That is why he always recognized their presence inhabiting human beings. Whether

they were many, afflicted certain sicknesses or whatever evil harm they did, Jesus used his

authority and love to exorcise the demon, setting the demoniac free. In some cases, the

demons brought with them severe physical ailments.

115

Atwood 1993, 31-32.

116

Twelftree 2007, 95.

33

Demonic Possession and Illnesses

The Blind and Mute Man

Some accounts in the Gospels seem to refer to severe physical sicknesses having been

caused by demonic possession. Matthew is the only Gospel author who mentions the account

of the unfortunate man who was both blind and deaf. Mt 12:22 reads: p ro sh n e,cqh a uvt w/|

d a im o ni z o,m en o j t uf l o.j ka i. kwf o ,j 1 1 7 ( ka i. e vqe ra ,p e use n a uvt o ,n ( w[st e t o.n kwf o .n l a le i/n ka i.

b l e,p e in ‘a man who was demon-possessed, both blind and mute, was brought to him [Jesus]

and he healed him, so that the he could both speak and see’. Hagner notes that in “this

instance demon possession was considered the cause of the man’s maladies.”118

Paul L.

Hammer notes that usually the demoniacs are separated from the people with physical

sicknesses. The author, however, clarifies that sometimes, as in Mt 12:22, the state of being

possessed caused physical ailments such as blindness and muteness.119

Nolland sees that the

“combined affliction of being blind, deaf, and mute represents an extreme of human isolation,

but not a state that is beyond the reach of Jesus.”120

When commenting on a similar exorcism account, the one in Mt 9:32-33, Nolland argues

that Matthew “here introduces the idea of a specific affliction resulting from demon

possession (cf. 12:22; 17:15).”121

Twelftree on the other hand thinks that in “contrast to the

doublet to this passage in Matthew 9:32-34, the man is ‘cured’ rather than demons being cast

117

kw fo,j can mean either ‘deaf’ or ‘mute’, the context settles the matter in favor of ‘mute’.

118

Hagner 1993, 342.

119

Hammer 1962, 824.

120

Nolland 2005, 498.

121

Ibid., 403.

34

out.”122

Hagner claims the crowd’s amazement (in Mt 9:32-33) was not due to the exorcism

itself (which was performed by others), but to the successful result of Jesus’ exorcism,

making the mute man speak.123

The fact that the man was d a im o ni zo ,m en o j ‘demon-possessed’ would indicate, contrary to

Twelftree’s argumentation, that an exorcism was required and performed by Jesus. The verb

qe ra p e u,w used here means to heal or to serve.124

Hermann Wolfgang Beyer although notes

that in this context Jesus’ divine power is in a battle with Satanic forces (the demons here) and

that this exorcism has the effect that it heals ailments.125

Thus it seems most probable that the demon possession was the cause of the blindness and

muteness of this man. Jesus exorcises the demon of this man with the effects of restoring his

eyesight and making him speak again.

The Daughter of Abraham

The narrative of Lk 13:10-17 concerns a woman who had been bound by Satan. The Greek

text of verse 11 reads: “k a i. i vd o u. gun h . p n e u/m a e;co usa a vsqe n e i,a j e;t h de ka okt w.......... ‘and behold,

there was a woman who had had a spirit of illness for eighteen years’. The main concern here

is the words p n e u/m a e;co usa a vsqe n e i,a j. avsqe n e i,a j is a genitive. It thus refers back to the

p n e u/m a. Louw & Nida claim avsqe ,n e i a means “the state of being ill and thus incapacitated in

some manner –‘ilness, disability, weakness.’”126

BDAG explains it means (in Lk 13:11) a

122

Twelftree 1999, 127.

123

Hagner 1993, 257.

124

Louw & Nida 1989, 119.

125

Beyer 1965, 130.

126

Louw and Nida 1989, 270.

35

sickness or disease “[c]aused by demons.”127

These remarks made seem convincing and point

toward a demonic possession of this woman. The NIV translates the phrase: “and a woman

was there who had been crippled by a spirit”. NKJ says: “And behold, there was a woman

who had a spirit of infirmity.” NRSV translates it “And just then there appeared a woman

with a spirit that had crippled her” In verse 11, e ;co usa is a participle of the verb e ;cw ‘to have,

hold’. The adverbial participle stresses the continuous mode of having.128

Out of these three

translations, it seems as if the NKJ has captured the genitive character of the noun in the best

way.

Nolland would, on the contrary, rather place this account under the category of general

healing than exorcism. He argues that it is not certain if the phrase “spirit of infirmity” (NKJ)

refers to an actual demon or is simply an idiom for a debilitating ailment. Nolland disregards

the word “Satan” in verse 16, since according to him, Acts 10:38 speaks of healing in

general.129

Werner G. Marx argues that there is no evil demon in the phrase p n e u/m a e;co usa

a vsqe n e i,a j; the woman needed healing and not an exorcism.130

Marshall argues that the

foremost reason for the woman’s illness is Satan’s evil power, but points to that the result of

Jesus’ interaction is not described in terms of an exorcism but rather as a loosening from a

“fairly literal ‘bond’.”131

It is unclear what Marshall means by a “literal bond”. It seems as if possession manifests

and expresses itself somehow physically in every case. In his earlier book Luke: Historian &

Theologian, I. Howard Marshall notes that the “exorcism of demons was a sign that the kingly

power of God had come among men (Luke 11:20). Jesus regarded Himself as setting free

127

BDAG 1979, 115.

128

Wallace 2000, 272-73.

129

Nolland 1993, 723-24.

130

Marx 1979-80, 170.

131

Marshall 1978, 557.

36

those who had been taken captive by Satan (Luke 13:16), and later the task of Paul was to be

defined in similar terms (Acts 26:18).”132

Marshall does not state what he considers to be the

manifestations of a normal pattern of exorcism. If he refers to physical manifestations such as

shivering and falling to the ground, he is not on safe ground.133

The opposite view is held by Green. He claims that this Lucan pericope would point to

Jesus’ saying in Lk 4:18-21 as a redemptive-historical expression. He says Jesus chose to

interrupt his own Synagogue teaching because he wanted to express God’s love unto this

woman. The author thus sees a clear connection between this passage and Acts 10:38,

claiming both serve as evidence for satanic influence being the cause of physical ailments.134

Sorensen also regards the woman as being possessed by a crippling spirit.135

Spencer likewise

places this miracle account under the category of exorcism.136

Although these verses do not prove the cause of all sicknesses to be some sort of satanic

influence, the very mentioning of Satan do seem to point to the existence of demonic

influence as a cause to physical illness. Thus, Green’s and Sorensen’s interpretation, claiming

demonic influence in this woman is the better one. However, what was interesting to Jesus,

was to see this woman healed from her affliction and pain, caused by the devil.

The point made in the accounts of the Blind and Mute man and the daughter of Abraham

is that it seems as if certain demons carry certain afflictions or diseases with them and manage

132

Marshall 1970, 137.

133

Mk 9:14-29, Lk 9:37-43 and Acts 8:17 do show such effects of a successful exorcism whereas Mt 8:28-

34, Mk 5:1-20, Lk 8:26-33, Mt 12:22-24, Mt 17:14-18, Lk 11:14-15, Acts 5:16 and Acts 16:16-18 do not seem to

indicate the same effects. Sorensen does state that these symptoms indicate possession and that the solutions to

these cases are exorcisms rather than mere healings (p 125). But the large number of exorcisms without these

symptoms lead to the corollary that there does not seem to be a uniform pattern of successful exorcisms.

134

Green 1989, 651-53.

135

Sorensen 2002, 123-124.

136

Spencer 2007, 384.

37

to transfer them unto their victims.137

Acknowledging the spiritual hierarchy of the demonic

realm, where all demons are being subject to Satan, Sorensen claims that the New Testament

depicts the demons with much individual personality so that they should be seen and treated

as distinct entities.138

Jesus’ strength and authority triumph over all of these demons and

ailments. It seems as if no matter what evil ailment a demon might transfer to a person, Jesus

is able and willing to deliver the person from the demon and heal him/her from the affliction.

Multiple Possession

According to Jesus’ own teaching concerning evil spirits, he says that after a vka ,qa rt o n

p n e u/m a ‘an unclean spirit’ (Lk 11:24) has gone out of a man, after a while he may: t o ,t e

p o re u,e t ai ka i. p a ral am ba ,n e i e[t e ra pn e u,m a ta p onhro ,t e ra ea ut o u/ ep t a. ka i. e ivse l qo ,n t a

ka t o i ke i/ e vke i/\ ka i. gi ,n e ta i ta. e ;sca t a t o u/ avn qrw, p o u evke i,n o u ce i ,ro n a t w/n p rw,t wn Å ’then he

goes and brings with him seven other spirits, more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell

there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first’ (Lk 11:26).

Marshall notes that “Luke appears to understand the saying literally, with direct reference

to the situation of a person who has been exorcised of a demon…”139

The author goes on and

states that “Luke uses e p t a as a climax. The eight spirits together will be better able to resist

exorcism (ka t oi ke,w).”140

Nolland confirms the same view as Marshall, claiming the

“improved accommodations are now fit for a whole demonic community. So the returning

demon provides himself with a whole set of demonic companions, each of whom outstrips the

137

Other names attached to demons are e.g.: pn e u,ma ti a vka q a ,r t w | ’unclean spirit’ (Mk 1:23, 5:2; Mt 12:43),

pn eu/ ma t o. pon h r o.n ’evil spirit’ (Acts 19:15), and pn euma ,tw n pon h r w /n ka i. a vsq en eiw /n ’spirits of evil and

sickness’ (Lk 8:2).

138

Sorensen 2002, 119.

139

Marshall 1978, 479.

140

Ibid., 480.

38

original dweller’s capacity to inflict evil upon its host.”141

Nolland, however, interprets this

passage not as a teaching of the reality of demonic activity, but “as illustration of a much

wider phenomenon of false hope engendered by a short-lived improvement in the

circumstances of life.”142

The fact that Jesus exorcised demons during his ministry would suggest that he was also

literal in his meaning concerning his own teaching about them. Thus, Nolland’s interpretation

of the passage is too pressed. Marshall recognizes this and says such a comparison ought not

be overemphasized.143

In order to gain some more knowledge about multiple possessions, two

Gospel accounts revealing its reality will briefly be looked upon.

Mary of Magdalene

Lk 8:2 reads: ka i . gun a i/ke ,j t in e j a i] h =sa n te qe ra pe um e,n a i avp o . p n e um a,t wn p o n hrw/n ka i.

a vsqe n e i w/n ( M a ri,a h ka l o um e,n h M a gda l hn h,( avf V h-j d a im o,n i a ep t a. e vxe l hlu,qe i ( ‘...had been

healed of evil spirits and diseases, Mary called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had

come out’. Mk 16:9 speaks of her as M a ri ,a | t h /| Ma gd a lhn h/|( p a rV h-j evkb e b lh ,ke i ep t a.

d a im o,n i a Å ‘Mary Magdalene, out of whom he [Jesus] had cast out seven demons.’

Atwood in Lk 8:2 (and in the case of the Gerasene demoniac) notes the potential

possibility for more than one demon to inhabit a person simultaneously.144

Bart D. Ehrman claims that the specific number of seven demons should not necessarily

be interpreted in a literal way in this context. The author says it many times connotes a

141

Nolland 1993, 646.

142

Ibid.

143

Marshall 1978, 480.

144

Atwood 1993, 33.

39

‘complete’ number. Therefore “it may simply mean that she was completely overwhelmed by

a demonic disorder before she joined Jesus’ followers. Luke doesn’t actually say that it was

Jesus who healed her of her ailment, but it can probably be inferred.”145

Davies writes that to Jesus and his contemporaries the demonic possession of Mary of

Magdala was a supernatural phenomenon. They would not view it on a mere human level.

According to Davies, Mark the Gospel writer accepted this ancient possession paradigm

fully.146

According to the author, the

phenomena of conversion disorder and demon-possession are now and, in a sense, also

were then understood to be different forms of psychological dissociation (then, of demonic

intervention). Jesus the healer and Jesus the exorcist should be understood to have played

a social role based on one underlying paradigm.147

Davies thus interprets this passage (with the rest of the supernatural possession narratives)

in a mere human, psychological way. He admits the true belief of Jesus and his

contemporaries in the supernatural warfare going on when a demoniac encounters a person

possessed with the Spirit of God, but points to anthropological answers as the one and only

explanation. Davies does not give any explanations to the successfully performed exorcisms,

as told by the witnesses, at all. He mentions that the accounts speak of Jesus, by the power of

the spirit of God, commanding demons to depart and they obey.148

Thus, the weakness of his

theories is that he gives no human, psychological answers to why these demoniacs recovered

and became well again. As stated above, modern medicine may not have all the answers.

Another well-known New Testament exorcism narrative is the one about the Gerasene

demoniac. He is said to have been possessed by a “legion”.

145

Ehrman 2006, 206-07.

146

Davies 1995, 99.

147

Ibid., 99-100.

148

Ibid., 98.

40

The “Legion”

In the accounts of the Gerasene149

demoniac (Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8:26-39; Mt 8:28-34) the

demon, answering Jesus, claims his name to be l e gi w.n ‘legion’ (Mk 5:9, Lk 8:30). The

question is what this l e giw.n mean. Does it refer to a number, do the demons boast or is it a

mere symbol of something else?

Luke gives his own editorial remark concerning this word, he says the demoniac spoke

this o[t i e ivsh /l qe n da im o,n i a po l la . e ivj a uvt o ,n ‘because many demons had entered into him’.

Mark gives a similar editorial remark claiming the demoniac said o [t i p o ll oi , evsm e n ‘because

we are many’. Nolland argues for the plurality of numbers of demons from a different angle:

The demoniac’s strength, indicated by the failure of the constraining efforts, prepares us

for the plurality of possession and perhaps even for the military might reflected in the term

‘legion.’ The demons drove the man out from his place in human society. Note how the

very presence of Jesus is already much more effective in restraining the man than all the

efforts of his fellow countrymen.150

Spencer, on the contrary, argues ‘l e gi w.n’ is a “symbol of oppressive Roman military

occupation.151

Twelftree argues demons “can be so numerous or multifaceted as to be

described as ‘legion’ (Mark 5:9)...”152

Sorensen states that the most simple reading of l e gi w.n

is to denote a plurality of numbers.153

Spencer’s argumentation seems less likely than the

editorial, clear remarks of both Mark and Luke. Thus, it is very probable that l e gi w.n carries

the simple reading of a plurality of numbers, suggested by Sorensen. Having confirmed the

reality of people being possessed by a vast number of demons, it will be beneficial to look at

the condition and features of the demoniacs themselves.

149

A deeper study of the Gerasene demoniac will be provided in a section of its own below in this paper.

150

Nolland 1989, 409.

151

Spencer 2007, 384.

152

Twelftree 2007, 94.

153

Sorensen 2002, 129.

41

The Demoniacs

As seen above, there are many accounts of demonic possession in the Gospels. The

demons are attributed certain names according to their evil deeds. However, these passages

pay little if any interest in the person being possessed. The definition of a demoniac is “a

person having or possessed by a [demon] or evil spirit,...”154

There are hardly any answers

given as to why these people got possessed in the first place. Van Der Loos asks himself what

kind of people were the ones that were possessed. Did they belong to a certain group in

society? Could possession be infectious? The author sees the problem in answering these

questions since the data and evidence for any suggestions are few and lacking. He assumes

that in most cases the victims were merely ordinary people.155

This assumption does not need

to be refuted. When there is some information regarding the background, e.g. the woman

having been possessed for 18 years in Lk 13:10-17, of the demoniac the Bible portrays him or

her as an innocent victim of an evil spirit. Nothing points to any fault, sin or misbehavior on

account of her. Satan is the one who has bound her.156

Van Der Loos sees an interesting contrast. While the regular sick people in need of Jesus’

divine power would greet Jesus with ‘Lord’, ‘Son of David’, ‘Jesus, Son of David’, ‘Master’

etc, the demoniacs (demons) address Jesus with ‘Son of God’, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ or ‘Holy

one of God’.157

In many cases where a healing, as distinct from demonic possession, is

performed by Jesus, it requires a certain measure of faith on behalf of the sick person. This

requirement does not seem to be evident in the case of a possessed person. Instead, the

accounts do seem to portray the demoniac as a powerless victim, whereas in some cases (Mk

9:23-24, Mt 15:28) faith plays a role in the life of the third part (seeking help for the

154

Twelftree 2007, 100.

155

Van Der Loos 1965, 372.

156

Sorensen 2002, 126.

157

Van Der Loos 1965, 363.

42

demoniac). Thus, the Gospel accounts do not seem to indicate much responsibility on behalf

of the possessed; on the contrary, they seem to depict them as innocent victims being captured

by evil forces.158

Van Der Loos also argues for the powerless nature of the demoniac, being

an innocent victim.159

France points out that “the exorcism passages all speak of the demon as an active, distinct

from the ‘host’, and controlling the behaviour of the latter.”160

The author also notes that in

Mk 1:34, 39; 3:11, 15; 6:7, 13; 9:38 the possessed victim does not get any attention, rather

Jesus is depicted as one who sees and confronts the demons and not their human hosts.161

In this section a lot of questions and concerns have been raised about the very act of

possessing a human being. However, the Gospel authors do not give any answers as to why or

how these demons were able to possess their victims. Although, the Biblical evidence of

people being possessed and delivered is great, no clear statements about the initial act of

overtaking can be made.

The Gerasene Demoniac

Much has been written concerning the account of the Gerasene (Possibly Gadarene or

Gergesene)162

demoniac, and many possible interpretations have been provided.163

Concerning the account, John F. Craghan states: “Jesus’ seemingly bizarre manner or

158

Sorensen 2002, 127.

159

Van Der Loos 1965, 371.

160

France 2002, 103.

161

Ibid.

162

See France 2002, 227 for more insight.

163

For the various interpretations and their proponents, see Craghan 1968, 522-24.

43

exorcizing, the pitiable state of the demoniac, the loss of such a large number of swine, and

the request of the inhabitants for Jesus’ departure offer elements unique in the Gospels.”164

Although there is much to be said about this account, due to the limited length of this

paper, this section will be limited to the demoniac and the exorcism itself. All three synoptic

Gospels (Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8:26-39; Mt 8:28-34) record the account of the Gerasene demoniac.

On the basis of the many exorcism accounts in Mark, France notes the unique setting of this

exorcism account; it takes place in a Gentile area.165

Marshall also sees the Gentile Sitz im

Leben of the Lukan account and points out that the pericope can be viewed as a forerunner to

the Gentile mission of the church. However, the author makes it perfectly clear: “the main

point is the demonstration of the power of Jesus to deal with an especially severe case of

demon possession; through Jesus God did great things for an unhappy victim (8:39).”166

In Mk 5:3 the possessed man is said to have t h .n ka t o i,khsi n ei=ce n e vn t oi/j m n h,m a si n ( ka i.

o uvd e. a l u,se i o uvke ,t i o uvd e i.j e vd u,n a t o a uvt o.n d h/sa i. ‘had his dwelling among the tombs, and

nobody was able to bind him, not even with a chain.’ It seems as if the possession of the

unclean spirits gave this man temporarily extra physical powers, an uncommon strength

which no other man could match. Guelich sees the untamable strength of the victim and

suggests it might be due to his multiple possessions by the ‘legion’. The author states that the

account without any doubts makes clear it is a man who nobody was able to control.167

J.

Duncan M. Derrett, noticing the unusual and humiliating habitation for this man claims that:

164

Craghan 1968, 524.

165

France 2002, 226.

166

Marshall 1978, 335.

167

Guelich 1989, 278.

44

“the attempts to bind the man and his ability to break any bonds, including chains with which

people had tried to restrain him, tell us that the man represents or embodies Satan himself: his

and his attendant demons’ fate is to be bound and constrained until the end of the world.”168

France agrees claiming the supernatural strength “is sometimes a feature in accounts of

demon possession today.”169

Alan Cole says the “medical treatment accorded to this man was that commonly used in a

‘Bedlam’ a few generations ago: he was loaded with chains, in a vain attempt to curb his inner

violence by outward restraint. Not surprisingly, this proved quite futile (4).”170

Commenting

on the wild and uncontrollable nature of the man in Lk 8:29, Marshall claims the “ancient

world knew only one answer for such mad behaviour, restraint.”171

Nolland states the people’s

failure of constraining the demoniac indicates the strength of the demoniac.172

Acknowledging differences of the accounts, Howard writes that the “evangelists are in

agreement in presenting a clinical picture of extreme and uncontrollable violence.”173

A striking similarity of supernatural strength can be seen in the pericope of the sons of

Sceva in Acts 19:13-17. Verse 16 reads ka i . e vf a l o,m e n oj o a ;n qrwp o j evp V a uvt o u.j evn w-| h =n t o.

p n e u/m a to . p o nhro,n ( ka t akuri e u,sa j avm f ot e,rwn i ;scuse n ka t V a uvt w/n w[st e gum n o u.j ka i.

t e t ra um at i sm e,n o uj evkf ug e i/n e vk t o u/ o i ;ko u evke i ,n o uÅ ‘and the man who had the evil spirit

jumped upon them and subdued them so that they had to flee naked and wounded from that

house.’ In this account, the man being possessed is able to overpower and beat seven other

men. Theissen notes that the “demon for its part exploits the weakness of its opponents: it

168

Derrett 1978-80, 4.

169

France 2002, 227.

170

Cole 1961, 97.

171

Marshall 1978, 338.

172

Nolland 1989, 409.

173

Howard 1984-85, 106.

45

falls upon the sons of Sceva and overpowers them so that they are forced to flee naked (Acts

19.13-18).”174

It seems as if this demon possessed man, in the same manner as the Gerasene demoniac,

managed to subdue these people thanks to a supernatural temporarily strength. F. F. Bruce

notes that this man was “energized with abnormal strength”.175

Howard suggests this incident

could be explained by the fact that the man suffered from schizophrenic illness of some kind,

possibly a dissociative state.176

E. M. Blaiklock, on the other hand, argues the “incident here

described is beyond ready explanation in natural or psychological terms. The Jewish magic-

mongers were tampering with forces beyond their knowledge, and paid the penalty of such

rashness.”177

Sorensen notes the “violent physical power that accompanies his possession.178

It would be odd for a man to receive non-human powers due to a mental sickness or

disorder. Thus, Bruce’s and Blaiklock’s affirmation of the supernatural state of the man seem

more reasonable.

These two accounts reveal that demon possessed people may receive supernatural physical

power once in the power of the demons. The recordings do not tell whether this is a

permanent or temporary condition of the possessed person. What can be learned from these

accounts is that physical strength is not the way to tame and subdue the demoniac with his or

her demons. It seems as if physical means to control a demoniac are more or less useless.

Rather, as will be shown, spiritual authority is the key to a successful exorcism and

deliverance of the captive.

174

Theissen 1983, 89.

175

Bruce 1988, 369.

176

Howard 1984-85, 107.

177

Blaiklock 1959, 157.

178

Sorensen 2002, 125.

46

The Authority of Jesus

Authority Received from Above

In all encounters Jesus had with the devil or his subjects, the demons, Jesus is in the

Gospels portrayed as the one having the superior authority and power. This is shown by the,

although reluctant, submission of the demons to Jesus’ words and commands. But in what

way was Jesus bestowed with power and authority? Was it something with his appearance or

an external quality that gave him superior power over the demons? This is not so. It rather

seems as if Jesus’ spiritual authority was based on his inner spiritual qualities, on his own

submission and dependence on his father in heaven.

When Jesus cast out demons and healed afflicted people, the crowd was amazed by his

authority to do so (Mk 1:27, 2:10-12; Lk 4:36, 5:24-26). The scriptures in Mt 9:8, 28:18; Jn

10:18, 17:2 all obviously point toward Jesus’ received authority from his father in heaven. J.

Keir Howard argues that Jesus’ “power over the ‘unclean spirits’ was a sure sign to those with

the requisite spiritual insight that God had given him that greater power to deliver all mankind

from the captivity and oppression of sin and evil.”179

Noticing the crowd’s amazement and

astonishment at Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue in Mk 1:21-22, with the exorcism account

immediately following, Howard Clark Kee argues that:

The first specific act of Jesus reported by Mark is the healing of the demoniac in the

synagogue. There can be no mistaking Mark’s intention: it is in the exorcisms that the

authority of Jesus is supremely manifest, and it is through the exorcisms that the kingdom

can be seen as having drawn near (i. 15). In the exorcisms, the authority of Jesus’ word

and the authority of his action are united.180

179

Howard 1984-85, 105.

180

Kee 1967-68, 242.

47

In Lk 11:20 Jesus defends himself from the Pharisees’ accusations in v 14 of casting out

demons by B e e l z e b o u.l tw/| a ;rco n t i t w/n d ai m on i,wn ‘Beelzeboul, the ruler of the demons’. In v

20, Jesus implicitly says he casts out demons e vn d a kt u,l w| qe o u/ ‘by the finger of God’.

Heinrich Schlier argues that the phrase “denotes God’s direct and concrete intervention.”181

Commenting on v 20, Robert W. Wall states:

rather than an expression denoting God’s power, or a description of the ease by which the

messiah claims victory over evil, the Lucan d a kt u,l o j| qe o u/ interprets exorcism as a

revelatory event comparable to God, writing out on stone his covenantal promises. In the

current situation, God’s promised salvation is fulfilled in those liberated demoniacs, who

now bear testimony that God’s reign has arrived with Jesus, his messiah (Lk 4.18-21).182

Whether the focus of this passage is God’s displayed power or a revelatory event in

history, Luke however claims that God is acknowledging Jesus’ ministry explicitly by casting

out demons by his “own finger”.

As seen above, the Pharisees accused Jesus of being Beelzebul, the head of the demons

(Lk 11:14-23, Mk 3:22-30, Mt 12:22-30). Sorensen notes that the picture of binding

“introduces the exorcist and his source of power into the discussion. Contrary to the scribes’

accusations, Jesus’ response suggests that his ability to exorcize indicates a hostile

relationship with the demonic powers and the subjugation of Beelzeboul’s kingdom.”183

Sorensen is correct in his analysis. It seems as if the Pharisees did not question the existence

of the evil demons. They were well aware of their real presence. What the Pharisees or/and

Scribes did question, or refused to acknowledge, was Jesus’ authority to exorcize these

demons.

Seeing Jesus’ warning about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which it according to

Mark is when the scribes accuse Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul, in the Marcan

181

Schlier 1964, 20.

182

Wall 1987, 147.

183

Sorensen 2002, 142.

48

passage, Sorensen writes that Mark’s gospel depicts an exorcist being dependent on an

internal spiritual presence which he carries and not something external.184

This seems to be

the case overall in the Gospels and in the New Testament.

Mark 9:38-40 records an unknown man who exorcizes demons in the name of Jesus.

Sorensen argues that due to Jesus sanctioning this unknown man’s work, to Mark it is the

result of an exorcism that qualifies and legitimizes an exorcist.185

Twelftree calls this

unknown man a ‘strange exorcist’ and says he “is also successful because of what he says

rather than because of who he is (Mark 9.38-9/Luke 9.49-50).”186

Both of these scholars

correctly argue their cases. Nothing is said about this unknown exorcist’s personality or

appearance. It may be that by using the name of Jesus, this man was bestowed with the same

inner spiritual authority, the spirit of God, as Jesus was. Although the spiritual authority of

Jesus was wrongly attributed to Beelzeboul by the Pharisees, it seems as if Jesus’ authority

coming from God was unquestioned among the demons.

Authority Known and Feared by the Demons

Arthur H. Maynard notes the common use of the idioms t i, evm o i. ka i . so i, ‘what have you

to do with me’ and t i , hmi /n ka i. so i, ‘what have you to do with us’ in the synoptic Gospels.187

He argues “this idiom involves the recognition of the divine nature of Jesus by demons or by

persons possessed by demons.”188

Maynard thinks the usage of the idiom portrays an

encounter where two different and opposing parties share no common ground and lack a

184

Ibid.

185

Ibid.

186

Twelftree 1993, 40.

187

See Mt 8:29; Mk 1:23-24, 5:7; Lk 4:33-34, 8:28.

188

Maynard 1985, 584.

49

relationship.189

The demons utter these words when encountered by Jesus’ presence. Maynard

has correctly argued for the very hostile encounter between Jesus and the demons. He also

notices that it seems as if the demons see the non-human side of Jesus, recognizing him as

coming from above. The corollary is that it seems as if two opposing spiritual powers

encountered in the exorcism accounts and Jesus was the stronger authority.

Authority Delegated to his Disciples

As discussed above, significant parts of Jesus’ ministry were spent on delivering

demoniacs from evil spirits. Jesus chose twelve apostles whom he taught and discipled. One

of the things he commanded them to do was to go out and preach the gospel and cast out

demons just as he was doing. Mt 10:1190

says that Jesus e ;d wke n a uvt oi /j evxo usi ,an p n e um a,t wn

a vka qa ,rt wn w[st e evkb a ,l l ei n a uvt a. ‘gave them [the aspostles] authority over unclean spirits, to

cast them out’. This verse is significant because “Jesus gives the Twelve the possibility of a

share in his own ministry.”191

In Mt 10:8 he tells them to, among other things, d a im o,n i a

e vkb a,l l e te ‘cast out demons’. Nolland notes that “[w]hat the disciples have received is the

authority which has been given in v. 1. Power over life and health would no doubt have been

as highly valued in the first century as it is in this one.192

Hagner claims it “is unlikely that the

commands were intended or originally understood in any other way than literally (cf. the

raising of the dead in Acts 9:36-43; 20:7-12)…”193

This statement does not need to be refuted.

Hagner’s limited scope of significance for these words must however be refuted. He argues

189

Ibid.

190

A very similar wording is found in Mk 3:14-15.

191

Nolland 2005, 410.

192

Ibid., 417.

193

Hagner 1993, 271.

50

that the “commission in its literal terms applied fully only to the apostolic age …”194

It does

not seem as if Jesus indicated this when he commanded his apostles. This is a weak argument,

no good evidence is given as to why this commission would have ceased in importance after

the death of the apostles. It seems as a mere speculation on behalf of Hagner. If it would be

true, one could argue that any other command would also only have applied completely to the

contemporary age of Jesus. These scriptures clearly point to that the apostles of Jesus were

given the same authority to cast out demons as he was using himself.

After having been sent out on mission, the seventy disciples of Jesus came back rejoicing

and said ku,ri e ( ka i. t a . da i mo ,n ia up ot a,sse t a i hm i/n evn t w/| o vn o ,m at i, so u ‘Lord, even the

demons are subject to us in your name’ (Lk 10:17). Sorensen notes the obvious in this

passage; the author says that “they have successfully performed exorcisms in his name (Luke

10:17.18).195

Thus it seems very reliable to conclude that the apostles of Jesus were both

called to exorcism by Jesus and were successful in their ministry. But, what about the

disciples of Jesus living in the 21st century? Are we called to this ministry and are we given

the same authority as Jesus’ closest followers once were?

In Mt 28:18-20 Jesus gives his apostles the famous great commission. Almost at the end he

tells them to d id a,sko n t e j a uvt o u.j t hre i/n p a,n t a o[s a evn e t ei l a,m hn um i/n ‘teach them to obey

everything I have commanded you’ (Mt 28:20). Nolland notices that “what the disciples are to

teach is what they have in turn been taught by Jesus; and as they teach, Jesus will, but now in

a new way, be present (28:20b).196

Hagner interprets the verse in the same way stating: “it is

194

Ibid., 272.

195

Sorensen 2002, 129.

196

Nolland 2005, 1270.

51

thus the particular responsibility of the church to hand on that teaching and to see to it that

new disciples make it their way of life (cf. the similar Johannine emphasis [John 14:23]).197

The authors see this last commandment perfectly clear. The fact that the conclusive p a,n t a

‘everthing, all’ is used here must also indicate that he refers to his commandment to cast out

demons (Mt 10:1) as well as to other things he taught his disciples. Nolland moreover claims

that the “idea of replication is fundamental to Matthew’s thought here.”198

Thus, it would seem that Jesus’ command to cast out devils was not a temporal one, nor

was it an exclusive task for his inner circle of apostles. Jesus commands every disciple of his

to follow in his steps and get engaged in the ongoing spiritual battle by casting out demons.

Every Christian disciple can rely on Jesus’ authority having been transferred to him or her and

confront every demon boldly, just as Jesus did.

197

Hagner 1995, 888.

198

Nolland 2005, 1271.

52

CONCLUSION

In this study, the presence and reality of the devil has been established throughout the

Bible. It seems as if the devil was already present or influential in one way or the other in the

serpent in the Gen. 3 episode. It is probable that the picture and notion of the devil developed

during the Old Testament times. Eventually he came to be known as the !j"ßf' ‘adversary,’

based on his opposition to Israel. It seems reliable to affirm that already during the final

composition of the Hebrew Bible, he was attributed the proper name of ‘Satan’. From the

Gen. 3 account together with the several !j"ßf' passages the devil’s evil nature, schemes and

opposition to the people of God are revealed. Jesus encountered the devil and identified him

to the name of Satan. He resisted him using his own authority, however, it seems as if Satan

still has some authority. The New Testament attributes Satan’s authority to be over his lower

subjects, the demons. It seems as if there is a present hierarchical structure within the

demonical realm, Satan being the “Beelzebul,” the head of the demons. This paper has shown

that Ezekiel 28:12-16 most probably refers to Satan’s Fall. The passage mentions “Garden”

and “Eden” and thus echoes the Gen. 2-3 account of the serpent. It is less likely that the a

description of Satan is found in Is 14:12-15. There is no clear evidence pointing to such an

interpretation. However, what stands clear from the New Testament is that the fall of Satan

took place, although it seems hard to determine when it took place.

The New Testament confirms the reality of the demonic realm in this world. It also clearly

subordinates their position under their supreme leader Satan. The Bible is however ambiguous

as to the origin of Satan as well as the demons. The (probably) best speculative theory of the

origin of the evil spirits is from the pseudepigraphical literature of 1 Enoch, which makes it

53

disputable as authoritative source. Thus, this paper is left without any conclusive answers to

the question and encourages another deeper study on the subject.

The examples of demonic activity are present yet few in the Old Testament. The potential

cases of exorcism are even fewer and not at all unambiguous. The accounts of when David

plays his lyre, forcing the evil spirit to leave Saul in 1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10-12; 19:9-10 are

probably the closest examples of exorcism compared to the New Testament accounts. Yet,

they are quite different.

In the New Testament, there is little doubt that Jesus was involved in exorcism. His own

Jewish worldview accepted the existence of evil spirits. The above mentioned passages

display that demons are in some cases the cause for severe human illnesses and afflictions.

These Gospel narratives also depict Jesus as Lord over these demons of illnesses and as

powerful to exorcise the demons and thereby healing the demoniacs as seen in the pericopes

of the blind and mute man and the daughter of Abraham. Jesus’ own teaching without any

doubts confirms the possibility of a person to be possessed by several demons at the same

time. Moreover, the Gospel narratives of Mary of Magdala and the Gerasene demoniac most

probably depict such an occurrence.

When looking at the people who are possessed by the evil spirits, the demoniacs, one can

from the New Testament conclude that they seem to be ordinary men. They are not exhibited

as sinful or despiteful men and women. Contrary to many accounts where a healing and not

exorcism is required, Jesus puts no demands of faith unto the demoniac. He or she is viewed

as a powerless victim in the hands of a demon. Rather, it may require some measure of faith

on the third party, the person bringing the possessed person to Jesus. Moreover, the demoniac

also probably receives some supernatural physical strength during his time as host for the

demon, however temporary. What is left unsaid by the synoptic gospels and the New

54

Testament in general is the question of how a person became possessed and afflicted by the

demon(s) in the first place. The answer can thus only be speculative.

Jesus’ authority and success to exorcise demons was based on his father’s approval of his

ministry. Rather contrary to the belief of the Pharisees who claim Jesus’ authority stem from

Beelzebul, the gospel writers’ remarks attribute the successful exorcisms to the finger/spirit of

God. The demons immediately recognized and trembled before the authority of Jesus which

they knew came from God. One of Jesus’ many tasks was to equip and disciple his apostles.

He sent them out to the field for practice. One of the things he commanded them to do was to

cast out demons in the same manner as he himself was doing. The apostles came back with

joy and reported of their success in championing over the demons who had to obey them. The

Great Commission reveals Jesus urgency for his future disciples to obey all of his commands.

Thus it is still the task of Jesus’ disciples to obey his words of engagement in the spiritual

warfare by exorcising demons.

.

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alden, Robert L. “vxN” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Ed: R. Laird Harris.

Vol 2. Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980.

Allen, Leslie C. “The First and Second Books of Chronicles: An Introduction, Commentary,

and Reflections” in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol 3. Nashville, TN: Abingdon

Press, 1999.

________. Word Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel 20-48. Vol. 29. ed: Bruce M. Metzger.

Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1990.

Atwood, Richard. Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels and Early Tradition.

Berne: Peter Lang, Inc., 1993.

Bauer, Walter., Arndt, W. F., Gingrich, F. W., and F. W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Ed: Fredrick William

Danker. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beale, G. K. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Book of Revelation, A

Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,

1999.

Beyer, Hermann Wolfgang. “qe ra p e u,w“ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed:

Gerhard Kittel. Vol III. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1965.

The Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

________. New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

________. New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,

1989.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997.

Blaiklock, E. M. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles, An

Historical Commentary. ed: R. V. G. Tasker. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1959.

Bonner, Campbell. “The Technique of Exorcism” in Harvard Theological Review. Vol. 36

(1943): 39-49.

Braun, Roddy. Word Biblical Commentary: 1 Chronicles. Vol. 14. ed: David A. Hubbard and

Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1986.

Bruce, F. F. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Book of Acts.

ed: Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Charlesworth, James H. (ed) “1 Enoch” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic

56

Literature &Testaments. Translated by E. Isaac. Ed: James H. Charlesworth. Vol 1.

New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Chisholm, Robert B Jr. Handbook on the Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,

2002.

Cole, Alan. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to St. Mark,

An Introduction and Commentary. ed: R. V. G. Tasker. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961.

Craghan, John F. “The Gerasene Demoniac” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol. 30

(1968): 522-36.

Davies, Stevan L. Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity.

London: SCM Press Ltd, 1995.

Day, Peggy L. “An Adversary in Heaven: !j"ßf' in the Hebrew Bible” in Harvard Semitic

Monographs. Vol. 43. ed: Frank Moore Cross. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988.

Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac” in Journal for

the Study of the New Testament. Vol. 3 (1978-80): 2-17.

Dillard, Raymond B., and Tremper Longman III. An Introduction to the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Ehrman, Bart D. Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and

Legend. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Elgvin, Torleif. “Belial, Beliar, Devil, Satan” in Dictionary of New Testament Background.

Ed: Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2000.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007.

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and the Spirit: On the Origin and Ministry of the Second Son of God”

in Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts. Ed: Craig A.

Evans and James A. Sanders. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001.

Fabry, H.-J. “vx'N"” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed: G. Johannes

Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, Heinz-Josef Fabry. Vol IX. Grand Rapids, MI: William

B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.

France, R. T. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of

Mark, A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 2002.

Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989.

Green, Joel B. “Jesus and a Daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:10-17): Test Case for a Lucan

57

Perspective on Jesus’ Miracles” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Vol 51 (1989):

643-654.

Guelich, Robert A. Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 1-8:26. Vol. 34A. ed: David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1989.

Hagner, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13. Vol. 33A. ed: David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1993.

________. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 14-28. Vol 33B. David A. Hubbard, Glenn

W. Barker. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1995.

Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

________. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of

Genesis, Chapters 1-17. ed: R. K. Harrison, Robert L. Hubbard, JR. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Hammer, Paul L. “Demoniac” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated

Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ed: George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,

1962.

Hills, Julian V. “Luke 10.18-Who Say Satan Fall?” in Journal for the Study of the New

Testament. Vol. 46 (1992): 25-40.

Hobbs, T. R. Word Biblical Commentary: 2 Kings. Vol. 13. ed: David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1985.

Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand

Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1988.

Howard, J. Keir. “New Testament Exorcism and its Significance Today” in The Expository

Times. Vol. 96 (1984-85): 105-09.

Joines, Karen Randolph. “The Serpent in Gen 3” in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche

Wissenschaft. Vol 87 (1975): 1-11.

Kee, Howard Clark. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories” in New Testament

Studies. Vol. 14 (1967-68): 232-46.

Kluger, Rivkah Schärf. Satan in the Old Testament. Translated by Hildegard Nagel. Evanston:

Northwestern University Press, 1967.

Koehler, Ludwig., and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old

Testament. Vol. 2. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1995.

________. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 3. Leiden, The

Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1996.

Langton, Edward. Essentials of Demonology: A Study of Jewish and Christian Doctrine, Its

58

Origin and Development. London: The Epworth Press, 1949.

________. Good and Evil Spirits: A Study of the Jewish and Christian Doctrine, Its origin

and Development. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1942.

________. Satan, A Portrait: A Study of the Character of Satan through all the ages.

London: Skeffington & Son, Ltd., 1946.

Leaney, Robert. “Dominical Authority for the Ministry of Healing” in The Expository Times.

Vol. 65 (1953-54): 121-23.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:

Based on Semantic Domains. Vol. 1: Introduction & Domains. New York, NY: United

Bible Society, 1989.

Maclaurin, E. C. B. “Beelzeboul” in Novum Testamentum. Vol 20 (1978): 156-160.

Marshall, I Howard. Luke: Historian & Theologian. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

1970.

________. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of

Luke, A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1978.

Martens, E. A. “Sin, Guilt” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. ed: T. Desmond

Alexander, David W. Baker. David Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Marx, Werner G. “Luke, the Physician, Re-examined” in The Expository Times. Vol. 91

(1979-80): 168-72.

Maynard, Arthur H. “TI EMOI KAI ΣOI” in New Testament Studies. Vol. 31 (1985): 582-86.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany:

German Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Revelation. Ed: Grant R.

Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Motyer, J. Alec. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Isaiah, An Introduction

and Commentary. ed: D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Nolland John. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew.

ed: I. Howard Marshall, Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 2005.

________. Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 1-9:20. Vol. 35A. ed: David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1989.

________. Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 9:21-18:34. Vol. 35B. ed: David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1993.

59

Oswalt, John N. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of

Isaiah, Chapters 1-39. ed: R. K. Harrison, Robert L. Hubbard, JR. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Payne, Barton J. “x:Wrå” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Ed: R. Laird Harris.

Vol 2. Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980.

________. “!j"ßf'” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Ed: R. Laird Harris.

Vol 2. Chicago, Il: Moody Press, 1980

Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. The Jewish Publication Society,

1989.

Schlier, Heinrich. “d a ,kt ul o j” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed:

Gerhard Kittel. Vol II. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1964.

Schweizer, Eduard. “p n eu/m a” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed:

Gerhard Friedrich. Vol VI. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1968.

Selman, Martin J. The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: 1 Chronicles, An Introduction

and Commentary. ed: D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Sorensen, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity.

Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002.

Seesemann, Heinrich. “p e i ra,z w” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed:

Gerhard Friedrich. Vol VI. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1968.

Spencer, F. Scott. “Exorcism” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. ed:

Katherine Doob Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007.

Theissen, Gerd. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Ed: John Riches.

Translated by Francis McDonagh. Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited, 1983.

Twelftree, Graham H. “Demon, Devil, Satan” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed:

Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity

Press, 1992.

________. “Demoniac” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. ed:

Katherine Doob Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007.

________.”Demon” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2. ed: Katherine

Doob Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007.

________. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus.

Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1993.

60

________. Jesus The Miracle Worker: A Historical & Theological Study. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 1999.

________.“Temptation of Jesus” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Ed: Joel

B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

1992.

Van Der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1965.

Wall, Robert W. “’The Finger of God’ Deuteronomy 9.10 and Luke 11.20” in New Testament

Studies. Vol. 33 (1987): 144-50.

Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

Walton, J. H. “Serpent” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. ed: T. Desmond

Alexander, David W. Baker. David Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Watts, John D. W. Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15. Vol. 25. ed: Bruce M. Metzger.

Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1987.

Wenham, Gordon J. Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15. Vol. 1. ed: David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1987.

Williams, Jay G. “Genesis 3” in Interpretation. Vol. 35 (1981): 274-79.