From the book by Michael Heiser, Demons.
Christian
writers have taken both sides of this issue. The disagreement in part derives
from semantics, but that is not to imply that the debate lacks substance. The
semantic problem derives from English translations of the Greek lemmas in
passages describing demonized individuals. Words like “possess” and
“possession” denote ownership.
A
close reading of the New Testament ought to make it clear that a member of the
body of Christ cannot be owned by Satan or demons. The body of Christ, the
church, has been “obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The Spirit (Rom
8:9–11, 16–17) and Christ (Col 1:27) dwell within those who believe. Those who
are “in Christ” have a new identity as members of the family of God (Gal 3:26).
Believers have been “delivered…from the domain of darkness and transferred … to
the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:13). We are God’s inheritance (Eph
1:18). The idea that believers described in these ways can be subsequently owned
by lesser demonic powers is incoherent.[1]
Arnold’s observations are significant in this regard:
The
word possession never even appears in the Bible in the passages where Jesus or
the apostles cast evil spirits out of an individual. The expression demon-possessed
or demon possession does occur in some English translations of the Greek text,
but there is never a Greek word for “possession” that stands behind it. “Demon
possession” is always the translation of a single Greek word, daimonizomai.
Words for ownership or possession (e.g., huparchō, echō, katechō, ktaomai, or
peripoieō) are absent in the original text.…The expression “he has a demon”
(echei daimonion) does appear in the Gospels (e.g., Luke 4:33; 8:27), but the
inverse, “a demon has him,” never occurs.[2]
The
point Arnold makes is significant. No Greek word for “possession” or
“ownership” appears in passages to clarify or define the activity described by
daimonizomai. It is English semantics, not the Greek lemma, which have led to
the controversy over whether Christians can be possessed by demons.
If
“ownership” is not a workable understanding of the Greek lemma daimonizomai,
how should it be translated and understood? Some translators who have detected
the problem caused by English semantics related to words like “possess” have
opted for renderings such as “tormented” or “troubled” (i.e., by demons). While
these choices may help, there are other Greek lemmas that have these meanings,
and so the choices are interpretive. The best alternative seems to be simply to
transliterate daimonizomai as “demonize.” This choice avoids misconceptions
(and related theological inconsistencies) that arise from English “possession”
semantics.
This
decision of course begs an obvious question: Does the New Testament help us
understand how a Christian might be “demonized” while not being owned by Satan
or an evil spirit? Arnold asks the same question in other ways:
We
might ask, “Can Christians come under a high degree of influence by a demonic
spirit?” or, “Is it possible for Christians to yield control of their bodies to
a demonic spirit in the same way that they yield to the power of sin?”[3]
The
answer to the question, however worded, is “yes.” On this the New Testament is
clear, as several passages employ language that suggests Christians can fall
under the influence of Satan and evil spirits.[4]
Paul warned Timothy about certain teachers in this regard: “Now the Spirit
expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting
themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim 4:1). That
those doing so were “departing from the faith” indicates that those Paul had in
view were professing believers. For sure, these false teachers did not see what
they were doing as out of step with the faith. Paul linked this behavior with
the latter days as the Spirit had revealed to the prophets. In his second
letter to Timothy, Paul’s language was even more foreboding, instructing
Timothy to gently correct such opponents so they might “escape from the snare
of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:26). The
idea that believers could be captured by Satan and made servants of his will
certainly fits the notion of demonization, though it lacks the bizarre physical
torment of episodes in the Gospels.
Less
dramatic but equally dangerous are New Testament warnings about “[giving]
opportunity to the devil” (Eph 4:27) and habitual, unrepentant sin (“Whoever
makes a practice of sinning is of the devil”; 1 John 3:8). While the sinful
impulse that gives rise to temptation resides in the flesh (Jas 1:14–15; Rom
7:18–24), the devil is nevertheless called the tempter (1 Thess 3:5). Yielding
to temptation enslaves the believer (Rom 6:6, 12–14; 8:3–8), and so such a
lifestyle can rightly be construed as a kind of demonization. Aside from
enslavement to sin, Satan seeks to control believers by other means, whether
mental, emotional, or physical. For example, the context for Peter’s familiar
portrayal of Satan as a devouring lion is persecution and suffering: 1 Pet
5:8–9.
Paul’s
equally memorable statement that a “messenger of Satan” was given to him “in
the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7) also links suffering with demonization.[5]
The
overarching point is that, while Christians cannot be owned by Satan—an idea
that derives from the unfortunate “possession” language— they can be demonized.
Demonization can take various forms: persecution, harassment, being captivated
by false teaching, and enslavement to sin.
[1]
Some arguments against Christians being demon possessed are common but not as
forceful. For instance, some writers suggest that since believers are the
temple of God/the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16–17; 6:19–20; 2 Cor 6:15–18), they
cannot be possessed. The temple analogy really does not support this point.
Arnold points to New Testament language that undermines its potency. For
example, there is the danger of sin reigning in the believer’s flesh (Rom
6:12–13). The Old Testament temple was (in theory) holy ground, purged of sin
and impurity. This purged status did not prevent subsequent contamination or,
in the most extreme cases, introduction of idols into the temple itself. See
Clinton E. Arnold, 3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 1997), 82. As we will note in the ensuing discussion,
demonization can include temptation to sin or solicitation of the flesh. It
would therefore seem that while demons cannot own the believer, they can
cooperate with the sinful propensities of our flesh.
[2]
Arnold, 3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare, 79, including material
from footnote 10. Arnold adds on page 80: “Nevertheless, the terms of the
current debate have been set by the longstanding tradition of translating the expression
demon-possessed. Where did English Bible translators get the idea of
translating daimonizomai as ‘demon possession’? The translation was most likely
influenced by the Latin Church’s tradition of using the term possessio to
describe a person deeply troubled by a demonic spirit. Interestingly, the Latin
Vulgate, however, does not use the term possessio to translate daimonizomai,
but the simple expression to have a demon (habeo with daemonia).”
[3] Arnold,
3 Crucial Questions about Spiritual Warfare, 80.
[4]
Arnold devotes considerable space to this reality. While some of my categories
differ slightly, readers are encouraged to consult Arnold, 3 Crucial Questions
about Spiritual Warfare, 88–100.
[5]
This point is true whether the messenger was a supernatural being or some
physical affliction from Satan. My view is that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh …
messenger of Satan” was a demonic being. In this regard, see David Abernathy,
“Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh: A Messenger of Satan?” Neotestamentica 35.1–2
(2001): 69–79; Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor
12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate: Part 1: The
Jewish Sources,” HTR 86.2 (1993): 177–217; Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited (2
Cor 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate: Part 2:
Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and Its Significance,” HTR 86.3 (1993): 265–92.
No comments:
Post a Comment