@Mervin_Bitikofer@Jon_Garvey
Thank you very much for bringing up those writings of C.S. Lewis! I knew my thoughts about demons were not only reflected in my own ponderings. The Screwtape Letters are actually on my reading list, so if this topic is still open by that time, I’ll see if I can share some insightful quotes.
I also remember reading about this approach to demons in a small booklet called “Letters from a skeptic” by George and Edward Boyd. It’s the documentation of the letter exchange between a theologian (anabaptist roots) and his agnostic father in which they have an all-out discussion on Christianity. From demons, to suffering, to biblical authority, to Christ, to the Trinity, to the relationship between Christianity and other religions, everything. The beautiful thing is that his father actually came to Christ during the last part of the exchange. After that, they decided to publish it together as a book. Good read .
Arguments from absence of evidence in Paul (especially when it necessitates counting Acts as pious fraud) are problematic in themselves. In my Bible, the entire Pauline corpus - including the pastorals, which are of course disputed territory in academia - is less than 70 pages, all from a particular genre, which is broadly the pastoral letter to a church or an individual.
Linguists have pointed out how the brevity of this corpus makes arguments on authorship from vocabulary and style suspect - the theories on which such judgements are made actually require much larger samples from an author than we have. But since no other works of Paul will be found, the scholars bend the rules anyway (or they’d have nothing to publish).
How much more, then, can one discount the significance of the non-inclusion of any particular subject from what fraction of his thought has come down to us? Romans, for example, is only a little over 7000 words though the longest epistle. By way of comparison, a search on my own blog on science-and-faith, totalling now well over a million words, several orders of magnitude more than the total of Paul’s extant writings, mentions “demon” only four or five times - and all in the sense of “Maxwell’s demon” or some similar concept in science, never in the context of demonology.
Yet if you were to ask my personal experience and views on the subject, in a relevant context, the picture would be entirely different.
Good points, Jon. One would always hope that one is relying also on much in addition to any arguments from silence (and J.Burke will insist that he is). But Paul is lauded as giving us the most comprehensive Christology of all the New Testament authors – mostly in Romans; although folks like N.T. Wright have convincingly disputed the “completeness” of such things when the heart of the gospels is neglected.
One does not just walk away from the four gospels and Acts and think they have everything they need in Paul if they are interested in full development and maturity within the Christian life. So your point is well-taken indeed.
A lawyer in my church ran into one of the Harold Camping end times people in Grand Central Terminal some time ago. The lawyer tried to get the guy to agree to buy him a drink if the world didn’t come to an end on the prophesized date. The guy wouldn’t agree to it! If he really believed his own message, what did he have to lose?
“When a guy says it isn’t the money, but the principle of the thing, it’s the money.” (A W Tozer).
But in all honesty I can see the possibility of someone refusing to make a promise they know they won’t keep. Like refusing to say, “Au revoir” if you know you’re dying.
Do you possess enough knowledge of all the constituents of reality to say that such accounts are true?
Yes indeed, if we could just prove that demons exist in the first place. The argument you suggest here was used by historical Christians (who were demon believers), to try and answer the puzzling question “Where did all the demons go? Why did they seem so abundant in the first century but appear so absent from our own time”? This is such a good question that it really should be dwelt on at length.
Of course. But in the case of demons it’s a far more telling result; it casts significant doubt on their existence.
Actually I believe I’ve cited him no more than the others (I believe I’ve cited Löfstedt most frequently), but the number of times I’ve cited him is irrelevant; you need to look at all the authors I’ve cited, including the New Testament scholars and the Pentecostal who is a demon believer (John Christopher Thomas).
I realize it looks like that, but it’s connected to a broader argument. I’ll see if I can flesh it out. The fact is that people who don’t believe in demons never have a reason to believe in demons; their non-belief is never challenged by contra-indicatory evidence. If demons exist, then even people who didn’t believe in demons would still experience demonic activities.
But people in demons don’t just say “I don’t believe in demons”, or “I don’t believe demons did X”, they never experience the activities which demon believers report. They never report experiences like screaming people with spinning heads and continuous projectile vomiting, people exhibiting levitation and unnatural strength, people experiencing grotesque body contortions and speaking Latin or “unnatural” languages, people shape-changing or speaking with the identity of a demon with a funny name. They don’t say things like “My neighbour turned into a goat, how can you explain that?”.
They never experience anything for which demons are a necessary or even sufficient explanation. This would not be the case if demons existed and if these people experienced demonic affliction. Even if they didn’t believe in demons, they would need to find an explanation for the demonic behaviour. No one talks about “believing in cows”. But if you didn’t believe in cows, you’d need an incredibly good explanation for where all this milk, beef, and leather keeps coming from. This isn’t the case with demons.
That makes it all the more strange that Paul never even mentions demonic possession or exorcism in any of his letters. If he had experienced it personally, why does he never mention it?
Not at all. I don’t dismiss them, I just insist that we have to interpret them with care. Who is Luke writing to? When is he writing? Why would a demon generously give someone a gift of telling the future from which money could be made, instead of afflicting them with a disease or illness? Why isn’t the word for demon even used here, why does it refer to a “spirit of Python”? Why do Paul’s letters show no evidence of demonic possession or exorcism if it was something he had experienced for himself?
Thanks for that.
But this isn’t simply an argument from absence of evidence. This fits into a broader pattern of demonological terminology in the New Testament. Look at this distribution pattern.
Paul’s letters, the earliest New Testament documents, show no knowledge of demonic possession or exorcism, despite him having apparently experienced it personally and despite him referring repeatedly to topics in which we would expect him to include talk of demons.
‘On the other hand, pressed by the lack of overt references to exorcism by Paul and the glaring and puzzling absence of reference to exorcism in the Fourth Gospel, it has been supposed that the early church showed a great reluctance to become involved in exorcism. Alternatively, noting particularly the contrasting perspectives of Mark and the Fourth Gospel, it could be that interest in exorcism among early Christians diminished over time.’, Twelftree, ‘In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians’, p. 279 (2007).
Paul’s surprisingly few references to satan (even when discussing temptation and sin), are also remarkable.
‘Several of Paul’s letters do not include the word “Satan” or any of these equivalents; these include Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, and Philemon.10 In his longest letter, the epistle to the Romans, Paul writes extensively about sin and human nature, but curiously he does not explicitly bring Satan into the equation at all. In fact he mentions Satan only once in this letter, in the closing section (16:20). If Paul had a worldview characterized by cosmological dualism, where God is engaged in a battle with his evil counterpart for human souls, we would expect him to emphasize the role Satan has in causing people to sin. This is what he does not do in Romans.’, Löfstedt, ‘Paul, Sin and Satan : The Root of Evil according to Romans’, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok (75.111), 2010.
Demonological terminology in the New Testament is confined almost exclusively to the Synoptics and Acts; demonic possession certainly is.
'Less striking, but also deserving some comment, is the relative silence regarding exorcism in the post-Easter church and its mission. In contrast to the commission given to his disciples when they shared in his pre-Easter mission (Mark 6:7/Matthew 10:1/Luke 9:1), Jesus’ final commission makes no mention of exorcism (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-9; John 20:21-3; Acts 1:8). 35 Acts mentions exorcisms of the first Christian missionaries only twice (Acts 8:7, 16:16-18, cf.19: 11-20). And exorcisms are never given specific mention in any of the other New Testament documents - though it is by no means impossible, of course, that they are included in such passages as Romans 15:19,1 Corinthians 12:9f and Hebrews 2:4’, Dunn & Twelftree, ‘Demon-Possession and Exorcism in The New Testament’, Churchman (94.221), 1980.
‘It is a surprising fact that reference in the NT epistles to daimonia is limited to just four verses (1 Cor. 10.20-21; 1 Tim. 4.1; Jas. 2.19). The distinct impression from this is that although many problems confronted the earliest Christian congregations, a fear of demons or oppression by them was not one of them. In the Synoptic tradition the terminology is far from standardized. But among the other NT writers the situation only becomes more complicated and uncertain (see appendix 1).’, Whalen, ‘Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels’, p. 5 (2004).
‘Our third conclusion from examining the New Testament data is that, over time, there appears to have been a diminution of interest in exorcism.’, Twelftree, ‘In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians’, p. 283 (2007).
John’s gospel shows no evidence of demons or demonic possession.
‘If exorcisms were so important for Jesus, we should not ignore a rather puzzling fact on which we have not so far commented - the absence of exorcism from John’s Gospel. Why does the Fourth Evangelist disregard Jesus’ exorcisms so completely?’, Dunn & Twelftree, ‘Demon-Possession and Exorcism in The New Testament’, Churchman (94.220), 1980.
Meanwhile satan is marginalized to the point of near non-existence; in fact some scholars believe John has completely demythologized satan so it isn’t even a supernatural being anymore.
‘Nor does the devil enjoy the uncontested pomp he once enjoyed. He has been shown up and shoved out and should not figure any more as a central reality in believers’ lives (notice his even literary marginalization in John’s Gospel: He is not frequently mentioned).', Bruner, ‘The Gospel of John: A Commentary’, p. 718 (2012).
‘But even Satan merits only one mention (13:27) when John repeats Luke’s account of how Satan entered into Judas; John sets this event at the Last Supper and not before it as Luke does. And as with the other gospels, John treats demons (chs. 7. 8, and 10) in relation to exorcisms and claims by Jesus’ enemies that he has a demon. Thus “devil” would be the operative word in this gospel. But even that word John only uses three times and twice in referring to Judas.’, Kelly, ‘Who Is Satan?: According to the Scriptures’, p. 80 (2013).
‘To be sure there are traces of the older view, that the devil is a personified creature (e.g. 8:44), but one should expect such ideas because of the Weltanschauung of John’s day; however, the main thrust of this Gospel is that the devil has been demythologized.’, Brown, ‘John and Qumran’, p. 93 (1972).
The earliest Christian texts outside the Bible (the Apostolic Fathers), show an almost complete lack of reference to demons and exorcism, and no mention at all even of Jesus’ experiences with demons.
‘In this chapter we have dealt with Clement of Rome, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, Quadratus, Aristides, the Preaching of Peter, the Letter of Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch. In light of the view that exorcism was very important in the early church, it is remarkable that, so far, we have not come across any interest in exorcism.’, Twelftree, ‘In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians’, p. 229 (2007).
‘Yet, in that some of them make passing reference to Jesus’ ministry or mention demons, for example, and also especially since they were most probably aware of Synoptic traditions, it remains surprising, if not a little short of astounding, that the subject found no explicit treatment - sometimes where we could have expected it - in any of the Apostolic Fathers.’, Twelftree, ‘In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians’, p. 288 (2007).
I agree with Kelly.
“My own view is that demonology is deservedly vulnerable and that an insistence on it as an integral part of Christianity sets up an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of belief”. Kelly, ‘The Devil at Large’, The Journal of Religion (67.4.527), 1987.
Kelly also believes traditional views of Satan are completely unbiblical, viewing Satan as an obedient though irascible divinely appointed prosecuting angel.
Some very good points here. An even bigger puzzle is why demons show up at about the time that Jesus begins his public ministry. It’s like a superhero who accidentally releases super villains from the phantom zone. The heyday of demons is definitely long gone, except in more extremist circles, such as emmanual tv.
In the old days, there were even demons (incubi) that were believed to have the power to impregnate human females. It was a convenient way to explain embarrassing pregnancies, but would even the most ardent believer in demon possession accept that explanation from his wife?
Indeed, now that I go back to refresh my memory of that story, your point is well-taken about the strangeness of this particular spiritual situation. It is even worse than asking why a demon would merely grant fortune-telling. This particular spirit has the girl following the disciples around announcing that they are prophets of the most high God proclaiming the way of salvation. And furthermore she was apparently doing this for days before Paul finally got annoyed enough to do something about it! One can almost imagine they started out not knowing what to make of it or whether they should discourage it since it took Paul that long to decide he didn’t care for it. The only thing not unique about the situation is that other demons too, in the gospels, do shriek horrible (for them) truths as they come out of people. But apart from some of that, it probably isn’t fair to think that all demonic influence is only manifested in a limited number of ways – or that those ways must needs be limited to only the most extreme sounding kinds of manifestations you paraded out that we should find hardest to believe.
Regarding my trouble with your "people who don’t believe in it don’t see it ‘tautology’ ", you give a good answer that deserves some thought. I liked your cows example.
Actually, how do you know it isn’t the case with demons? Milk, beef, and leather indisputably come from cows, and we can easily and empirically observe the physical manifestations of both supply and source. But let’s go to the spiritual side of things where empirical definition and direct physical observation may not be of as much help. Is there evil in the world --and by ‘world’ I don’t just mean some ‘superstitious’, demon-believing, small community but intentionally and very much have in sight those in ivory towers and fortresses running and building empires. Few of us would dispute the presence of evil that drives us to find explanation just like your milk, leather, and beef. That much is fairly evident to our direct observation though harder to define in terms of its evil properties. Regarding the sources of all this, though, it seems you still have ruled out something (demons) a-priori as not having any reality or part of this source. Just because we don’t see some of the more outrageous kinds of claims for things demons are alleged to have done, doesn’t mean they are not real spiritual influences on us. True – Paul doesn’t ever blame the devil/demons for evil that he holds his fleshly self responsible for. But this wouldn’t be the first kind of truth in which there are different layers of reality that coexist. We believe that God brings rain without letting that discount our knowledge that clouds also bring rain. Perhaps there are some complementary ways of seeing/explaining evil too; though I will hasten to add that it seems spiritually dangerous in the extreme to be blaming other entities for actions that we are rightly held accountable for. Maybe that is why Paul never makes use of that particular explanation. I resonate with you there.
Still … if I were to have an active imagination of possible demonic activity going on today … I’m not seeing some tribal shaman or dancing witch doctor …not at all. What I’m seeing is a man in a three piece suit probably smiling pleasantly and professionally as he brokers deals in halls of power that will secure and build more wealth and power for his own consortia at the continued expense of the poor of the land. You wondered where “leather” comes from? Perhaps there are “cows” all around you.
Because in the virginal conception of Jesus no physical contact takes place. There are stories about other “virgin births” in other religions, but they aren’t true virgin births, as some kind of unusual physical contact is reported to have taken place. In contrast, the stories about the incubi aren’t about virgin births at all; instead the incubus physically ravages the woman and impregnates her. Incubi predate Christianity, but were accepted by Christians for hundreds of years.
Yes we could go in that direction. But the next question to ask would be “In what limited ways is it manifested genuinely?”. If we are taking the Synoptic accounts as evidence, then we should expect to see demonic activity manifest in blindness, muteness, deafness, seizures, unnatural strength, some kind of disassociative or personality disorder, and (somewhat unintuitively), professions of Jesus as the son of God. If on the other hand we are saying these are not indicative of demonic activity and something else is, then why are we even bothering to pretend to take the Synoptics as authoritative on the subject? We can’t have it both ways.
See my previous point; if we’re reading the gospels as describing genuine demonic activity, then we can’t avoid the fact that demonic activity produces plenty of empirical evidence which is clearly visible through physical observation. The more we try to define demonic activity as manifesting in invisible and undetectable ways completely unlike what we see in the Synoptics, the further we remove ourselves from the sources we claim to be authoritative and the closer we come to the absurd argument that evidence for the existence of demons looks exactly like what we would expect if demons don’t even exist.
Which would suggest demons have modified their modus operandi dramatically, and upgraded their behaviour to suit modern sensibilities and concerns, and chosen to stop afflicting people with diseases and infirmities. Which would be most gracious of them.
Oh – I don’t think powerful people back then would have been any less wicked or immune from demonic influence than those of today. The only thing that got ‘upgraded’ was the size of their empires and severity and scope of their influence.
I’ve got more thoughts percolating in response to the rest of what you wrote above, but it will have to wait till I’m back home from church tomorrow. It’s late and I need to sign off for now …
“Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power … we have guided missiles and misguided men.” --Martin Luther King Jr.
Well yeah but my point is that the kind of demonic influence you’re talking about simply isn’t found in the Bible. It’s totally different to the demonic influence we find in the Synoptics. It’s not found in the Second Temple Period literature either; it’s a much more modern idea. Thanks for the continuing engagement.
But Mervin, what do you think about Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 12:
Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger (= angelos) of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Isn’t Paul himself complaining here of being tormented by a demon (messenger of Satan) through the weakness of his flesh? He seems to describe having attempted to cast out this messenger by calling on God’s help three times.
There are many speculations circulating about the exact meaning of the thorn in Paul’s flesh (see the image below for one such speculation ). Nevertheless, Paul has no trouble calling it a messenger of Satan, in analogy to holy angels who are messengers of God. Here, you see an combination of Paul’s own flesh and a messenger of Satan being a thorn in his flesh.
Of course, I have no doubt that Jonathan has thought of some way of circumventing this interpretation :).
No. He never calls it a demon or spirit or anything like that. Even the great Baptist theologian John Gill says Paul was referring to the temptations of his own nature, and he even says that “satan” here refers to Paul’s own internal impulses, and not a supernatural being.
some saying it was the choleic, others the gout, others a pain in the ear, and others the headache; which latter it is said he was much troubled with; but these are mere conjectures: others think that the corruptions of nature are intended which in regenerate persons are left, as the Canaanites were in the land, to be “thorns” in the eyes and sides of the Israelites, ( Joshua 23:13 ) ( Judges 2:3 ) . These, to be sure, were felt by the apostle, and were very grievous and humbling to him, and were no doubt sometimes stirred up by Satan, which made him complain bitterly, and groan earnestly; and it may be observed, to strengthen this sense, that it was usual with the Jews to call concupiscence, or the vitiosity of nature, Satan; for so they F1 often say, (erh) (ruy awh Njvh) , “Satan, he is the evil imagination”, or corruption of nature; and particularly they call the lust of uncleanness by this name; and it is said F2 of a young man of Israel, being tempted by a young woman of Midian, through the counsel of Balaam, that (Njvh) (wb rewb) , “Satan burned in him”, and he turned aside after her; and that the evil imagination is the old serpent; yea, they call this “the messenger of hell”, a phrase very much like what is here used.
``R. Hona F3, as he was preaching to the children of men to take warning, said unto them, children, beware (Mnhyg lv) (axylvm) , “of the messenger of hell”; but who is this? the evil imagination, or concupiscence, is that which is “the messenger of hell”;‘’
and this sense is agreeable,
That’s quite remarkable.
Actually he doesn’t say “I tried to cast it out three times”, he says three times he asked God to remove it.
Well there’s nothing to circumvent until you’ve presented some kind of evidence based argument that Paul was referring to a demon. Why doesn’t he actually say it was a demon?
And thank you, Jonathan for your insights that are making me continue to think through this. More below …
@Casper_Hesp , I loved the cartoon! Few things would be more hellish…
And Jonathan did already (as you anticipated) give you a response, but I have my own response to both of you below as my own thoughts continue to develop.
You raise good objections, Jonathan, and I think we probably agree on a lot of things. Let me keep pressing in this direction though. Evil (just like ‘good’) is understood in a lot of different complementary ways at different times and among different educational/social stratifications. Some will use physical descriptions for afflictions … i.e. “he’s having an epileptic seizure or she’s suffering from a severe episode of this or that”. Others are less reticent about casting their afflictions in spiritual terms even up to attributing them to demons (or messengers from Satan) as in Casper’s example. Now Paul could have recognized the physical aspect of his affliction quite well but still also thought of it as a Satanic thorn too. For the record, I’ll use “Satanic” and “demonic” interchangeably as I really see no necessitated difference between the two, just as the O.T. writers were often vague about whether it was God himself coming to visit somebody, or merely “an angel of the Lord”. They didn’t seem to sweat over the difference so neither will I. But anyway … if we look at who Jesus hung out with … the poor and the outcasts (not exclusively, but mostly), then we already have an idea that Jesus wasn’t spending a whole lot of time in halls of power (but when he did, the sparks sure flew didn’t they!) And among all those Jesus healed or liberated from demons, I seem to remember (without researching this here and now) that he always asked them what they wanted. I don’t remember a lot of presumptive diagnosis coming from Jesus …“Oh I see you’ve got xyz problems here … just let me take care of all that for you…” No, we always have Jesus asking “what is it you want?” (exception for the man with the legion, now that I look it up) Instead we hear from the blind man: “I want to see” or from the woman “I want the demon to leave my daughter alone!” We never hear Jesus correcting anybody saying “well, actually your blindness is caused by a demon” or “well actually your daughters ‘demon’ possession is really something else”. And Jesus always addresses their need where they are at and on their terms.
So just as we can see good happening at several different levels … “Wow, I’m glad the driver was paying attention and avoided that accident!” could also be cast as “we must really have guardian angels watching over us!” could also be cast as “I’m glad God spared us that incident!”. None of those has to preclude any of the others (to the spiritually sensitive thinker). So in our culture, perhaps like among the more wealthy or educated of many prior cultures as well, we aren’t in the habit of demonic attributions but address things in other terms. For example, I think the “principalities and powers” are quite real in every sense of the word both then and now. Some people can call them governments and institutions or even just systems of thought. All of that can be correct, but does not for a moment empty them of spiritual content (both sinister and good). So I wouldn’t usually accuse a modern day “Herod” or “Caesar” of being demon-possessed, but that doesn’t mean that such people are free from the grip of Satan. Just as the various testaments from different ages (as you have aptly noted) seem to address evil at different levels with different labels, so we too have our own way of recognizing (or denying!) the presence of evil as well.
Long story short … this debate may be more about semantics, since I don’t think you are denying the reality of evil, right?
That is very astute. This is one of the reasons why Ferngren says Jesus doesn’t appear to share the demonological views of his contemporaries.
Twelftree says this as well. He puts it this way.
‘The evidence adduced in this chapter means, however, that we cannot define ‘demon’ or ‘evil spirit’ more precisely than to say that it is some form of evil agency often manifesting personal characteristics. So, the inability of the prevailing contemporary secular world-view to explain adequately the complex range of man’s experience of evil, sickness and healing, along with the positive arguments for the existence of demons or evil spirits, leads us to conclude that it remains legitimate and meaningful for twentieth-century people to use such categories as ‘demons’, ‘possession’ and ‘exorcism’ even if less frequently and with different content to those who used them in the first century.’, Twelftree, ‘Christ Triumphant’, p. 170 (1985).
According to Twefltree we can’t define ‘demon’ or ‘evil spirit’ any more precisely than a vague reference to ‘some form of evil agency often manifesting personal characteristics’, and reference to ‘demons’, ‘possession’, and ‘exorcism’ are used ‘if less frequently and with different content to those who used them in the first century’.
What this is saying is that the concepts of demons and methods of dealing with them found in the first century literature cannot be relied on today; instead the traditional terms are now to be used less frequency and with different meanings to those used in the first century. In other words, the traditional view of demons is becoming marginalized and replaced with more vague concepts, different definitions of ‘demon’, ‘possession’ and ‘exorcism’, and the methods of dealing with them which have traditionally been attributde to Christ and the apostles, are being abandoned; ‘Let’s use the terms less, and use them with meanings not used by the New Testament writers’, is not an expression of confidence in the doctrine.
The problem here is that this just creates more problems. It doesn’t explain what demons are, and definitely means that whatever they are, they aren’t what the New Testament writers have traditionally understood them to mean. If the understanding of demons and their activity needs to be “updated” by successive generations in this way, then mainstream Christianity has certainly been completely wrong about demons for centuries. I don’t think this will go down well with the demon believers here.
My interest in this discussion is along the lines of cultural anthropology and missiology, because that is the domain in which I think denying demonic activity actually hurts the Christian witness. In many ways reality is not objective, it is culturally constructed. In many, many cultures around the world, demonic influence is experienced as reality and an undeniable fact of life. The proper Christian response to this, I think, is not to insist or prove demons don’t exist, but to insist that Jesus is sovereign over that reality, has defeated evil on the cross, and is powerful to address whatever spiritual need their reality presents. If the gospel does not speak to the realities people know and experience, it is an inadequate gospel.
If in our Western, science-focused reality, the non-biological/chemical aspects of addiction and pyschopathy/sociopathy, and depression are attributed to dysfunctional childhoods and malformed self-images instead of evil spirits or curses or demonic possession, the gospel still says Jesus’ redemption is powerful to deal with whatever spiritual sickness or darkness that is there. We don’t have to convince people of demonic entities in order to address their spiritual need, just like we don’t have to convince the non-Westerner of their non-existence in order to address their spiritual need.
I share a lot of the skepticism that has been raised about people who want to develop a comprehensive theology of the demonic, or people who want some set of universal biblical procedures for encountering and dealing with demonic influences, and anyone who is selfishly profiting off feeding people’s fear of the supernatural.
But in cultures where the first and most pressing spiritual question is “Will Jesus protect me/free me/embolden me in my encounters with the demonic?” the biblical answer is “Yes, every dominion, authority and power is being defeated and will be put under Jesus’ feet.” Not, “Oh, don’t worry about it, demons don’t exist.” Upon hearing the latter, instead of being comforted, people are going to walk away thinking Jesus’ can’t handle their most pressing spiritual needs, or that the gospel only works in educated white people’s reality, not theirs.
.
). Nevertheless, Paul has no trouble calling it a messenger of Satan, in analogy to holy angels who are messengers of God. Here, you see an combination of Paul’s own flesh and a messenger of Satan being a thorn in his flesh.