l

y.,
".....,
-'
r.
. . T
CHRIST TRIU!v.u. .l.....ni".f.' .>.
(


--f ,
". :, ..
\.
,i
,';"
t.' .:. ..,.
":;.
';.;,
Ii:
. '.: {;f
....., -,,(.
CHRIST TRIUMPHANT

;
.'
.....
Exorcism Then and Now .
.
...;,
GRAHAMH. TWELFTREE
I '
...
, HODDER AND STOUGIITQN.
WNOON SYDNEY AUCKLAND
'
\
Britiah UbrUy Cataloping in Publication Data
TweIftree, Graham H.
Christ triumphant: exorcism then and now.
- (Hodder Christian paperbacks)
1. Exorcism
. I. TItle
265'.94 BV873.E8
ISBN 0 340 34247 1
Copyright 1985 by GTIIhtnn H. Twelftm. First printed 1985. All rights reserved. No
part of this publie4tion mJllj be reprodUQJdar tmnsmitted in any form or by any means,
tltronic or including photopy" m:ording, or any information storage amI"
retrieval system, without permission in. writing from the publisher. Printed in Great
Brilllin1m: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, Mill Road, Dunton Grem, SevenOGks, Kent by
RichIIrd C1IIy (T1Ie CluIIICe! Press) Limited, Bllng#y, Suffolk. Photoset by RDwulnd
Phototypesetting Limited, Bury St Edmllnds, Sllffol1c. Hodder and StoughtQn Editorilll
0fIiee: '7 lDndon WClB 3DP.
To
Barbara,
Catherine and Paul
\
"I
'"
I
'o",!
~
I
I.
CONTENTS
The Debate
r n The New Tesl:antent-World
ill Jesus and Exorcism
IV
,
The Early Church
..
V Twentieth-CeAtury Man
VI ExordsmNow7'
Notes
Indexes
,
I
r
~ '
9 r
11
20
55
87'
135
171
194
219
.......... <.....~
",
. '!"---"-, 1"- -.'. 1
- , '--;--....- 4...
PREFACE
1am not an exorcist, nor am I - to misquote Amos (7: 14) - the
son of an exorcist. But I am concerned that the Church take the
'canon of Scripture seriously; that in its ongoing hermeneutica1
task ,the should allow Scripture to as Macquanie
phrases it, one of the important 'formative factors' ofits theology
and practice. This may include exorcism. For thinking Christians'
this hermeneutical task is not simply a repeating ortnmslittratittt,
of the Bible into the twentiethcentury situation -itcannotbe; we
live in a diffetent world. In a mere transliteration of the Bible we
may do serious damage to, and,misunderstand the JneSSa&'!' of
the biblical Writers., Because of this; the fresh results of New
Testament scholarship are continually needed in this' task of
tnmslatingeffectively the Good News for the Church and its
mission to the world. '
This book arises out of research begun at Nottingham UriiVer
sityon exorcism in the New Testament and in the twentie!th
century. Restrictions of time and space meant that the product of
that research was limited to Jesus as an exordSt. The'
study fulfils an obligation to myself to continue the 'wOrk through
to include an examination of exorcism in the early Churches as
represented in the Writings of' the New Testament; it is a self- '
c,ontained sequel to my Jesus the Exorcist (lOOT Press, Sheffiekt,
forthcoming). But as a mere historian of the New Testament is of
little to the contemporary Christian community the
results of this examination need' to be applied to the present
debate on the poSSibility and form Of exorcism. Therefore, as thiS
book is intended for a more general readership than just aca
I '
demics - thoughI that it will not be withOUt interest tothem
also - I have tried to limit footnotes toa minimum. I ampainfuUy
aware that a great deal of valuable literature has, therefore' n()t
been mentioned. 'What has been cited, however, should lead the
inquiring reader to other relevant material. '
A sense of my own inadequacies, especially in attempting to
enter the present debate, causes me considerable hesitation and
tentativeness inthe conclusions to whichI have come. So, despite
, .
..
"-;',' ,
.......
CHRIST TRIUMPHANT '
10

" \
any dogmatism herein, I must not give the impression .that my
mind is anything more than in transit in relation to exorcism in
the twentieth these are sourtdings of my thinking at the
time of, writing. I would welcorhe iXtteraction from those kind
"enough to take the trouble.
At the conclusion of this study I am conscious of adebt of
gratitude o",ed to all those who have contributed to its making
and CQInPletion, I am h,appy to acknowledge the help of staffof
at Nottinghain,University, Kings College (London) and
College (Lon<toil),the British Wbrary, Parkin-Wesley
CoUege (AdeJ9Ude) State library pf South Australia. '
I"thankful to Dr Murray Harris (Cambridge), Dr Vic
Dr David Wenham and Mr David
for reac:ling and commenting on parts of this
I am particIIlar1y ip.debted to Dr Stephen Travis (Nolting
haW who carefully read tl1Ii!entiremanusaipt and offered many
that have helped detemtine the final shape.of
'this boOk. I continue td value the friendship and encouragement
ofmy ProfessorJames DUnn (Durham) and am
very grateful to him for his detailed comments on the whole
lIW\uscript. '
,Nost of the WJiting,here was squeezed into a busy life while I
_the. lecturer on the Stfff of All Souls 'Church
, College, Langham Place, London. It was a
'P.lf6e JD work in such. a place and, with such
COlleague,. IampartiCl,llarly grateful to my students
(l98Q,-3) fpr their questioningandencouragement.. Itis a pleasure
, to thjsbQok. It was,Miss Susan Radford
. 'wm,.with speed 8M accuracy,cheerfully turned endiess pages
pi _YJQawl into type. Thank youSusie! I amalso grateful tp Miss
Caro1yR Anni,tage of Hodder and Stougl\ton for her many sug
pstions that this book and to Mr David Wavre,
tM for his patientand diligentcarein
manusaipt through.the .
Finally, to rsay 'lJtank you' for their
Waiting fortQe completiOA of another project. It is
to them that I dedicate this book. There' should be a little ,more
ume nmV for football (Aussie Rules!) at,td walldng. '
Graham H. Twel{tree
Adel4ide "
Pentecost
":. .:
. <,{
I
THE DEBATE
. .'. .
If is the expelling of evil spiritual beings from peOpleisit '
a credible ,and appropriate form of healing in otU:post-
Enlightenment society? In other words, is exorcism a super-:
stitious relic of the past best left to a
of man, the world and-medicine? In a twentieth-cenhuy
tiOI\ and account of man's of the wor.ld, evilancJ;
sickness, is it reaUy necessary to resort to
pressed in a vocabulary that includes 'possessiI;)n',
cmd 'exorcism'? Opinions are divided. Even the evidence seems.
inconclusive. .
We can begin with two stories that illustrate this division. '
He began to growl like a dog and to flail his arms in all directions. He"
slipped from his chair and went into a coma , . . ... the
moment the name of Jesus mentioiled, he, went into another
coma, his legs shot from under him, and he lay and
, inert on the floor. Bending over binding the enemy power,
the spirits were commanded to leave inthe ofJesus. He opened
his eyes, blinked, got to his feet, brushed himself down and' smiled
blandly. He had been delivered.
l
,
, ,
Incontrastto this apparently helpful event other"exODiismsend .
in disaster. On March 26th, 1975, 'The Times (London) canied:aft.
story on page four.
An innocent-sounding Christian fellowship group meeting tumed a
family man into a homicidal maniac in a matter of days,. defence
counsel told a jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday. . .
After, an all-night exorcism ceremony to. rid him of evil,
Michael TaylQr, 'aged, 31, described as a loving husband, home
andkilled his wife, Christine, aged 29, with 'unspeakable brutality' to
rid her of an evil spirit,. it was alleged . . . - .
After ... a psychiatrist, had told the court that Mr Taylor was at lIhe
time legally and clinically iASane the jury found himnot guiltybecause
of insanity ... Mr Geoffrey Baker, QG, for the prosecUtion, said ...
that Mr Taylor and his wife had been attending meetings of a local
/ '
12
- . ',-' --
. .,
.",'

,
...
Ouistian fellowship group but one of the group was a satanist. Mr
Taylor somehow became Involved in witchcraft, which appeared to
.have had a profound effect. .
.. A week later he was still showing of instability,so.a friend
,took him and family t() visit the Rev Peter Vincent of St Thomas's
church, Gawber, Barnsley. Others were called in and they all came to
the conclusion that Mr Taylor was demonieauy possessed.
, Mr Baker said .that after an all-night exorcism ceremony in the
churchvestry some 40 demons hadbeen expelled from Mr Taylor, but .
ataB'dirtg to the Vicar's wife the demons of insanity, murder and,
;violente had still not been expelled . . .
,,0'
11iis episodegreatly embarrassed the churches whose ministers
. and the next day The Times (March 27th, 1975, p. 6)
reported that authon'ties in the ChurCh of England and the
had asked for an immediate explanation &om
themini8ters involvedin the Barrisley Case. The report quoteda
statement by Dr Treacy, the Bishop of Wakefield:
I apt boun4tosaythat the attempts made at exorcismduring the m8ht
before the murder were unwise. But I believe that the clergymen
involvedwithit wereactuatedby good intent, and had a sincere desire
to help Midtael Taylor.. . .
'EKorcilnrl i&. type of ministry which is increasingly practised in the
CIuiIlian <:hurthes. There is no order of service for this, whic;h
iI adJDinistered as the situation demanc:b. Qearly it is a form of .
minii5try:whkhJl\WJtbe eXercised with the greatelit possible care and
respooeibiJity.
The Bishop said that no one in his diocese had specific authority
t() practise eXOl'dsm but, he added -'I am aware that some
dergymen 'will, feel that it is a normal part of their pastoral
ministry when occasion demands.' . .
In March and April of that year The Times carried a number of
1ettJers on thill, :tRe indud.iPg a number that
continued,to advocate the practice of exorcism. But on May 15th
Professor Geoffrey LamPeandMr DonCupitt sent anopenletter,
eiped'&ysiXty-five to the archbishops, the bishops
n,embers of the General Synod ofthe Church of England.
It read: ' . .
that the Churdt of Englandis in danger ofmaking a serious
fJI judgJJ\ent.. For years. n4l\Y the practice of exorcisIn J\;ls
,... with ,some from the authorities, in
i3
, , ,
many ... Our fear is that,
come to be widely practised, will be worked out. To
control its excesses, exorcism will be regulated: but the effect ofthis
will be to give it more nearlyofficial status inthe Churchthan it has had
since the old baptismal exorcism was abolished in 1552. We believe
that exorcism should have no official status in the Church at aD .
2
They offered a number of reasons for their assertions.
1 Exorcism is at variance with the entire history and tradition of
the Church of England; ,
2 History shows that it is very da:ngerous to give encout.Se-'
ment to the belief that there are occult evil POW1'S which may ,
possess men and deprive them of their wits and their
'. '
3 Since the Reformation and the rise of modem science man
kind has been liberated from and similar beliefs. '
4 The proper way to cast out evil is by repentance, faith, prayer
, and thesaqaments. .., '
5 ' Jesus perfonned exOl'(isms but the Church
that her members must necessarily sbare all Jesus' beliefs.
3
So
they concluded their letter
It is we think, mistaken to suppose that loyalty to Christ
.Church to recreate; in Jate--twentieth-century Europe, the and
practices of first-century PaIe$tine. Such an atteJPPt invites
not to mention the harm that may We urge aU who hold
lUgh office in the. Church to ensure that the practice, of exorc.i8l;n
receives no official ,encouragement and' gains no official status in the '
'Church.. . , \C ' ' , , ' ,
This letter has been an important document in the debate on
exorcism and at the time of its publication thereligious preS8was
also carrying letters, at first on the Bamsley Case, then mainly
focused on this open letter. The letters revealed the wide
eilCe of -opinion among -theologians, Church leaders,miriisters
and lay people on the question of 'whether or not e>cordsm is ,
an appropriate.fonn of the twentieth century.'Fot
eXample, in the Church Times (London), the letters to the editor
carried an ongoing debate betWeen E. L. Mascall and Brian . '
Hebblethwaite. On the one hand E. L. Mascan wrote;..
To condemn the bishops for failing to 'discourage' exorcism is as
itrelevant as it would be to attack the medical profession for failing to
__._ .. _.,... _
. ".: t "" ".'!'" ;'-r."
, ..
. ,
I
I
'.i
"',"
, appended0D4y.1t is important to encourage it WMn it is
"
it' when it is not (Letter, May 16th,
. BUt orttbe Other hand Brian Hebbleth'waitewrote in one of his
letters
... one the natural caUses of physical and mental iIlnes$!s .
and the of superstiti.c;)us beliefs and practices such as attended
the seventeenth-<:entury emphasis on witchcraft and 'now atten4 the
. .en,lphasis 01) the occult, while allowing that there may be .
. rational in.tIle universe. Christian
.' .. then seeks to steer the Chwdt's response to the facts of evH
. (Who8e1ifriousne$S and power must be recognized on any view) into
the welHried channels of repentance, faith, prayer and the sam
DlerttB(Letter, June 6th, 1915).
"I"
. .
'Tb.if difference of opinion was reflected in I A Methodist
StateJnent on Exorcism Adopted by the [British] Methodist
_
5
The Statement noted three differing views
CUiienttt"heJd by Christians (pp. 3f). One view was that 'The
prc;x:ess of exorcisminvolves thecasting.out ofanobjective power
of-ml Y{hichhas gained possessiQn of a person. ,This view
. - the conviction that the authority to exorcise has been
the'Churdlasone of theways.in which Christ's Ministry
is. amtinued inthe world:. The Stateinenfalso noted th4t SOtne of
. Of this opinion believed.in; the ontological reality of evil
0tlter8 preferred the idea of people beipg over
.. Powered. by a .personal force of evil. Also those who hold. this
viewj)elieved they had a warrant from Jesus and Scripture for
theit pnlCtice" . . ' .
. secpnd .view was that -, 'The process of. exorcism is, a
.. aUeast an effective psycllological means of reassur
iag themselves to ,be po$SeSsed.' Thus a
lII,jtaisteris able.to J)eI'form a rite on the New Testament pattern
wiCbout accepting lor hiJriselfthe ontological realityof evil spirits
believe. in exorcism' other than its psychological help for
pIltIOn,Who believes 'hiInself to be possessed. This view, while
.,:Itir-Stbat the thought-world of.the New Testament belongs
.10 a 'believes that pastoral responsibility involve$
of the frame of reference of the 'person who seeks
. I
NIP:," . ,
".' the thh-.t view w_that -/AlMili.ef in demonsisexpliGilile .'
(
TlDOBU'l"B.
sociologically and psychologically. It is undeniable that there are
people who claim to believe in demons, but - since demons do
not exist,.... it is their belief with which we should deal, not
. demons. In this case exorcism would be inappropriate, since
what is to be dealt with is false belief.' According to the Statement
those who hold this opinion do not. think that an accommodation
to the beliefs of others people to the truth. They also
believe that the normal mmistry of word, sacrament, and
appropriate pastoral care assuring people of the presence and
Jove of Christ can deal with what is called 'possession'. .
This third view is also that of the Church of Scotland's
of the Working Party on Parapsychology'(May 1976). The Re
port, as the title indicates, was wide. ranging in its cQverage, but
part 2 dealt. with exorcism in particular. Like the Methodist
Statement it acknowledged the diversity of views on exorcism
and noted the view of CanonjohnPearce-Higgins, vice-chairman
of the Churches' Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies:,. "
He views evil spirits as lunquiet souls' who havebecome
in their progression and development so that exorcism
to .free the 'possessed' and assists. the possessing on its.; .
progress. . ,. , . .,
The Churcll of Scotland's.Working Party thought it sig.,.
nificant that. symptoms. of demon appeared most
frequently in societies which give credence to the existelU:e.,of
evil spirits. .
We ... are drawn to the conclusion [says the report] that sudt a
ceremonial as Exorcism does more harm than good by its
within thepractice of the Church. We believe that it effects nothjng,
that cannot be accomplished by expeditious. use of the .
latter including prayer, blessing and such healing procedures as .the
pastoral agent may have at his disposal. A ceremonial de
signed to expel evil spirits must tend to produce a
of the role of the pastor which seems to give him magic'powers
(para8faph 36).
A little further on the Working Party says - '. . . we must
conclude that there is no place in the Reformeq Scottish
for such a rite [as exorcism] to be devised' (paragraph45), And-
Inacoordance'with this conclusion, the Working Party must reco. ..
mend that ministers of the ChuKh of Scotland should be ..
to rffrain from conducting a special ceremony of Exoreism, ,'\'be
, ,
.' , : ""'
,.'s....
c:DIl'*l1itlmt of this must be that we are of the opinion that ,my
..':peISOft a case of aUeged should refer it to
. ..' phytJidan_ remain in amsultation with him as to
.J 51).
ht yiewof such dogmatic conclusions it is hard to understand,
perhaps the Working Party lacked complete
1-.\ .its why it had just said that exorcism
'mUst ... be rejected ..... as anappropriate method of treatment,
SlWin the most aaptiontrl ciTcumstJznces' (paragraph SO,
' , . '.' .
.lit any case:- though we hav.e seen that opinion is divided '.,.. it
, ia.the.view,of the vast majority of the Church constituents well .
iIi society, that exoi'dsmshould nowbe rejected.
1:hepopular (OOtemporarymind was well summed up in a Times
wrjtten when. the Bamsley Case, was in the public's
mma. '. '. '. . .
.Ia'a secular age the practice of exorcism may appear to many in the,
OuistianOturch as .well as outside it tobe an unfortunate and bizarre
" .
an:: of superstition":' a contamination O.f. the.Gospe.1 by.a
'. : and agelessbeJief indemons and witchcraft. . . .
. ,.. ... hasbeenrelegated for themost part to a demi-monde of
, .' . '. priests and aedu10us participants, however well inten
.; . sirfceIe ...:. to emerge into public view only at moments of
'. -=andal.; . (The Times, ThU1'8d8y, April3rd, 1975; p. 15).
, .Pedlapsourinitial question already. Why
.J,heR.i&thetela need for further study of exorcism if large sections
elthe ChurCh, and many, perhaps of the as
as secuJar world View hold firli\ly that the notion of
.. and of, eXQrcism ti? a
and world? There are several
.. ' .,'
Firsti view of the majority of Chu,rch leaders and
we nave testimonies from intelligent and well
I
of which opeQingquQtation in this chapter
anappl'opiate andhelpfulfonnof
This'Y'iew is also held. by people oUt$de ,In
'. ".,
.lettef to (a senior
. '.
.,' .,.-Department,of C1inicaJ Psyc401Qgy,.VictoJia .H9tipital,
the
, . . ". . .' ,"

" ,
""
11D'DDATE "
. Sir, _ ' . ,','
, Since supernatural beba.viourare not iDJel-..
lectuaHy respectable in the present secular ethos. it is not
that Dr William .Sargent argue that is,almOSt'
an hysterical phenomenon' (Dangers of amateurs dabbling
inexomsrn, March27)., . , . '
Psychiatric diagnosis is, however, notably UIU'eUable,-and pSy':
. chiatry is vulnerable 0 the charge that it purports to offer -ca.
explanations for human behaviour when many of its
are merely desaiptive. The cause of schi,zophrenia is
unknown;.the reason why ECT works - when it doeS - is anknow.n.;
These facts hardly constitute lU1. advan/:e 'on any religioUs: Or' &upe,.
natural explanation. ' , "', "
Ouistopher Neil-Smith, iJ;lhis book the Exorcist lind
refers to psychiatrists who believe thiJ.t their patients are in 'of
exorcism rather than psychiatric treatment; a greater awareness
conceptual limitationSof the psychiatricas weDas the religious ,&ameS _
of reference may' help to arrest a polarization of attitudes' in tlHs '
confused and disturbing area. " . ,
Yours faitl\fully, etc.
In view of this point we shallneed to devote some
V) to a re.:examination of whether or not exorcism.remaint-an
and even-necessary response at least sOme, ton.
of human suffering. , '
Second, despite what Lampe andCUpitt say about aJibmdian
from demonological beliefs
t
a thl'()ugh a railwaJ!.tion '
bookshop, a visit to the cinema; a note of the '
television and observation, of' the increasing number' of aiIf
...
shops reveal that in our advanced, scientificand secular Westetn
world there is a growing inthe'occult' and the
Even if all this is misguided and bnedon-a
complete misunderstanding and miSinterpretation of()WIetpeli
ences of the world, the evil and suffering it causes aRdtM
phenomenon itselfin general invites and requires investigation. .
Third, we shalldiBcover that even those who hold
dsm is still an heating and use1he NItW
Testament as a warrant fodheil' views hold a variety of opinioM;
a divergence of opinions which indicate that-more thinking...
discuBSion are requited. ...., '.'
Fourth, we shall also discover that the first-eentury mimt'WQi
at times, nOt as credulous as has Often been thought. "May
people believed neither in detm:ms, paS8eS$iohnor
-yet the early Chutehand; Jesus did. Thus, without.
18" CHRIST TaWMPHANT
investigation, to dispense too quic}dy the 'demonic'
.'maybe tolose animporfantcontributianof the NewTestament to
our Understanding of evil, huinan suffering and healing.
For these teasons not only does still more work need to be done
on the theory and possible practice of exorcism, but the' New
in needs to be subjected to more careful
has so far been given to it in relation to this
subject.
. It is not the purpose of this book to conduct a complete
into the theory and contemporary practice of exor
df thedecisive place of the canon, particu-,
Jarly the New Testament, in. the present debate (and, I readily
c:OriCede, my own interests); we shall be restricting our brief to
ex.Qidsm. in the New Testament and what such an investigation
to .the present discussion of and possible practice of
... ' '.
The popular view among many lay' Christians, and. indeed
some Church leaders and writers,
6
is that the ministry of the
twentieth-eentury Church 01,1ght to be either - despite its im
a.mirror iDlage of the ministry of the early Church!
oratleut guided by the results of a dialogue withwhat we know
of.' ministry of the early Church frOJ1\ the New Testament
c::Iocuments. Whatever function the New Testament is permitted
to the construction of our thinking on and ministry in
eam:ism it is a .prerequisite that we should have some under
Itandingof what the New Testament writers said or did not say. .
Chapter IVof this bookis aninvestigationof exorcism inthe early
Qw.rcI\. Then, (as we will see) the early Church saw the
.wstryofJesus as important in shapingits ownministry- Luke,
iOr exampJe, sawJesUs as a model for the Church -at the head of
ouriRvestigation must be a qUestioning oOesus as an exorcist.
Mil ministryis reported by the Synoptic Evangelists to have been
almost,.if not actually, dominated by performing exorcisms. I
haYealready made a thorough study of Jesus the
'EIctwcist and,. in part, chapter ill here distills some of the results of,
this work. In order to placeJesus and the early Church in proper
perspectivein relation to their first-centurymilku, so that we can
better appreciate the emphases and contributions to our theme,
weshall needto beginwith a study of relevant aspects of the New
T,estament world (chapter II). . .
- Should.
part of the ministry ofthe twentieth:-centuryChurch?
.
". r ',',
THE DEBATE
The important subsidiary question, which motivates this
is Whtd does the New Testamentconttibute to thecontempor'llrydebtrte
on exorcism? When, ifat aD, is exorcism necessary? be
. the exorcists? What are the credentials for an exorcist? How
shOQld 'exorclsms. be conducted? Are there certain wordsqi
incantations that need to be' said? Where should exordSttls be
conducted? Is exorcism dangerous? What of the use of the ..
sacraments and the Lord's Prayer in the ministry of exorcism? If a
demonis castout of aperson, what happens f0it?What about the
idea of the return of evil spirits to the possessed? What'about
after--eate of the healed person? It is to questions swrh as thete
that we shall be_ addressing ourselves, attempting to offer
answers which are both theologically satisfying and pastonly,
effective. '
, ,.
. . .;.
.\
...
.;;
II
THE
-
NEW TESTAMENT WORLD
.
\
'. .. '.
, Inseeking to identify and eumine the beliefs of Jesus and the
.- .eIIII'1y' ,Christians regarding exorcism, twentieth-eentury notions
&IeSometimes used. For example, it is often suggested, in view of
QllUemporaryWestemChristian ideas of 'magic', that in contrast
tobiscontemporanes, Jesus (and later the early Christians) did
not use the 'magical' practices of thecontemporary pagan world.
In tumthis'is what is sometimes seen as unique about the
exoidsms of Jesus and the early Christians. But is this correct? To
. 'answer such a question we need to keep in mind that Jesus was a
finlt.century Palestinian Jew and the writers of the New Testa
ment doaiments were people of the first, or Pertulps in a few
.. :cases, as has been argued, second-century Christians writing for .
~ of their own time (e.g. the Pastorals, the Petrine'and .
8OJl\e.of the Johannine literature).
,-Therefore, in order to understand and highlight their beliefs, .
. , ~ d either against or in common with their contemporaries, it is
necessary to aska prior question - the task ofthis chapter - Whilt
. dUl people ofthe New Testament world think about such things as spirits,
demons, possession, magic, healing, hetzlers, exorcism and exorcists?1
. As we attempt to answer it we need to be aware, first, that
. although most ofthe Gospel material came to its present fonn in
the wider Greco-Roman world, Jesus' ministry was confined to
~ t i n e . H we are to clarify the thinking about exorcismbyJesus
. and his audience we must be careful to examine material that
Jdects the ininds of first-century Palestinians. Sec;ond, although
Christianity may have had its origins in PalEllitine it soon spread
into the wider.Gre<:o-Roman world. It is this wider environment
that provides the background to most of the New Testament
writings. .
Despite this it is not accurate to think of two separate, clearly
deJined 'worlds' between which there was some cultural or
intellectual barrier, implying that Christianity passed from an
exchl&ively Jewish to an exclusively Hellenistic milieu.
2
Even
before the 'coriquest' of Canaan by the bulk of the Hebrew tribes,
TIlE NEW TBSTABNT WORLD
what was, to become., the homeland of the -Jews had bee!l' a
cultural, political and economic crossroads of the ancient W'orld:
For this reason and beCause of its small size, Palestine was never
for very longable to remam Iiclosed sOciety. For exam-ple, even in
a petiexi of mtense nationalism, when the HasmoneiUlJohn
Hyrcanus (134-104 BC) WP ruler of the Jews, foreign troops were
used as Hyrcanus sought to extend his borders to the north and
south (Ant. 13: 249). Also indicative that
a closed Jewish territory is the great number of Jews.nom
different parts of the ancient world' who came annuaDy' to the'
PassoVer inJerusalembringingwith them the
the language, of their new homes (e.g. Acts 2: 5-12). Onthe ,otheJ:
. hand, as this point indicates, the wider Greco-Roman world-w.
not one homogeneous 'Hellenistic' culture but included, particil- .
lady from our perspective, vast numbers of Jews.
quotes the geographer Strabo (born c. 63 or 64 BCtaS saying of the
- 'ThiS people has already made its way into everycity" 'aJd '
it is not easy to find any place in the habitable world Pt whichit
has not made its power felt' 14: 115; see also Sibylline ..
. 3: 271; 1Mace. 15: 15; PhiloIn 6: 8; Ltgatio Ad 36); At
least in the beginning Christianity spread among these
istic Jews in the diaspora. Thus, in Acts, Luke represents
the diaspora synagogues as an important forum for Paul's
preaching (Acts 9: 20; 18: 4; 19: 8), and even before Paul
that Christianity hadbegun to spread into the diaspora (Acts 9: 2;
22: 19; 26: 11). ,
1 The Earliest Exorcisms?
As we shall see, exorcismis an extremely old method Of healiftg.
ProbabIy.only because of its climatic conditions, which have
helped preserve the delicate papyri, from Egypt, comes -the
earliest mdence we haveof the idea of exorciSm. For example, an
Egyptian hieratic (pre-sixth century Be) papyrus in tNdkitiah
Museum (BM. Pap. 10685C), from roughly 1250 to 1100 Be is a
charm for exorcising a headache. ,.,
ORer, OAtfun, oShu, oTeferiet, OGeb,ONut, oAnubisin-frofttOf
. the divine shrihe, 0 -Horus, 0 Seth, 0 [Isis}, 0 Nephthys, O-Great
EAnead, 0 Ennead, and see your father, entertng girt with
radiance to see- the hom (?}of Sakhm,el Come ye [?) to
.
.-' \
.. "'"
:i enemy, dead man 01' dead woman, adversary male odemale whtch is
lUt'the face of N, born of M. To be recitedover Bcrocodile of clay with
gainin its P\OUth, andits eye offalence..set [in} its head. One shalltie
nUillandinsaibe.a drawingof.the gods upona strip of fine linen,tobe
head. To be <over> an image of Rer, Atiim,
ShU, Mel,tyt, Geb, Nut, Arubis, Horus, Seth, Isis, on an
>
" .
oryx on whose back stands a figure carryiN; his lance,
3
.' and there is a great deal of it,
4
is too early and
removed from and the writers of the
HeW Testament to be of 'anydirect help in understanding first- .
minds. Ulese papyri do show us some important
thiilpabout ancient healing techniques that continued tobe used
. to and beyond the time of the origins of Christian
It.jSobvious that the healingis thought tobe effective because
of What is said and dc;me in re1.ation to the person being healed.
. _ 1:h0fM! wh:o composed this recipe also had difficulty in knOwing
theitpplQPrfate god or P9wer-authoritythafshould be used
and, or perbap!! because, they also had difficulty in
the 8upp:>sed enemy in the person. Artefacts, includ
!'J used. All of these are to befoundin
dtiheating techniques of New Testament times. '.
. "
2' TheOld Testament
AlthOugh much o,f the Old Testament material arose well before
the New Testament era, there is no doubt of its importance in
unde,standing the theology and religion of both Jews and Chris- .
tiansin the first, centUry.
5
Among others, the writings of Philo of
Alexandria as well as the Pseudepigraphical and Apocryphal
writings and the library of the &senes at Qumran (see below)
show. that in Palestine, and in the wider world, the Old Testa
ment was in'lportant in informing first-eentury minds.. New
. Testament passages like Romans 4 and 5, and the whole of
HtIJnws, show how important the Old Testament was in con-:
tdbUting'tothe theologital reflections of the early Christians.. . .
TIiemost important aspect of Old Testament demonology,6
:'
or more correctly, pnewnatology, is that it is the Spirit of God
".
that predominates the literature.
7
Nevertheless there are some
reI"eJ\1Ce8 to 'demons' in general (Lev. 17: 7; Deut. 32: 17; 2 Chr.
"
1?;'P&: i06:31) as wen utoparticular;demons' . For example,
.-.
..,r,. A:z:azel (Le\T.16: 8, 10, 26) may have been rntended as'a name for a .
.- ,
-- --- --- --"

,,."'

and later Efhiopic EnOch certainly used thename. torefer'
to a demon (Eth. En. 6: 7; 9: 16; 10: 46). UJith (RSV ='the night
hag', Isa. 34: 14) is an Akkadian demon thought
desolate places with the unclean owl and kite. FromLeviticus17: '
7; (2 Kgs. 23: 8) and 2 Chronicles 11: 15 we gain the impression
that the Se'irim ('satyr' in RSV; 'goat idols' or 'deD\9ns' inNlV)
, were considered hairy and perhaps goat, cow or calf shaped, ,
though inIsaiah 14: 29 and 30: 6 thedemons fly. We shall
Psalm 91 in a moment in relation to pro,teetion from the
-demons; here we can note that at least the autlior of this
recognises the power and threat of the demons atld the resultant
. ..,:.
ear in people. On the other hand Isaiah 6: 2 sh.owsJhatthe.
'demons' or seraphim (Num. 21: 6,8; Deut. 8: 15; Isa. 6: 2, 6; 14:
30: 6) could also perform positive for G04. Only in,
32: 17; Psalm90:6; 95: 5; 105: 37; Isaiah 13:21;34: 1:';
65:3, 11 did the Greek tranSlators of the Old Testament (LXXluse ,
the word 'demon' - often as descriptions of ijle heathen
While God gives hisSpirit to man (Isa. 42: 5), and can take it ,',
again 104: 29; d. 11), God may also send ilJl. eVil spirit .to
man. Notable is 1 Sam\le116: 14-23 -:- 'Now the spirit of the
departed from Saul, and spirit from Jhe Lold.tonnentect
him' (v. 14; see also 1 Kgs. 22: 21f). Although there is Iittle of the-I ',(
tidy dualism of later times ,thiU conveniently organised spiri
tual beings under God and Satan,S, somewhat removmg God
from the responsibility of evil (see chap. V), it isprobably1nCOfoo
red to say that the Old Testament knows nothing of evil powers,
independent of Yahweh.
9
Thus Israelis not. to sacrifice tQ evil
spirits (Lev. 17: nor consult the (of {d.
Deut. 18: 10; 1 Sam. 28: 8f). The indepeJidence of evil ' .
beings. &omGod isalsoillustrated in the mocking connectiDn.tb
is made between demons andidols (Deut. 32: 17; 2 ehr, 11: 15; p.a.
106: 37). . _ '
We catch just two glimpses of how Old Testament .
man's being able to control. the .evil.spirits. Fir$t in Psalm '9\,
perl\aps from the early Greek period, tll.ere is material that_y
have been used as inctntatiwts ,to ward off evil spirits.
ll

second passage is 1 14-23.
incantations, like those from Egypt, this is the oldest extant &:tory
of an exorcism.. lhe..story begins
spiiit of theJ..oJd depmed {rom Saul, and an evil
d\e,Mlrd tormentlBd, him. And Saul's serwmtJsaid to ..
,J .;
. :.... ,
'-. ,'"
now, an evllspirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now
- .command youfservants, who are before you, to seek out a manwho is
. aIdlful in playinathe lyre; and wheR the evil spirit from God is lipon
you, he will playit, and you will be well (1 Sam. -16: 1M).
Saul's messengers found David.
Andwhenever the evil spirit froin God was uponSaul, David took the
. , Iyte aitd played.it withhis hli'nds; soSaUl was refreshed, and was,weIL
-arid theevil Spirit froin him (ct. 1 Sam. 18: 10; 19:9).
. .
Here it is not incantations that are said to heal but David's mllSic .
which re&eshed Saul and caused the evil spirit to depart. How
"f!r. although music was used in the New Testament era for the
Cont:rolof evil spirits (PseUdO-Philo LAB6() and Ant. 6: 166) a
cautionary note must be soundedhere. When we compare stories
as they appear in the Old Testament with the way they are
undersfuodandinterpretedin the NewTestament era it becOmes
-obvioUs that these writers understood the Old Testament stories
.'yerydUferently fromtheir original writers - andfromthe waywe
uncIerstand_d interpret the Old Testament.
. Two' illustrate this. FiI'st, as a rigorous And thorough
, of 1 Samuel 16 belieV.ed
. that even the evilspm1 which affJictedSaul was 'from the !prd'
(W. 14,'16, 23; see also Num. 21: 6), But 'Pseudo-Philo and
Je8ephus, writers New Testament era, no longer held this
view, and whe{l.interpreting the story (see below), dropped,all
,I'efemtee t()tRe evil spirit coming 'from the Lord'. Second, those
- .leSpOnsible for writing'the story in 1 Samuel thoudlt that muSic
A
the key to sussful exorcism (vv. 16 and 23). Again.both
(
JOeephus and Pseudo-Philo, especially the latter, thought that in
an exorrism, words or anincantation were equally if not more
.impQrtant than the music. .
. with differences such as these it is not possible simply to .
-use uncritically the Old Testament stories as windows into the
ntinds of the first century. Rather, as will be seen, in these
differences we have a way of highlighting the views of the people
mthe New era. Also we must pay special attention to'
literature that was written in New Testament times.
Finally here, before turning attention more directly to the New .
. ' 'Testament we can note tbat in Isaiah 24: 21 there is adumbrated
thehope that atthe end of the age the eVil will be defeated.
On that day the LOrd will. puniah
the host of heaven ...
They wiD be gathered together
as prisoners ina pit; ,
they will be shut up in prison,
'and after many dJys will be punished.
While it is extremely diffiadtto date this passage more precisely
than to suggest that because of the relatively developed'
ology' have a post-exilic piece here,12 it is pfobablethat we
have the earliest Old Testament referenl:e to the. defeat of. .evil
powers. The point to notice about the of the defeat is
is in two stages - first the host of heaven are imprisonf;!d in.a pit '
and second, after many days, they are to be punished.' The
importance of this poiI)t will clear as w:etry to
Jesus' notion of the defeat of Satan and his minions.
3 The New Testament World
, , Because the traditions and writers in the New Testainentrep
resent such an extensive range of religious and
ideas as well as havingcome from a considerablyIarge geographi" .
.cal ateawe ought to survey an equally wide range oflitetature in
order to build a realistic picture of the background to' t:h8e
traditions and writers in relation to our thetne.
althoughhlstory has preserved only a tiny proportion of the
literature once"available which would have representedthe New
Testament world, such a great amount still remains that henfwe
can sample and review only some of what seem to be the most
important pieces of literature. IIi each case we shall have to'be '
convin<:ed that the material in question does' contribute to ,our
understanding of the background. of the New Testament. So our
question for this material is - What does it reveal of the bf!1ieft; of
people in the New Testament world about such things as spin'fs, dtmons,
pOssession, magic, healing; healers, exorcism and exorcists? '
Ethiopic Enoch j
Like much ,of the literature of the period Ethiopic Enoch
because complete text is now extant only in that
laftguage -is pseudepigraphical and a compositebook compiled
"'".:.,.' .
.- ,"
.. .. '
.
over a long period of time. For chapters 6 to 11, which
are of particular concern to us, may foran.part of a 'Book of Noah'
. &ombefore the Maccabean period. The parables, chapters 37-71,
. ,maybe late, not least because this is the only section of Enoch not
represented in the finds of Qumran.: These Parables or Simili
tudes- may even have been Written under Christian influence.
Thusca.re is needed in using them to throw light on the back
ground to early Christianity. But the rest of Enoch is still import- .
, _t for this studt because of its t1u?Ology is also reBected in
NewTestament. Of particular significance for us, the demon
and concept of evil found in Enoch is, to some degree, aJs:o
fDu:hd in the New Testament (e.g., d. Eth. En. 6-16 and Jude 6;
2 Pet. 2: i). ' . ,
"EtlUopiC contains material on the origins of evil, both
and natural evil, as well as an account of a demonology
.and the eventual destruction of evil. Semyaza is the leader of the
., f.allenangels or wattht!J'S. 'They come to earth and through union
with earthly women give birth to giants.who cause the
evil and, disasters (6: 1-7: 6). In 15: 8ff, these giants are caned the
spifits. They are said to afflict, oppress, destroy, atta4,do.
on the earth, cause trouble and offences
<-t.&, 15: Uf). .' , ,
; AlthOUgh hiJauthority Came from the Lord, Semyaza 'taught
2 .
who cast spells and Clitroots' (8: 3; 9: 7). The cutting of
refers tothe preparationof plant roots for purposes of magic
.healing(d. 8J7: 8: 47). Alongside Semraza
,-' another 'perhaps important leader of, an evil
J.;egime. In chapter 6: 7 Azazel (or Asael) is one of the leade.rs
.SeJnya,za. In chapters 8 and 9, while Semyaza teaches
,s.peJJeandleads astray the angels or watchers (8: 1>', Azazel
the art of. making for war and adornments iQ.\d
orfaaatents for women, probably to lead astray (d. 8: 2}.
" ,'nutt twotraditions, one based onSemyaza and one on 'r
on the chief of the evil kingdom, have beenbrought together
and in these.chapters is clearfrol1\ the parallel vision of '
,theif destruction in 10. The whole world has been ruined
by Azazel and aDain is ascribed to him (10: 8). So the Lord says to
Raphael
. '1Iind AzUeI hand and foot (and} throw him inllO the darkness!'And
hoIe:inthe.desertwhida waainDuda'eI andQSt
'. ofbim naged and sharp bis
- -
c
. "-...
1!1
face in order that he may not see Hght;and in order that he may be sent
into the fire on the great of judgement (10:4-6; d. Lev. 16)..
Perhaps echoing Isaiah 24: 21 (quoted above) the'destIudion of
Azazel takes place irt two stages. First he is thrown in a split in the
desettin.Dudael. In Leviticus 16: 6-10 two goats are involved iIi.'
making a sin offering. On& goat isa sin offering to the Lord, the
second goat is for Azazel and camesthe sin away toAzazel. k is
no longer posSible to say what Azazel meant for this tradition in
Leviticus but by the time of Ethiopic Enoch it had come to mean
, Satan or the Devil.
13
From the Aramaic version of the Old,
Testament (the Targums) on Leviticus 16: 21 it looks as if Dudael .
is based on a play on words. The name derives from 'the jagged
mountains of God' with which we should v. 5 'throw
onhim jaggedand sharp stones'. The covering of a manifestation'
of evil with stones with a view to its destruction is paralleled iri
Philostratus' The Life of Apollonius of Ty"na, a document from the
beginning of the third century stories about Apono.
mus who lived in the first century AD. In one story (IV: 10)
Apollonius ordered a grollP of by-standers to heap stones on ..
protesting vagabond with eyes full of fire. Then-On removing.the
stones they discovered that the man had disappeared and been
replaced by an animal that resembled a Malossian dog, but 'as
large as a lion and vomiting foam.
The destruction of Azazelis complete in a second stage whim,
on the great day of judgment he is thrown into the fire. The
. two-stage defeat ofAzazeI by Raphael is paralleled in Michael'8
dealing with Semyaza.
And to,Michael God said, 'Make known to Semyaza and the others
who are with him, who fornicated with the women, that ... when'
they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, biI\d them Jar
undemeath the rocks of the ground until the day .
of judgment and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment js_
concluded. In those days they wiUlead.them into the bottom of-the
fire - and in torment - in the prison (where) they will be loCked Up
forever. And at the time when they will bum and those
collaborated with them will be bound together with them from
forth unto the end of (all) generations ...' (10: 11-14). '
Ethiopic Enoch goes on to describe a new earth in whidl .the
rigt\teous would live in a pleasant world of natu1al plenty after
thedeStruction of evil (10: 17-11: 2); But then Enochis Called upon
r "
, .. _"
,:, :, . --,
.. 28
" to(lOJ1veytoAzazelthat bealuseofhis-greatdestrudion he has no
<' forgiveness and is to be Dound (chapter 12). On hearing this
.Azazel and-his cohorts were afraid and seized by fear and
ti'eabIing.So they begged Enoch to plead their case by drawing
'upa reading it in the presence of the Lord of heaven
(chapter 13). However the petition is not to be granted, the eVil
. spirits are tobebound (14: Iff). We shall come across this theme in
later Iiteratwe.(not leastinMark5: 100000tt. 8: 31/Luke 8: 31f) but
thisisthe earliest mention of the idea of evil spirits pleadingfor.
mercy; And it is also the only example where no leniency is
granted. .
Tobit
., .' Like- the books of Ruth, Jonah, Esther and Daniel the story of
Tobit is set in a time much earlier than the actual writing of the
,1JObk. The events in Tobit aresaid to in Nineveh in the .
.1IeW!nth. century Be,' but because of its .ties with Ecc1esiasti
'.cuamostscholars think Tobit was written in the second century
K this and since it is known at Qumran (see 4Q
. 'Fob 4QTobhebr"), Tobit will be helpful inunderstanding
the minds of the New Testament world.
,11ie book teHs ofTobiaswhO was sent by Tobit his father to
a substantial sum of money from a relative' in Media.
ToW,uwu accompanied by Raphael, the angel of healing; who
bad posed as a relative. Whi1ethe book is written to encourage.a'
pious life ... e.g. 'comider what almsgiving accomplishes and
how (14: 11) - we also catch glimpses of
the-writer's views on our theme..
Onlyone denton' Asmodeus - is mentioned in Tobit and it.is
8le'earliest known mention of him (3: 8). The Persianbackgroutld
tOT.obit that is probably to be equated with
the Persian,demon Qf We knowlittle the
.. save1hat in a fit ofjealoUSYhe haskilled seven successive
-.'J' ,_ 13). The storydoes nOt teU us
, 1 ,
.whether or not Sarah was possessed by thisdemon, only that the .
demon was in Jove with the girl (6: 14). However the use of
inc&IsetGcheckthe trouble may suggest that thegirl tVu thought
.have a case of hysteria-epilepsy' (see Pliny NH 32, 336). The
.entraiI&()fa fish are used for theiJtcense. So Tobias is -
..1
/
/
THE NEW TIlSTAMIlNT. WORLD
When you enter the bridal chamber, you .,haU take live ashes Of
incense and lay upon themsome of the heart and liver of the fish 89"
to make smoke. Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will
never again return. And when you approach her, rise up both of you,
and cry out to the merciful God, and he will save you andhavemen.:t
on yo'll (6: 17f).
Tobias carries out the directiOJ'lS of the angel Raphael
And when the demon smelled the odour he Bed to 'the remotest parts
ofEgypt, and the angel bound him (8:3). .
It is not clear if this is understood as an exorcism - the removal
of a spiritual being from aperson - but the demon is clearly
thought to have been removed from the situation. Alth9ugh ilia
slightly different fashion, again the subjugation Qf the demon, .
Asmodeus, . takes place in two stages. First the .smell of the .
. burning fish causes the demon to flee to the remotest parts of
Egypt. Second, the angel of healing boundtbe demon. Although ..
, the s directions for the control of Asmodeus included the
injunction to pray, it was not until after the demon had fled-.nd
the door of the bridal suite was closed that the couple prayed (8:
48). Thus the prayer does not form part of the 'exorcism'. Instead
it is a prayer of blessing built around Genesis 2: 18 a
. petition for a longlife together - 'GrantthatImayfindmercy'and
maygr?W old together her' (8: !>. the waythe
of Tobit understood this prayer m tefation to the preceding
exorcism may perhaps be found in the way Luke understood the
.story of the wandering spirits (Luke 11: 24-6). That is. after an
unclean spirit has been removed precautions must be taken to
prevent theretum not of one but of ntany spirits (see also Ant. 8:
46-=9 below). . _

, From-the book ofTobit we.see that some Jews of the New .
Testament era believed incense could remove a demon. It.maybe
'important to note that ,this 'exorcism' was a preliminary to the
binding or at least formed the first s.geof the binding of the
demon. The initial command to pray that the effemveness
of this 'exorcism' was thought to depend' to some extent.on
prayer. However, the actual story of the healing shows that
prayer was. prob@.bly more for continuing protection after the
healing. For the writer of Tobit the healer is of little iRteI'estor
imporb:mCe. The 'exorcism' lis thought to be successful not.
. .
r".:,:
\"
,', _. :It
IJet!ause 0t.wh0 performed the,heaJing but because of what'was
:," .
1JIicfanddone. .
:...r.'
. / . This is another important pseudepigraphon composed in the
of century Be (d. 32: 1 and Ant. 16: 62-5r. It
maylegitimately provide a background to the NewTestament not
. 0QlJ. because it was in the Qumran epmmunity's library (2Q lu.b
a
md
b
, 3QJub) but also becauseJubilees may have beenknown by
(see1:23and Rom. 2: 29; Jub. 2: 19 and Rom. 9: 24; Jub. 19: 21
.-'"
an4 4: 13). .
. " For CJW' purpoSes the most important passage is the beginning
10 (d. 4; 15, 22; 5: 1-9). Unclean spirits are said to have
to the sons of Noah causing theDl to err,
(10: 1-3). Thus Noah
his God. .
I . Qjd.of tfle:.sPrits Of an flesh, who
... baSt shown mercy unto me,
ADd hUt savecfmeand my sons from
; , the watersol the flood,
aotcaused me to perishas
, JI'hou didJt the sons of perditic;m;
..&rTbgrace'"been great towanls me, .
. peat has been Thy men.y to my soul;
.... Met Thy grace be lifted upupoJ\ my sons,
".. wicbd spirits ruIe over them
, 'I..-....... shou1d des them from . , .
","",,"- . troy
'. . -. .
.. But doThOu bI8s me and my !!ODS, that we may increase and multiply
o artdrepJmishthe earth. the fathers
oi these spirits (d. Eth. En. 15: Sf) cted in my day: andas fur these
. spirits which are:Jiving, imprison and hold themfast in the place
..... (Jf and let them not bring destruction'on the sons of
, servant, my God; for these are malignant, and created in order to
destroy. An4 them not over the spititsof Jiving; (or Thou
alone aost exercise dominion over them. And let them not have
. over the sons of righteousness f;rQm and for ever- .'
'J'iJOie (10: 3-6). . . . .
',::..,l '. .'
GOdtl\$ direds the angels to birtd aD the demons. lUi
1ft. then!! a plea for mercy; th&;'tirne .frOm the
d\lef' bf the evil spirits, Mastema. In response to this request the
. Lord permitted a tenthof theevil spirits to remain subject to Satan :
on earth, but the rest were in the place of condemnation. '
In order that the sons of Noah could be protected from the evil
spirits and heal diseases
o
the angels were commanded to teach
Noah their medicine. The angels were to teach their medicine tQ .
Noah for the benefit of his sons - 'for he knew that they would
not walk in uprightness' (10: 10). Noah, who 'in his life onearf:h
. . . children of men save Enoch because of the
uprightness, wherein he was perfecti (10: 17; d. 5: 5) uses prayer _ .
to control the demons. On the other hand Noah's sons - presum
ably lesser mortals. - who do not walk inrighteousness are given:
mechanical means to control the evil spirits. Noah is said to write
dpwn all the medicines to be handed on to Shem his eldest and .
most loved soil. (10: 13f). .
Besides the for mercy and leniency and revealing that the.
.writer(s) of Jubilees thought there were two ways of dealing with
demons - prayer and medicines - the passage tells us a number
of other things about views of demons and exorcism in-the New
Testament world. First, as just mentioned, a holy
considered to be able to control and direct the desti,nyof demons
simply by prayer. We shall encounter this impor.tant theme ilgain
on a number of occasions. Sec:;ond, the prayer that is used to
. subjugate the demons begins with a recitation of a histOIy of what.
GOd has done - notably his salvation of Noah from destruction.
Again we shall come across this theme in prayers or incantatiON
in relation control of demons. Third, 10: 3 - 'Lest they
should destroy. them from the earth', seems, like lines we shall
find (below) inthe magical papyri, a mild threat to the God
aid is invoked. Fourth, having prayed that the spirits will be_
bound, Noab then goes on- 'And let them not ruleover the
spirits of the living' (IO: 6). This, like the story in Josephus (Jet!
below) and in Mark 9: 25, appears like a protec;:tive measure to
prevent the return of the evil spirits.
The Qumran Scrolls
The initial discovery of these ancient documents in caves
the north-west coast of the Dead Sea in 1947 was heralded as the
greatest ancient manuscript find of modem. times.
15
Material
ftomjust before-the tUne of Jesus, relating to and even containing
at.least'some portion of every. book of the Old Testament except
J
in Palestine itself has been of iinmense interest to ,
surprisinpy of have ,
,bi!eD. made conc::ernmg tM re1atIDnship betweenChristiamty'and
which these saoUs. However, becauSe
tt\e-scrolls are too early and becauseof the theological differences
tietweerithe two bodies of it is not possible to identify
the Qumran people. Rather what the scrolls do
fthe student of the New Testament, if nothing else, is to help
Soutour pictUre of the world intO whichChristianity came.
'1be Persian influence on Jewish traditions has already been
1DM\tioned. TheJews were predominatelymonotheists yet under
tkie'-infJuence ofPersian angelology and demonology, after Alex
aDder the Great, Jewish traditions show an increasing tendency
'.;\ .
toWards dualism. For example, the Essenes at Qumran believed'
was ruled.' by one of two spirits. 'Those born of truth
iptlngfRmt a fountain oflight, but those of falsehood spring
" fnim a source ()f darkness' (105. 3: 9). And significantly Ute
<.'OIIUllimity Rule continues - 'All.the children of righteousness
by the Prince of Light and walk in the ways of light, but
'.the children of falsehood are role<! by the Angel of Darkness
ahiI;tralkintfteways of darkness' (3: 20).
Bdthisdualismisanlysedmdary inthat inthe first placeit was
God who' d'eeted both these spirits and designed man to live',
QIICtef ttIem -, 'For it is He who created the spirits of Light and
" dafikiBrJand IQunded every action.:upon them and establislu!d
theitlWays]'(lQS. 3:25f). Sointhe storyabout
AIaharnthe exordst'(see below) theevil spirit that was afflicting ,
.......111&said to be &om tl\eoLord. The exercism story does not
'ocequiw the'understandingthat in some way the evil spirit was 'in'
drpoisessing Pharaoh. The writer simply says that the spirit waS
stOUtging Pharaoh'arid that in the healing,was expelled or sent
tfItfaj. This is supported by the Rule saying not that
f-eople who follow the spirit of evil Will be 'possessed' but that
'a multitude of plagues by the hand of all
the destroying angels, eternal torment and encUess disgrace
tOgether with shameful extinction in the fire of the regions'
'" '
'.' , ' ':,Oft the theme of eXOltism an important passage among the
,. 'i!i in the' Genesis Apoctyphon (1 QapGen). It is a
" in:Aramaic of the Genesis story and column 20 is
.."-l5, the storyo{.Abraham'$ wanderings.
At;'dfte:pbfnt it 'l't!CdUrttS 'the courtiers' description of Sarah to
PhaJ'aoh and his taking her 'as his wife. Then - '. ; ; during the!
night the MOSt High God sent a spirit to scourge him [Pharaohl,
an evil spirit to all his household; and it scourged him and all-_.
household.And he was to approach her .. .' (20: 16f).
None of the sages and magicians was able to help Pharaoh.
When he discovered that Sarah was Abraham's wife Abra11Ml
was ordei'ed to leave Egypt. But ,before leaving he was asked to
praytor the ICing. "'. . . now prayfor,me and. my house thatthi..
evil spirit maybeexpelledfrom it;" SoI prayed (lor him). . . and1
hPdtny hands on his (head); scourge departed fromtUai'
and the evil spirit wasexpe1led (from him), andhe Jived' (20:,.:
From the reward Pharaoh gave Abraham it seema: 'that dUa
story is intended to enhance the reputation of Abrahan:!-. We QI\
note then' that 'the exorciSm is successful,primarUy b,ecause of
Abraham and his prayer. But it is also to be noted that
Abraham only asked. to pray for Pharaoh; he also lays haridarill
him as part of the exorcism. . '
, Not all writers in 'the'New 'Testament era un4erstood this
Genesis storyasan exorcism. Philoof Alexandria
that God filled his 'body an4 soul with all 8laf\)\e'r.pf ,
curable plagues. 'All appetite for pleasure was eradicatedamcl
replaced by visitations of the opposite kind, by craVings:lor'
release from the endless tortures which night and day baunbtcl
and mocked him almost to death' (De Abrtdulmo 96). ''l1left. PbifO
uses this to show God's care for Abraham and Sarah's marriase.
and intuma whole nation. Nothingis said of the
The Qwnrari people expectantly envisaged that one day there'
would ,be a battle in which Satan anl1 his host would be defeated.
, ..
... The mighty hand of God shaDbring down [the army"fsatan, lind
aU] the angel,. and aD the members Com of.
... (l QM. 1.15). .
(Be battle of God! For this day is [the time of
the battleoflGod againstaflthe host [and of the judgement
. of} alfBesh. the God of Israel'lifts His hand at'Id HiS
I might) against aU the spirits ofwidcediless (1 QM. 15: 12ftV '.
, .
As a result of this war Satan and hisevil spirits,beiitg driven&vm
the elect, are destined for the Pit which God has prepared for him
(1 QM. 13: 14-14: 1). 1n.ta11dng of the battle as,tne 'Day.of
Revenge' and the resultant eternal deliverance for
ofGod and etetnal for the nations of Wickedl\elsttre .
E8senesat 0wn1'an obviouslysawthedefeatofSatatttUdng'"
'.' 1
.t.
.P
'.

, .
I
"""<.1.,-' .--.---------- .:'
, it _.' r . . ; .. -,:.<;-.'
oUtsi4e theconfines ofhistory. WeshaD need to keep this inmind
as. -we come to discuss the defeat of Satan as it is viewed in the
NewTestament. . .
".
flam-Josephus (c. AD 37 or 8 toC. AD 1(0)
.LibPhilo of Alexandria (see below) Josephus makes no arbitrary
. dllICification of into those which are good and those
. I 1ldUch Me' bad: a demOn can give good fortune as well as cause
'
"
..
-4tattHBll;556;ARt. 16: 76). It isthe activities and work oEa
demon which its nature. A good demon will guide
QMn (Ant ..16:.'210) but an evil demon wiD cause trouble (Bl1: 628;
Ant.1s. 415). Not surprisingly .a demon is. synonymous with
.dl'vine providenCe (e.g. Bl 1: 82; 3:341). Josephus does not
....uy.tell US what he believes about the originofdemons but I!e
.seems to assume that are spiri.ts of the dead still
the affairs. Qi. men (Bl1: 599, W7; 6:47). Of interest to us is
JQIIIePhus' belief that when they possess men demons cause a
'&enrw. in people' (Bl 3: 485; 7: 120, 389). Thus under-. .
. .......people to be able to be 'possessed' or 'taken over' (lamba
by,demons;
..]bebesHmown storyof this is about Eleazar a JeWish exorcist.
11watorytunsasfoUows
la.veMen. certain Eleazar, acountrymanof mine, in the presence of
. VdpUian. hisllOl'lS, tribunes anda number of other soldiers, free men
,.' 'PD'.lsse4 by demons and this was the manner of the cure: he put to
the ROSe of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of
,;tbe'rooIS prescribed by Sol9mon,.nd then, as the man smeBed it,
. out the demonthrough his nostrils, and, when the man at once
feD down, adjured the demon never to come back into him speaking
.. ;6QIbmoa's rwne and nldting.the incantations which he had corn
'.' Pc1l'ben wtebing to COIlviNe the bystanders and prove to them.
, .ihIl hehadthis power, $eezar p1a<:ed. cup or footbasin full of watera .
little wa,;Off andcommandedthe demon, as it went out of the man, to
overturn it and make known to the spectators that he had left the man
(AlIt 8: 46-9). .
. storywelearn a number of things about exorcism
.:-" in, the New.Testament period. First, this story shpws
-practice of eKorcismwas :not confined to Greeks or
were also involved: Eleazar is to be a feUow
-- --!'-.
countryman (i.e, a 'lrideed there is a consider.;
,able amount of evidence Whichsug8estB that the Jews were
renowned for their skills in exorcism (see Magical Papyri and
, the literature associated with Solomon. like the Testament of
SoIOlilon). Second, this story tells us that mechanical or physiCal
aids were used byJews in exorcism: in'this case a iIiget' ring Wifh:
a root under Hs seal. In another place (8T 7: 180ft) JoseplH,ls tells of '
a poisonous plant, the rue (d. Luke 11: 42), which grew in the
grounds of the Herodium palace. He says that the application to
the patient of the root of this plant promptly eXpels the demoft:
Also Plutarch mentions a stone found in the Nile which when
held to the nose of the possessed, expels the demon: (De ,
2, n, 1159d). Third, as in the Gospel the
person falls down dead (d. Mark 9:26, see below). Fourth, the
exorcist the precantionof binding sO that it4oes, '
not return (d. Mark9: 25, see below). not only does
use the finger ring but he also uses Solomqtt's name and over""
man recited incantations attributed toSo1Qmon. Finally, in4er
to demonstrate his powers and prove hisl sucCess as an exorcist_
Eleazar is said to get the demon to overtuqt a-bowl of water. 'Ibis
in the stoJY is often cited a to the epiSode,'
m Mark5, and so we shall have to discuss f more fully In the lWJCt
chapter.
The reason why Josephus tells this 5t is toenhance,the
reputation ofKing Solomon. Thus the 8to ends
And when this was done [the upsetting 0
understancUng and, wisdom of SolOmon ' Ie clearly
accOunt of which we have been induced to peak of these things, in '
order- that all men know the greatness his nature andhowl3od
favoured him (Ant. 8: 49). i
We are told very little about Eleazar - he Q.f little iinpommce
I ..;
the story., As an exorcist he was successful not because' of,. his
reputation, or who he but the techriique$he '.
used. On the other handSolomon'ssuccessagainst the demons is
portrayed in contrast to this.' . '. " , .,',.,
And God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons,EOr
the benefit and healing of me,n. He al$o cOmpose,,.d incantations by
which illnesses are relieved, 'and left behind ferms of exomsm WJ1:h
which those possessed by demonsdtove them out, never to-rettm\ '
(Ant. 43). " ' ", ' . .'
.,
"
',-' :,.
':J-,
th4ttthese methocls stiU being used in his day
, .(AM. 49). Thus we get the impression that there existed,a body
0( Jiterature. Of, better, material" which exorciSts like Eleazar
thought to have used, In the traditions about exoltists '
'!e shall continue to see this broad, though often unclear
.....
,
dist\ndion between exorcists like Eleazar and the legendary

, ,Like others of his time Josephus understood the story of
Qavidrs harp playing to Saul in.l Samuel 16 as an exorcism.
,Joeeph.U5says that
" the [)eity abendoried Saul and passed over to David who, when the
': ISJririt had removed to him, began to prophesy. But as for Saul,
,he beset by strange disorders and evil spirits which caused him
,. lIuffocation strangling that the physicians could devise no
',' other save to order search to be made for one with power to
'" 'Ch.atm away spirits and to play upon the harp, and, whensoever
<, ," the evil'spirits should assail and torment Saul, to have him stand
.. . the Kirigand strike the strings and chant hig songs (Ant. 6:
';166). '
.,1' .
.. .
,-tuaIly DaVid, is 'found; whom Saul is said to hold, in the

, .
c'fer,bit'iIlness was charmed away by him; and against that trouble
caused by the evi! spirits, whensoever they assailed hint, he had
, no other physician than David, who, by singing his songs, and
pI8ying upon' the harp, ,restored Saul to himself (Ant. 6: 168; d.
35-14). '
,nus story alSo tells us a number of important things about
, views on our subject in the New Testament era. First, no longer is
one bllt that many spirits are responsible for the
Second, like the story about Eleazar and Solomon, it is
',toId,to eJ.'lhance'the"reputation of one held to be sldlled in the
<:ontJ'Ol ofevil spirits: here it is not Solomon but David. Although
.musiC and incantations or hymns are used' the success of the
. beaJing is dearly thought to be due to David who was 'one with
PQwer to cru.nnaway spirits' (Ant. 6:(166). So, third, cannote
, m\J.sij both iJ)strumental'and vbcal, was thought useful in
. tbe contrQl. Of demons. ' In,.view of 'SOme of the Psalms
fel;Ueclto David and the use of the Psalms in this period to control
evil SPirits it is probable that Josephus had the Psall!lS in Illind '
. ..:..
(seeabow andd. Ant.7: 305). Fourth, Saurs restoratiOn
is said tobe a 'coming to himself which implies that he had been
'beside hirilself'. This madness, which Mark also 8$SOdated:
with evil spirits, was what Jesus was charged' with in Malt:
3:nf.
. . '
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 Be to AD 45)
The writings of this Greek from Alexandria" whose life
included the period of the origins of Christianity are very Unpplt
ant in almost any study ofthe New Testament, not least because
through his writings, for example, we seehow some people ofthe
period understood the Old Testament. .'
In his book On Giants (6.-31) Pl\iIo argues for the existence-of
demons and goes on to explain what he considers to be the Work
of the. demons. He. says that just as the earth and sea are filled
with life, so also must the air be 'filled with life even though it
cannot be seen. That 1ivingbeings' inhabited the air is proVea by
the air being plague stricken says Philo. That is, on bre.iJthing
the life-laden air 'disastrous pestilences often arise' we gigllff#bus'
10). In order that his, readers should not live in leal; (jf ,
Philo argues ,that.souIs, angels anddemons are merely different
names for the same kinds of beings, flying and hoveringln the
air, yet only having different functions. Souls unite with,the '
bodies of men, and angels are in the service of God helpingOlle
for mortal man. ",'
For his notion of demons Philo takes' as his starting poifit Psalm
77: 49 (LXX) 'He sent out upon them the, anger of His wrath,
wrath and anger and affliction, a mission by evil angels'. Ptiilo
says that these are, the evil class' of spirit cloaIcing
under the name of angels who choqse sOme people to torment,
'taking' (lambflru>n) for example, sight and hearing. Just how: the
evil spirits relate to men is not clear, but as he considers the.. .
the same class as other spirits, ahd by comparing the.adion of
evil spirits with the way he talks'about the spirit.o{ God in the
same context, Philo seems to understand evil spirits as
(lambflniin), 'filling' (empi"lOn), 'descending' (btabainon),into the
body of a person, and, as, we saw a moment ago- 'breathedip',;, ,
It is' interesting 'to note that although Philo wants to equate
angels and demons, the spirits of God cannot long dwell '
with those courted by evil angels (d. Desomniis1: 14Of). . "':
".J
;
<'
.<
.
,"' PteUdG-Phllo'sLiberAntlquitatunt BibHcanUlI.'(LAB)
ThIs;wmk of sixtyJive chapters, one of which is quoted in full
',beloW, was probably written by a Jew towards the end of the fIrst
century AD. That the work carries its present title is probably
,because the text is found in manuscripts with genuine writings of
, Pbilo. The, title Antiquitatum is probably derived from comparing
,LAB withJosephus' writing theAntiquities ofthJ! Jews. 'Biblican:un'
seems to have been attached to LAB in the Renaissance. 17
In relating the storY of David Pseudo-Philo also rewrites 1
Samuel 16. '
,And at that titi\e the spirit oHhe Lord was talcenaway from Saul, and
-. an evil spirit oppressed [literally, choked] him. And Saul sent and
f '
. "1eU:hed David, andhe playeda psalm upon his harp in the night. And '
, ,this is the psalm he sang unto Saul that the evil spirit might depart
, from him. , '
" .' 'there were.darkness and silence before the world was, and silence '
,,'spoke, and the darkness became visible. And then was thy name,
'created, ev!" at the drawing together of that which was stretched
whereOf the upper was called heaven and the lower was called
, earth. And it was' commanded to the upper that it should rain
"aamdingto its to the lower that it should bring forth
, ' fIlOdfm: that (should be) made. And after that was the tribe of
., made.
,.' .Now, therefore, be not injurious, whereas thou art a second creation,
_t if not, then remember Hell [literally, be mindful of Tartarus]
Wherein thouwalkedllt. Or is it not enough for theeto hear that by that
whida resoundeth before thee I sing,unto many? Or forgettest thou
"that aut of a.rebounding echo in the abyss [or chaos] thy creation was
,..1 But that I\ew womb shall rebuke thee, lam born, of
..vttom shalt be born after a time of my loins he that shaD subdue you.
, 'And when DIlvid sung praises, the spirit spared Saul (LAB 60).
" ,
:Jtisnotable that nolonger is theevU spirit said to come from the
Lorcl- no mention is made of the origin of the evil spirit. Where
. .' in Josephus' story' of the, healing, words and music were
impOrtant in driving out the demon, here the words or inean
tadoRs' ate of utmost importance, to such an extent that the
:imp.cJttance of Davidre.eedes,' into the background., A most
" inlpOrtant rontn"bution 01' this story to, our understanding, of
. ex<m:bmin the NewTestament erais the psaImthat Davidis said
terecite.The psalm begins with a brief'history' of creation, the
whichistoshow that the-demons wereoroyofsecondary
ThispJaces:theexordstusi!'8.thepsm. ina poeiti4lt\ . , .
of superiority over the demons so that he can order the demon
not to injUre the patient. The demon isalso threatened with the ' .
memory of hen and withhis final destruction. '
This last point,' the,final end of.the demons, isalso animporQllt. '
contribution to the views on the demons inthe period. 1bepsaIas
looks forward to the time when someone in the Solomonic,lfne:
will subdue the demons. Although this is expressed in ,t;be
context of an exorcism it is not actually said how .the Solomonic
figure was expected to subjugate tt:'e evil spirits. '
The Magical Papyri18
'The many volumes of ancient papyri that, have been, and
tinue to be published are contributions to0Ul'
knowledge of the NewTestament world. For example the 'ptpyI'i
shed light on industrial relations (P. Oxy. 275), marriage (p. '
E1eph. 1; BGll. 905; 1052), divorce (BeU.' 975, 11(3), $OCial ,
conditions and relations (P. Stras.637; P. Oxy. 37; BGU. 596;,P.
Tebt. 33; 58. 10799; P. Cairo Zen. 59092; CPR. 20), economics'(P;
Oxy. 1439;P. Tebt. 35,40; BGll. 1079), politics (P. Oxy. 38;3:0;
BGU. 2221-8; 2304-25; 2326-7; P. Lond. 1912) and, bynomeens
least of aD, the religious milieu ofearlyChristianity (p. - ,
1211; SEC 821; 1356: 1; NO.3; P. Tebt. 276, 294). SomeoUhe
papyri can be categorised as 'magical' in that they provide ,
scriptions or spells for the preternatural control of man's
ment (p. Oxy. 886,1478; SEG. 1717 (lead table,t. . "
More specifically some of the incantations seek to control evil;
the gods, demo.ns, or sickness. These recipes oftenhave, a supet"' .
scription like 'An excellent practice [praxis] for casting Out
IoUSR] demons' (PGM IV: 1227; d. V: 171)..The so-called Testa
ment of Solomon was also written so that the readers 'znigIIt
knOw the powers otthe demons and their fonns;as wellas the
names of the angels by which they are thwarted' (15: 14). And . '
there are, throughout the document, prescriptions for thecontrol
of specific c:iemons. However, this Testament, while 1,lt:ilisinga
variety of traditions, has either been written or heavily rect.ctBd' ,
bya Christian.19 Thus any use of the Testament to help fiB out tae
. background to the New Testament world must give due c:Qn..
sideration to thepossible Christian origin of manyof the ideaJ,.(d..
TSoI12: 1-3; 17: 4f; 22: 20).
'. ...... " ..-.'
.-;-.:: .
" ,
. '.Despite the, potential of the papyri for our subject
niatively little use has been made of them. This has been princi
" pIIlybecause most .of these documents are later than the first
century AD and few of them are from Palestine. Nevertheless the
, - both geographically and through time - of
. .
> "ideast forms andexpressions in the magical papyri means that
hla:terand papyri canoftenbe used to illustrate
heMin first-century (AD)Palestine.
20
. ,
,'. :.Tbe8e documents are pragmatic; little interested in theoretical
detttonologyexcept where it contributes to the control of the evil
spirits. little is said about the origin of demons - in some of
the papyri were expressly written so that the user could discover
'. ,)
the origin of particular demons. Such knowledge was thought to
give power over the demon (d. PGM VIll). PGM IV: 3037ff has
these'lines a demon's.nature and origin. 'For I
adjuIe ypu by the seal which Solomon laid upon the tongue of
}eftsniafl and he spake. And saywhatsoever you are, in'heaven,
otonearth, or under the earth or below the ground . . :
, '1'heTestament of Solomm,. also tells us somethingabout where .,
aildent man thought demons lived - in precipices, caves,
aMnes (4: 4), comers ofho'uses (7: 5), near the moon (15: 4),
awngthe stars and in the air (20: 11-17; d. PGM IV: 27OOff).
These evil spirits were thought to harm tnen not only by 'posses
...' but also by 'fire, or by sword, or by chance' (fSol20: 13).
. 'lhemethods sel out in the papyri for castingout, or controlling
(if it was a 'free-ranging' spirit - PGMIV: 3;087), were various.
'I'bere are instructions for making amu1ets-'... write this phyl
aderyupona piece.oftin ... andhangit round the sufferer: it is of
'every etemon to be trembled at, whichhe fears' (PGM IV:
'" ,3Ol4ff; d. TSo118. 16). '
. Someof the papyri givelongincantations and directions for the
...asts(d.PGM IV: 3007-86; V: 99-171)'while other suggested
are very brief like 1'50118: 5- 'Should I [the demon}
-.ro.niy, :'Midaael, iinprison Raux", I retreat immediately' (d.
"
, H;6f). '
,; ,Despite the variety of the papyri designed to be used in
a patteJ'I\ Qr form of exorcism becomes apparent on
so we are a1?le to build a picture of the
. 'lItaIYdingand practice of exorcism presupposedin these texts. - '
':FiMdbe exorcist; who has to follow the incantations closely,
....by calling up.the god or power-authoritybe was to use in
pPeUing the denton. An incantationin PGM Vbegins 'I
. -:-:
. --I!...--
--- .....
--- . --,
, ..
-.,. '-.--.'
the headless one ... hearnte and drive awilythis spirit'-(V: 9IJff; ,
, /
d. P. Warren25f). "
But second, these incantations reveal that the exorcists had great
difficultyin gaining the support of the power-authorities
258ff; XIII: 242ft; P. Warren 25ft). SofoUowing the initial call tothe
god several devices were to identify and procure the assist
ance of a god. One device was the use of a descriptive history of:
the activities and accomplishments of the god who was beifts
invoked. Thus having made an initial call to the god the incan
tation in PGM V: tOOff continues - ' .
You are Osoronnophris, whom no one has ever &een,youare !abas, .
you are Iapas, you separated the righteous,nd unrighteous,. you
made female and male, you produced seeds and mits, you made men,.
love each other and hate each other (d. IV: 3033; V: 136ft and LAB-60,
quoted above).
This description may have been thought to flatter the god or,
perhaps it is evidence that knowing the god's name and histmy
meant having power overit. The were also used to
force and threaten the power-authority into service. Thus- P.
Warren begins
You are the fire that is set beside the great god,'
Osor(on]nophris Osor [... 7]; you ministered to him when he feU in
love with his ownsister Senephthys ... Therefore minister to me NN,
in regard to NN, or else I will utter the eight letterS of the IJl()On ,
and if I am about to speak and you have departed, I will go within the
gates round Dardaniel and will shake the foundation of the eilfI:h. . .
(11. 2-14). . ' ,
Besides using threats the exorcists ass1,lmed the guise of a figure
who had a reputation indealing with demons. In PGM V: 99ft, the "
exorcist first identifies himself with Moses - 'I am Moses your'
prophet' - and then with an angel - 'I am the angel of Phapro
Osoronnophris.' "
Third, as some of these quotations show, the exorcist either
used the god to expell'the demon with words like ' ... I adjure -
you by ...' (PGM IV: 3033), or calls ort the god to perform: ttle
expu1sion(PGM V: 132ft). ' " '
Fourth, tlle exorcist seeks to protect the sufferer from a recur
rence of the sickness by'sending the demon away (see, e.g.; PGM
IV: 1248, quoted below). '
, .
, lj". "'-? "lo';
',r
l
"'.:
./
. -
;/
41
'Around. !his fourfold pattern:of. inVoctltion, (of
. power-authority),command and protettion there were other Un- .
pertant features of the exorcisms. First, the vocalized incanta
tIefta sormttimes attended by 5OIl\e physical performance.
PGMIVI3007ffhas -: 'Takeoilmadefrorn unripe olives, together
with::the'plantmastigia and lotus pith, and boil it with marjonun
{ (Yel'Ycolourless) saying ... come out of this person . ..' PGMV:
16U.has the direction to put the' papyrus with the names of the
poWer...uthority across the forehead and tatum to the north and
.;'-
.
-,
"
n!peat the incantation (d. P. Warren 52, PGM XXXVI passim).
. Second, in virtually all incantations or recipes for exorcism
special words and sounds were used. The vowel sounds .weN
popular,. either repeated one after the other or assembled to form
pIltetNl and'Shapellon amulets. P. Wanoen 104ff has the pattern
Of the vowels
aeeiouo
eeioua
eiouo
ioua
ouo
uo
o
.And PGM V: 83-89 has
a
e e
e e e
iii i
eeeee
eeeeee
aaaaaaa
SOmetimes aline of vowels is used, also as in PGM V: 81- .
aeeeeeiiiiooOoouuuuuuooooooo.
I Abrasax' is a word that is often found in the incantations
. PGM V:.l43) like 'AblanathanciJba'.
Fotecample - 1adjure you with bold.rash words: }acuth,
", ','"
,.
AbJanathanalba, Aaa1nm' (PGM IV: 3028ff).
/
.
A third feature of these exorcisms was the use of hor1ciz.6-and
exorkizO. These words occur in the New Testament {hor1dztJ: in
Mark 5: 7 and Acts 19: 13; exorkizO in Matt. 26:63; d. exorlci$tls
('exorcist') in Acts.19: 13) and usually translated
and RSV) or 'charge' (NIV). For their use in the New Testameht .
and in the papyri it is clear they interchangeable (d. Sl!Ct
1717: 5 and 11) and synonymous. The context of the words is
usually in the formulae 'I adjllre you by , .. [some power-
authority]' (see PGM N passitn).The meaning is, then, not '1
or 'I plead' or even 'collUnand' (d. Acts 19: 13 in the NIV) but 'I
bind you by; . .' (note Mai'k 5: 7).21. _
Though later (second century AD), andusing Christian i4eas, a
pagan incantation now part of PGM N is a good.example ofa
recipe for exorcism in the magical papyri which exhi15itsmanyoi
. the characteristics of the notions of exorcism in the papyri.
An excellent technique for casting out demons. An incantation to Say
over the head of the person. Put olive branches before him and stand
behind him and say: 'Hail spirit of Abraham; Hail spirit of Isaac; Hail
spirit ofJacob; JesUs the Christ, holy spirit ... drive out the devil fI'6IIl
this person until this unclean demon of Satan shall flee before you.. l
bind you, demon, whoever .you are, by the God Sabarbarbathialh;
Sabarbarbathiouth; Sabarbarbaphai. Come out
demon whoever you are, and leave this person at once, now.
Come out demon becauseI chAin youWithadamaritine chains nottobe
loosed and I hand over to the black chaos for destruction (PGM IV:
. 1227-48). .
Finally to be noted is' the' function and importance df. the
exorcist. From these texts it is clear that what is important are the
words and performance set out in the incantations. The exorcist is
of no more importance than a means of setting the instruments of
preternatural control in operation. .
Lucian of Samosata (c. 120-c. 180 AD)
Lucian was born in Samosata in Commagene; perhaps having
Jewish ancestors. He started a career as-a sculptor; appreJllticed to
his uncle, but soon gave it up for rhetoric: theoretically a vocation
similar to a lawyer, but in actuality Lucian went aboutspeakingin
publicto amuse the educated class. What he says about demons, .
\ pOSsession, exorcism and exorcists cannot be used directly to teU

, people, were thinking and doing jn fint-eel\tury
, However, he does represent ,the IllOre
populace of the world. and does, as we shall see,
teIlthe story ohPalestinialtexorcist. . .
the most swprising and interesting point about Lu
, frQm our that we gather from him that not aU
of his contemporaries believed in spirits - good or evil His book
Philopseudes (that is, TMIpver ofLies, or TM Doubter) is a conversa
tionamcernil)g the supernatural which is reported by Tychiades
t(> Phijodes to show how mendacious and credulous people are.
After one story (Philops. 16, quoted below) Eucrates says, 'Have
not many others eru;:ounlered spirits, some at night and some by
4aY? -F9r myself, I have things, not merely once but
h.undreds of timeli' (Philops.l7). Then, later, at one point
in the conversation, a certain a Pythagorean, enters
,'WhatweJeYOUdebatingjUIlongyourselves? As I came Ql I overheard
"you"and it seented to mtl that you were on the point of giviJtg a fine
:,,tQm to the conversation!' !
" . 'We are only trying to persuade this Jnan of adamant', said Euaates,
peintirig at me, 'to believe that spirits and phantoms exist, and that
Souls ofde<td men go about above ground and appear to whomsoever
":tbey, will,' I, flushed and my eyes out of reverence, for
EUq'ates,' he said, 'Tychiades means that only
.the p.tsof thOse who died by walk, for example, ifa IJWl
.,.bMged himself, or had his head cut off, or WCl$ crucified, or departed
life in some similar way; and that those of men who died a natural
death do not. If that is what he means, we cannot altogether reject
, what he says'. 'No, by Heaven', repliedDeinamachus, 'he that '
Such things do not exist at aU, and are not seen in bodilY form.'
" that you say?' Arignotus, with a sour look at me. 'Do
you think that none ofthiese things happen, although everybody, I
",
. tti& say, Sees them?' ,. , , ", I
in my defence,' said I, 'if I do not believe in them, that I am
the 'only one of all who does not see them; if I saw them I should
believe in them, of course, just as you do' (Philops. 29f).
-: ., As ewience, Arignotus tells the story of how, in the house of
. ,.
. BuRticiesil'tCorinth, he,exhumed a spirit and drove it away,
, making the- house habitable;, '"
.: ....
, . :', and I tookmy books 'T I have a great number of Egyptian works
" ,-*'-tS1&Cb:matterJ - and into house atbe<i-.time, although
-'c'
.
.Y"t
.'
tried to disauade,meand
- \.
aU but held me
"
when he Jeamed
, , "
THE NIW TBSTAMINT WORLD
where I was going - with my eyes opm,he thought.
But taking a lamp I went in in the largest room put @wnthe
light and was reading peacefully, seated on the ground, when the ' 1,
, spirit appeared, ,thinking that he was setting UPOIl a man of, the
common sort and to affright me as hehad the others; he was
squalid and long-haired and blacker than the dark. Standing over
he made attempts upon,me, attacking me from all sides to see if he
could get the best of me anywhere, arid turning now into a dog, now
into a bull or a lion. But I brought into play my most frightful
imprecation, spealdngthe Egyptianlanguage, pent him upinacertain
comer of a dark room, and laid him. Then, having observed where he
went d6wn, I slept for the rest of the night (Philups. 31). ' ,
Arignotus continues his story by saying that the next day he
gathered some assistants and returned to the house, to the place
'where he
... had seen that the spirit had gone down and told them to take picks
and shovels and dig. When they did so, there was found buried about
six feet deep a mouldering body of which only tht! bones lay together
,in order. We exhumed and buried it; and the house from that time
ceased to be troubled by the phantoms (Philops. 31). '
But Tychiades is unconvinced and even after more stories still
concludes, probably representing Lucian's view - '
WeD, never mind, my dear fellow; we have a powerful to '
such poisons (the stories) in the truth and in sound reason brought to
bear everywhere. As long as We makeuse'of this, none Of these empty
, foolish lies will disturb our peace (Philups. 40).
These stories in Lucian's Lover of Lies show, mostimportaritly,
for our study (see chap. V below), that despite being ip a .
'pre-scientific' world, not everyone believed in spirits
toms. Those who did, apparently even the most intelligent,. are ,
shown to think that they are the spirits of the dead. These spirits,
'are even pictured as 'squalid and long-haired and blacker than ,
the dark ... and turning now into a dog (d. Tobit), now into
a bull or a lioli' (d. 1'501). The spirits are combated by special
incantations kept in books and their proper use - here in the
Egyptian language - seems to be part of the power of the words.
But alongside the power of these words the 'charismatic'power
of the- seems to be of some importance. Although
Arignotus subdues the demon by incantations' and his own
.. ,.:

: , .
j .' .-
.. >"
,
,.
, \
...
personal forte it IS thought-that only after the 'body'
:Of spirit' has been exhumed and buried elsewhere that the

One storythat is of special interest in this conversationis where
I(Ml says -, II
.V_act ridiculously ... to doubt eVerything. For my part, I should
like to you what yousey to those who free men from
their terrors by exOfcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss
_ e\'el'yO(leknows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in
it,22 how manyhe takes inhand who fall downinthe light of the moon
/ and J:01l their eyes and tm their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he
'. them .to health and sends them away normal in mind,
them from their straits fOra large fee. When he stands
_beSide them as they lie there and asks: 'Whence came YQu into1lis
body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or
of foreign country he comes from, telling
, liqw; and whence he entered into the whereupon, by adjuring
{lItIftous) the.spirit and if it does not obey, threatening him, he drives
..him QUt. Indeed,.! actuaDy saw one coming out, black and smokey in
colour (Philops. 16).
-of ElJCmtes' response to this story is to say that he is not
/iiibteDed. by spirits, not only because he has seen many of
them- but because, be says, 'an Arab gave me the ring made of
irOJi from crosses and taught me the spell of many names'
(lIJPldpJ.l7). .'
/,L..number of points arise out of this stQry that tell us something
of exorcism in particu1arin the New period. The
'possession' is described as causing the sufferers' eyes to roll and
theiJ mouths to froth. The Palestinian exorci$t is said to charge a
large fee for his services. His is said to involve standing
over dte who is prostrate on the ground. At this .point
there. adialogue betweenthe exorcist and, not the sufferer, but
the.-mon, who speaksin the language'of his place oforigin. The
enlbles the exorcist to debtmrlne how and whence
the demon the- person. The n?thod'of exorcism is for
. bind (hQrkous see pp. 61f) the spirit to, drive it out. If
... not obey, the demon is threatened. From
fOIl9ws. this story, in words of Eucrates, we gather that the
mi,ght be &oma store of incantations of names. With
PGMV: 26;...'pronounce "0" shortly for
apilitUal threatening'.

. 'DIE NBW TliS'rAMllNTWORLD
of Tyana (died c. 96-9AD)
Our knowledge of Apollonius comes from abiography written of
him by the philosophetFlavius Philostratus (c. 17O-C: 245 AD)
who was in the circle of philosopher-friends around Empress
JuliaDomma (Life I: 3). The stories we have of Apolloniusare,
then, about a century removed from the events behind the
reports. From an analysis of the way Philostratus portrays
ApoIlonius,23 in relation to our theme, it seems probable thatthe
stories heighten the simplicity of Apollonius' technique and the
lriirades may or are made to be, Thus we need to
uSe these second- and third-eentury stories with care and hesi
tancy as we seek to gain insight into the first-eenturi worJd of
Apollonius of Tyana. There are several stories in the Life of
Apollonius that relate to our theme (e.g., Life II: 4; ill:.38; IV: 10, 20,
25) from which we choose a representative sample.
The best-known story is from Ufe IV: 20.
Nowwhile he was discussing the question of hbations, there challftd
to be present in his audience a young, dandy who bore so evil a
reputation for licentiousness, that his conduct haP. long been the
subject of coarse His home was COK)'l"a, and he
traced his pedigree to Aldnous the Phaeacian who entertained Oclys- '
seus. Apoll()nius then was talking about libations, and was 1irging
them not to drink out of a particular cup, but to reserve itfor the gods,
without ever touching it or drinking out of it. But when he also urged
them to have handles on the cup, and to pour the libation over the
handle, because,that is the part of the cup at whiCh men are least likely
to drink, the youth burst out into loud and coarse laughter, and'quite
drowned his voice. Then Apollonius looked up at him and said:"Itis
not yourseH that perpetrates this insult, but the detnon, who drives
you on without knowing it.' And in fact the youth was, Without
knowing it, possessed by a devil; for he would laugh at things that no
one else laughed at, and then he would fall to weeping for,no reason
at all, and he would talk and sing to himseH. Now most J"OPle'
thought that it was.the boisterous humour of youth which ledhim.into
such excesses; but he was really the mouthpiece of a devil, it
only seemed a drunken frolic in which on that' occasion he was
indulging. Now .when ApoUonius gaz/it.d on hiin, the ghost In',him .
began to uttercnes of fear and rage, suCh as one hears frOm
who are being branded or racked; and the ghost swore that he woUld
leave the young man alone and never take possession of any Dtan
again. But ApoHonius addressed him with anger, a master nUghta.
shifty, rascally, and shameless slave and so on, and he ordered hi!J1 to
quit the young man and show by a visible sign that he had <loae so. 'I
'ViII throw down yonder said the devil, and pointed to Ql\e of
Unagei which were in the lang's portico, for there it was that the
took place. But when the statue began by moving gendy,. and
then feU down, it would defy anyone to describe the hubbub which
..;thereat and the way they clapped their hands with wonder. But
theyoung man rubbed his eyes as if he had just woke up, and he
IooJi;ed tOwards the.rays of the sun, and won the consideration of all
-who now had turned their attention to him; for he no longer showed
himselflicentious,nor did he stem! madly about, but he had returned
.'
. ownself; as thoroughly as- ifhj! hadbeen treated withdrugs; and
he gave up his dainty dress and summery garments and the of
hUJ sybtic way of life, and he fell in love with the austerity of.
,'pbilceophers, and dopned their cloak, and stripping off his old seH
inOdeI1ed hislifein future upon that of Apollonius.
..An historical analysis of this story, however; only
distress of the demon/demoniac and'the simple technique
(including the C(,>mmand that the demon should not take pos
, session of the boy again) probably reflect views on possession
,-'<!'e'Xordsni of the historical-Apollonius.
story to which we can draw attention is inLife m: 38.
. ," .
{'Ole},'.' -,' by. the the sages
, '
,of the. m certain Indians whQ were m want pf
f, ..4ti"QYVAiiCf ught forward a poor woman who iritercedeci in
1 beNlf of her child, whQ was; she said, a boy of years of age,
\lu! bee" 9r years pollsessedby a devil. Now the character of
. of a mOcker and a liar. one of the sages asked,
. why she, and she replied:. 'This child of.mne is
" ..... and therefore the devil is amourous of himand Will not
... ...,.1Umto retain his reason, nor will lie permit him to go to school,
....
.or.to learn archery, nor even to remain athofJle, buJ drives him out
into And theboydoes not evenretainhis own voice, but
'.'$peab ina deep h9Ilowtone;as men do; and he looks at you with
eyes rather than with his own. As t'or myseHI weep over all this,
andI tear my cheeks, and I rebuke my son 80 far as I w.ell may; but he
. ,.riot me. And I made up my mind to repair hither, indeed I
:. to do a year ago; only the d.emon discovered himseH, using
:.JAY child a mask,. and what he told me was that he the
. ' ,0.
.'
of a man, wh6 fell long ago in buftllat at death he was
>... " .to his wife. Now he had been dead fOr only
.ifttee. <laYS when his wife insulted their union by marrying another
Iiwt, andthe Consequenee was that he had come to detest the love of
and lladtransferred himseH whOlly intp this boy. But he
',pmiPi&ed, if I would only' not denounce yourselves, to endow
. . - '"
49- .
the child with mmynoble-blessings. As for myaelf, twas iidlueldd
by these promisesj but he has put me- off and offfor such a bigtime
now, that he has got sole control of my household, yet has no hoMst
or true intentions.' Here the sage asked afresh, if the boy was at'handj '.'
and she said not, for, although she had done all she could toget hiD'l to
come with her, the demon had threatenedher. with steep places
precipices and declared that he would kill her son, 'in case,' fJhe
added, 1 haled him hithet10r trial.' 'Take courage,' said the sage, 'for
he will not slay him when he has read this: And so saying he drew a '
letter out of his bosom and gave it to the womanj and the letteti it.
appears, was addressed to the ghost and. contained threats of an
alarming kind.
Philostratus has obviously told this, as well as the laststory, to,
enhance the reputation of Apollonius. From the story we can
glean the ideas that in, Apollonius' time possessed peoplewel'e .
thought to speakin strange voices, apparently that of the demon,
that the person could lose his reason, become solitary, that th4!
eyes could appear unnatural, that the' sufferer found' confron
tation with the ex0rci5textremely difficult, and that violence was
probably involved. Exorcism was thought possible at a
and through incantations written down. .
The Rabbinic Material
great difficulty of discussing the sayings, stories and. i4eas
relating to, say,first-qmtury Palestinianrabbis is that mosfof the
which had a long tradition-history, was
to writing untilaround the fifth century .and later. In .theBatiy
Talmud, for example, there are a great many refenmceS to
demons, possession and means ()f protection.
24
But very Httle of
this material can be dated, with any degree of certainty,
find: century or there is very little
\I$e with any confidence. . . ". .
.j:
is SQII!!! ttlaterial.that is relevant because it is assisnec:t.to
..'
rabbi 1ike Johanan benZakkai.
2S
He is said to hAve a
dil'ecliori for that resembles elements in Tobit 6: 8, 'rake.
roots with berbS, bum theIl\ Q.nder him (the sufferer),
him with water, whereupon the spirit wilJ. flee' (PR. 4(1,).
1'hi$ relies observance of a particular
The water was probably thoughuo,give the demon a habitat into,
whichit could transfer. Onthe other handbOthRabbi Simeonben .'
. ",
. ,"'.
'
59:
,\ )
Yobai aDd Rabbi EleazarbenYose are said to perform an exorcism
with the simple and, direct command to the demon - 'Ben
/.:- -Temalion, get out! Ben Temalion,get out!' (b. Mell. 17b).
;'lheseexordsts were successful not because ofany recipes they
uied but because of theirown personal force which was thought
,') tol'e respected and feared by the demons. '
Finally we can note a story related to I;lanina ben Dosa from
Galilee at the tum of the first arid second centuries AD. The story
soes" that l;ianina was out walking one eveningwhen he was met
by Agrath, the queen of the demons. She said - 'Had they not
.made an announcement concerning you ill heaven, "Take heed
of l;Ianina and his learning", Iwould have put you in danger.'
I::faJlina replied - 1 I am of account inheaven, 1order you never
. topass through settled regions' (b. Pes. 112b). Agrath pleads for
. and is permitted freedom on Sabbath and Wednesday
niahts.
. ,this'story is further evidence of the belief in the New Testa
. mentworld that conversations with demons were possible.
Again(see above) we see a demon pleadingfor mercyor leniency.
Itis to be noted that thebasis upon which I;Ianina is thought tobe
able tocOI)trol the demons is his standing in heaven, that is, his
powei-authority is God. '

As.-a final contribution to answering the question asked at the
beginning of this chapter we need-to discover how people of the
anqent world understood 'magic'. More specifically we need to
ask about their-views on magic in relation to healing, particularly
exorcism: In the two centuries that followed the publication of the
Gospels .there were debates between the Christians and their
detractors on whether or not Jesus was a magician. It is .,JP-,"
hOm. -what now remains of these debates that we can glean r
5OIJ\ethingof the ancient notions of magicin relation toexorcism.
- ", Perhaps the clearest example is a discussionrelating to magicin f
., .' Ottpm's Contra Celsum. Origen, the A1exandriantheolopn,
writing in AI) 248 quotes his opponent as saying - 'it was by
'1JUl8ic that he Uesus) was able to' do the miracles which
to have done' (I: 6). Farther on Origen again
":' who puts Jesus and the disciples on the'level , ...
'" Witl't
"
. '
51
... the worb of $Om!reI'S whoprofess to.do wonderful miracles, Mid.'
the accomplishments of those who lift taught by the EgyptianS; who . ,
for a few oboIs make known their sacred lore in the middle of
market-place and drive daemons out of and blow awaydisease8
and invoke the souls of heroes, displaying expensive blmqueb and .
dining tables 'and cakes and dishes which are and who
make things Dlove as though they were alive although they are
reaDy so, but only apPear as such. in the imagination (I: 68). "
l - i
The notion of magic that is implied here by Celsus, -and which
-r.-
Origen accepts, is that a magician's work is not 'real' bUt only
appears to be what it seems. ' " .
The same idea is found in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with TTYPho: '
where in chapter 69 he asserts that Jesus - 'healed those whO
were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their . ,.
raiSed the dead, anc:l caw:ie[d] them to live ... But though ,
saw suchworks theyassertedit was magical art. For they
call him a magician. . .' This comes in the c<mtext ofa diScussion
of counterfeit miracles and Justin's argument for Jesus' not 'being,
a magician isthe reality of the miracles.' ." '",.
We Can compare this statement of Justin's witl) one 'froJri
Quadratus. In his History of the Church, Eusebius, the
Caesarea, preserves a fragment of the work of Quadratus 'the

But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were tIUe,
those whowere cured, those who rose from'the dead, whonot merely ,
" .appeared as cured and risen, but wereconstandy present, only
'while the.Saviour was living, bdteven for some time aftethe had'
gon.e; sothat some ofthemsurviVedeven till our own time (HE 4:3: 2).
Although we know nothing of the original context of this trag".,
ment'there are sufficient affinities our quotationfrom'.tiIl
.that it is probably reasonable to suppose that Quadratasis
, countering the idea that Jesus was a magician where that tam,
to the reality and permanence of the feats. . , .
Conclusioiu
Weanreturn to the question withwhich webeganthischaptet - '
Whiltdid peopleof the New Testament world thhrkflbout sum thingr;-IIS
, spirits, denitms, 1tIIlgic, -haling, hmlers, exorcism _
, '. .
. 1
aorcists?As a zesult of our survey of the more important Q1aterial
"
':
.
that can be shown to represent the thinking and practice on ' l ".
exoism in the world of Jesus and the early Christians we can
aftSWerour question by noting five points.
. . . First, exorcism was not a practice restricted either to Palestine
or the first century or so-called age of the Messiah. Exorcism has
been seen to be both very ancient arid wide spread. Thus, for
example; it is not possible to say that demons were particulilrly active in
age of the Messillh.A survey of the literature shows no such
~ ~ . .
SecOnd, in the period in which we are particularly interested
exorcisms seem to have been thought to be successful for,
bJoadly, two reasons. . .
(a) Some writers obviously believed that exorcists, or those who
stibdueddemons, were successful because of who they were; the
personal force of the individual exorcist was the operative factor
in the sUccess of the healing or defeat of the demons. l:he
powerful individual is not always an 'historical' figure. Noah in
JUbilees, AbrahamintheGenesis Ap..OC1Y.P..hon, DavidinJosephus
~ Pseudo-Philo/-. and Solomon in Josephus and the Magical
fapyri (d. TSol.) can best be described as mythical or legendary
GPswho, because of theesteeminwhich they were held, were
assumed' to be able to fight and subdue the unseen, elusive
spirit-enemies. Other powerful individuals like Apollonius, R.
Simeon ben Yohai, R. Eleazar ben Yose and l;Ianina ben Dosa,
though attaining legendary status and stories of them having
legendary features, could be called 'historical' in that'they were
probably successful exorcists in the New Testament world. ,The
techniques these exorcists were reported to have used involved
little other than a conversation with the demon or, as in the.case
of R.. Eleazar ben Vase and R. Sbneon Yohai, a Simple direct
~ .to the demon to leave the person. Because. of the
aDicie1lt notion of the sigNficance of and power in names, the
names of theseexordsts, both legendaryand historical were ue.ed
by later exorcists in their incantations as the Magical Papyri .
suggest.
' .. >
(b) 5(}, on the other hand, we have reports or evidence of
-.exorcisms where the individual healer is oflittle or no signifiCance
iIrthe exorcismor control of the.evil spirits. The clearest examples
axe ,the Magical Papyri .which give numerous incantations for
exorcism in which the healer is of no importance in the success of
the exorcism. The Rabbinicmateria1 also contains similar mate
" .. '
.;
" ''','
rial. Froma sbldy of theMagical Papyri were able to
pattern exorcisms which depend.not on.the;.
exorcist on the technique inv.olving
andaids. The list of possible aids or devices used in the exoi'dama
seems to have been lengthy - e.g., incense of 'burning fish.,'
oil of unripe olives, amulets of silver; plant roots,. finger,'
rings. stones, lotus pith. .. . '. .
In between these two extrellles we have stories in Tobit, .
Jubilees, Josephus and,Lucian in which both exorcist and teeh-
. nique. appear important, forming a preternatural.partnership to
effect the successful control of the evil spirits. _
_ Third, we can drawattention to a number offeatures ofbelief in
demons in the New Testament world. (a) The most interesting
feature, which we will take up in discussions in Chapter V, is that,
riot .everyone in the ancient w:orld believed m.either demons or
exorcism. (b) There was little tUscussionofthe origin ofdemons.
but they were often thought to have been spirits of the dead.
josephus, L1,lcian, Philo and the Testament of Soloman give
helpful into views on the understanding of theworit ctf
demons, but there was little interest indefiningY{hether the spirit
'pos5eSsed' or 'Qbsessed' or otherwise might be thpught to relate
toaperson.(c)lnmoreanciWltmaterial(e.g..
evil spirits were c::lirecdy to God. However- in the
period around the birth of Christianity some writers seem.less
happy to attribute the evil spirits and their work directly to God;
For-example Pseudo-Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls no longer say
that the evil spirit came from God. However, while not attribut
ing the evil direc:tly to God the Dead Sea Scrolls avoid.thorough
going dualismby sayingthat althougheveryone is ruled either by
. the spirit of light or the spirit of darkness it was God who <
ordained such an economy.
Fourth, of particular importance to this study are the notions .
we have seen on the defeat of evil. In Isaiah 24: 21 and EthioPic
Enodt 10: 4-6 (see also. 10: 12; 18: 14-1'9: 2; 21: 6f; 90: 23ft; Jubilees
5: 5-10; 10: 5-9) the view is that the deteatof evil is to placein .
two stages. In Ethiopic EnochandJubilees the first part orstage 0{
the defeat is portrayed as having alread taken place in Ule
heavenly with the co-operation of legendary. earthly
figures. The final stage of the defeat is expected in the eschaton.
In Isaiah 24:.21 both stages of the defeat are still awaited.' In'
Jubilees 10: 36 (quoted above) Noah prays for spirits to be .
imprisoned and in Pseudo-Philo in the context of an.exora.n
f:
Btoty a future Solomonidigme is eXpected to subdue evil spirits. '
There is some literature of the period which may be understood
the Messiah was expected to defeat Satan and
his ahgels (see Test. Levi 18: 11; Test. Jud. 25: 3; Test.Zeb. 9: 8;
Test. Dan. 5: 10). But a careful examination of these texts shows
that they come from Christian hands. Thus nowhere is the defeat
of Satan and his minions directly linked to exorcism. Put another
, .
wily, there was no expectation that the Messiah would either be
an exorcist or defeat Satan and his minions in exorcism. We will
See the significance ofthis conclusion later in our study.
,Fmally we can note what we have discovered about the ancient
'vieW1l on magic in relation to exorcism. From'extracts of discus
*titon this subject the important factor mdetermining whether
or not an exorcist was a magician was the reality and permanence
ofthe cure; In Acts 13: 10 the character of the exorcist seems to be
: .. , aJi important factor in labelling someone a magician.l!1 view of
die nature of our study it is important to note that the technique of
an-exorcis,t was not importal\t in deciding whether or not he was a
=.In other the use of itlcantations or aids were not
for beingcOnsidered a magician nor was the Simple
use of commands any indication that an exorcist would not be
tItOught to be a magician. Apart from these five broad points of
there are other, minor points which we shall pick up
iIl'the next two chapters. I'
;-._.. .- ".- ...' .......; . -. --I' ,."..
- - - ..
.;,.
III
/
JESUS AND EXORCISM
. I
In the contemporary debate on exorcism a warrant for its
and form are often sought in the ministry of Jesus or in the qrly
Church which it is argued took its warrant and. practia: from
Jesus. So, in the light of this and the discussion in Pte last chapta
we need toask, not only ifJesus actually was an exorcist, but how
important exorcism was in his ministry, how his
viewed him jiS art exorcist, and what, if anything, Jesus intended
for his disciples in relation to exorcism.
1 ,Jesusan Exo.rcist
. Was anexorcistJ In our sopt,isticated society and with
theologies to some extent still dependent on
hberalism it is often forgotten how important exorcism is in the
Synoptic GpSpels. For example, of the thirteen healing in
Mark's G06pel- 1: 29-31, 40-5; 2: 1-12; 3: 1-6; 5: 21-43; 7: 31-7; 8:
22-6; 10: 46-52, and 1: 21-8; 5: 1-20; 7: 24-30; 9: 14-29 - the-last
four mel}tioned.are exorcism. stories. This makes exorcism the
largest category of healing stories in the Gospel.
also statements and sunUnaries of Jesus' activities whiell '
mention exorcism, e.g., Mark 1:32-4, 39;3: 7-12; Luke 4: 39; 7:-21
and 13: 2 (d. also Matt. 9: 32-4112: 22-3OILuke 11: 14f, ..
Matthew and Luke go so far-as toclaim that Jesus' were
ofcentral significance in understanding not only his ininistrybut
JesushimseH - Matthew 12: 281Luke 20 (see below). Yet
we examine the Gospels more closely it is apparent that at leaet
some:o the importance attached to exorcism in Jesus' minisby
derives not from Jesus but from the Gospel writers, aJ;\d thpse .
before ,them who handed on the Jesus tradition.
.
. J.'
Mark 3: 10-12 highlights exorcism as an important part of Je&J,I.S'
miriistry.
-- H", .-. .
C -
ClWST TRIt1MPHA:NT
. . He hiul haUed mJlny, so thlzt those with diseases were pushingjorward
to touch him. Whenev.er evil spirits saw him, they feU down before him
and cried out, 'rau are the Son-of God', But he gave them strict orders not to
teU who he WIIS.
However of the vocabulary and typically Markan themes
here (in italics) it is generally agreed among scholars that Mark is
largely, or completely, responsible for this passage. 1 . .
Yet. despite the importance of exordsm in Jesus' ministry
possibly being exaggerated by the Gospel writers and their
traditions, there is no question that not only was Jesus an
exorciSt, but that he was an exorcist of considerable repute. Four
fieces. of evidence make this ObviOU.s. F.irst, our two earliest
Gospeltraditions - Mark andQ (the source behind the common
material foUl'ld only in Matthew and Luke) - independently re
blrethe idea that Jesus was an exorcist (see the above paragraph).
Second, the Synoptic tradition also contains sayings of Jesus
.,which presume his ability as an exordst (Mark 3: 22-6 and Matt.
.12: 24-6ILuke 11: 15-18i Matt. 12: 281Luke 11: 20i Mark 3: 27 and
Matt. 12: 29/Luke 11: 21i Mark 3: 28f1Matt. 12: 31-2ILuke 12: 10).
Third, in both the Synoptic Gospels, as we have just noted, and
.Acts as well (10: 37-43), there are brief references to Jesus as an
exorcist. Although not all of these statements can be traCed back;
lrith some degree of certainty, to the historical tradition (Mark 1:
32-4, 39; 3: 7...;I2; Luke 7: 21 and 13: 2) at least one of these
ft!lelence5 does have its origin in the bedrock of historical tradit,;.
That is the' brief reference to Jesus' performing an exorcism
just prior- to the s<Ka1Ied BeelzebuI Controversy report - 'Now
.. kewas qsting out a demon that was dumb' (Luke 11: 14). Quit.e
probablythis belongs to reliable historical tradition as this debate
Over Jesus' exorcisms is hardly likely to have been a creation by
the Church and makes most sense if it was preceded by an
exorcism.'
. FOlU'th, we have seen in the last chapter that the names of
with high reputations were used by other exorcists in
their healingincantations. For examplethe name of the
Solomon was used by Eleazar in an exorcism. Similarly we find
. thatjesus' name was very soon being used by other exorcists asa
powerful weapon against evil spirits. There is even evidence of
tNsinthe Gospels; In Mark9: 38(!Luke9: 49) John comes to Jesus
and:says 'Teacher we saw a man casting out demons in your
name ...' It is quite probable that .the early Church did not
.. ," .; . -'':;'' ", -
JBSUS AMlUXOIlCJ6M,
','
intrOdUce this idea, for at least thOse Cl'aristians whom Matthew's'
Gospel represented found this tradition difficultto acCept and so .
Matthew omits this pericopefrom his Gospel. Then in Acts 19: 13
the sons of Sceva attempt an exorcism using the incantation 'I
adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches'. And Luke says they
were unsuccessful because they were not authorised to use -the ' ,
name of Jesus. Luke shows the Christian community also using
, the name of Jesus - 'Lord; even the demons are subject to us in
your name!' (Luke 10: 17) and 'I charge you in the name, of Jesus
Christ to come out .. .' (Acts 16: 18). Outside of the New Testa
ment the name of Jesus'was readily acknowledged tobe powerful
against demons. We have seen that the Magical Papyri contain
'incantation '1 adjure you by the God of the HebreWs,
Jesu .. .' (PGM IV: 3019f). That the Jews used Jesus' name in
healing is evident in that the Rabbis prohibit healing by
name (d. t. l;Iul. ii:22f; j. Shabo xiv: 4: 14d; j. Abodah Zarah ii: 2:
4Od-41a; b. Abodah zarah 27). Thus in conclusion not only is a.H
this evidence that Jesus was an exorcist; it is also evidencethat'he
had the reputation, from very early, of being an
successful exorcist. '
2 Jesus the Exorcist
What would people have seen and heard when they
Jesus performing an exorcism? What kind of exordstwas he?
What techniques did he use? How would he have seemed in
relation to other exorcists? Despite the relative importance of
exordsm both to jesus and the Gospel writers, incontrasl to'.
of references and sayings onexorcism, we onlyhave,four
longer exorcism stories of Jesus in the Gospels: the demoniacin
the synagogue at Capernaurn (Mark 1: 21-8lLuke 4: 31-1); the
Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5: 1-2OIMatt. 8: 28-34ILuke 8: 26-39),
the Syrophoenician woman's daughter (Mark 17: 24-301Matt.15:
21-8), andthe epilepticboy (Mark 9: 14-29/Matt. 7: 14-21ILuke9: '
37....ca). Then just befure the so-called Beelzebul Controversy
there is a very brief report of an exorcism (Matt., 9: 32-4112:
22ILukell: 14). Also, the &tory ofthe healing of Simon's mother
in-law appears as an exotcism in Llike4: 38f. When we, examine
, his source (Mark 1: 29ff; d. Matt. 8: 14f) it is clear that Luke has
given:the story this interpretation. Therefore we will discuss this
. '.,
, story inthe next chapter. '. ',. ':,:
... ,
,... ... . '."" .
,'.-'F',
'
... ';:'/
Hi as :most .scholars agree, Mark is the earlieat of the three
SynopticGospeIs andMatthew and Luke have used Markas one
of their80urces then it is only in Mark that the major exorcism
Itories haw. beenpre&el!V'ed. and therefore we shall need to
CODCel\trate our attention primarily onMark in this chapter as we
answer the questions in the last paragraph.
When we compare Matthew and Luke with M.iu'k it is obviol,ls
that they have made alterations and additions tp this tradition.
.. " "
For example; Matthew does not even report the story of the
demoniac: at Capemaum (cf. Mark 1: 21-8) and Luke does not tell
We ieaders about the Syrophoenician woman's sick girl (d. Mark
7: U-30). Also, if we look more closely at one of the stories, say,
MarkS: 1-20, we see that when Luke uses it he does not mention
.thedemoniacbeingchained handand foot at the beginningof the
Sby, but farther on in the story (cf. Mark 5: 4 and Luke 8: ,29). In
- his use of the same story Ma.tthew adds that there were two
demoniacs (d. Mark 5: 8 and Matt. 8: 28) and he completelyleaves
out request for the demon's name and the healed man's
la)Uestto be with Jesus (d. Mark 5: 18ff and Matt. 8:34). Uke
Luke, Matthew also leaves out mention of the demoniacs' being
bound, he simply says that 'they were so violent that no one
could pass that way' (d. Mark 5: 4 and Matt. 8: 28).
If Matthew and Luke did not woodenly or slavishly transmit
the stories of Jesus but, as authors, were creatively involved in
baNting on the traditions then we ought to allow as a strong
, !
psobebility that, before thein;Mark also actedas, an author rather
thanacopyist in relaying the Jesus story to his particular readers.
In other words it is not possible simply to 'read off' historical data
from &he Gospel traditions as we now have them. Mention has
alIndy been made of Mark 3: 10-12 as a probable eJGUl\ple of
Mark's where it would be a mistaketo read,this material
.. 'straight history'. Therefore as we seek answers relating to the
historical-Jesus, in contrast to the Jesus of the Gospels, we shall
have to use the Gospel traditions carefully, and at the.very least
identify the Changes that the Evangelists, in our
.Muk, have made to their traditions. shall also have to check
the temaining material to see if it is likely to. belong to the
.historical traditionabout Jesus as an exolPst.
2
J:hegreat difficultyin identifyingMark's creativityinparticular
periwpes is that w nolonger possess the.soun:es he used: so far
as'1t is possible they QUl genercUly oJt1y be reconstructed from
what we now find in Mark. Two brief examples shOw the .way
,
. . ' .
. ;. " ..
forward. In view of the vocabulary and grammar of Matk 1: 27
(e.g., 'they were all amazed', 'new teaching', 'authority') it is
probable that Mark has at least rewritten this verse in order to
draw attention to-Jesus' authoritative minigtry which was both
teaching and healing. Also, it is often agreed that the man's
request in Mark 5: 18 'to be with Jesus' is probably a Markan
addition to the tradition because not only is it virtually the same
as the only other occurrence of the phrase in 3: 14, but it fits well
with Mark's theme of discipleship or 'being with Jesus' (e.g., 1:
17; 3: 7, 20). As we shall see in Chapter IV the evangelists made
these changes, and many others like them, 'to suit the themes
and ideas they wanted to conu;nunicate to their Christian com
munities.
We need now to tum out attention to an historical exaInination
of the exorcism stories in Mark (see the list above). This will
- provide it basis for later as well as helping to gain,a
picture of Jesus as an exorcist. We shall conduct our enquiry'
under a number of headings.
3
(a) All four exorcism stories portray an initial dramatic confront..
tion between Jesus and the central figure in the story, that is, the
demoniac - save in Mark 7 where it is the sufferer's mother. On
meetingJesus i!l Mark 1: 23 the demoniac cried ou.t; in Mark5:6f,
on seeing Jesus, the Gadarene demoniac ran, fell on his knees in
front'of Jesus and shouted; (in,Mark 7: 25 the Syrophoenician
woman came and fell at Jesus' feet) and in Mark 9:20 on seeing
Jesus the demon threw the boyinto a convulsion. But the of
fallingat the feet of Jesus was usedby the early Church toportray _
worship of Jesus (e.g., d. 7: 25 and Matt. 15: 25). Thus the
early Church, either Mark or his predecessors, may have intro
duced at least this interpretation of the dramatic confrontationat
5: 6fand 7: 25. Mark 3: 11 is another example of the early Church
introducing the idea of the demons falling down or worshipping
Jesus the Son of God (see above). But we must still ask if, on
meeting Jesus, the demoniacs were so disturbed that they 'fell
down' (i.e., pipto) and cried out. - - , '
In the chapter we saw that at the gaze of Apollonius a '
demon cried out with a scream (Life IV: 20). Thus, as an exorcist of
his time it is possible that Jesus also caused consternation in tfte
de,moniacs. We can go further than this and suggest that it is
probable that t1iis cOhsternation is part of the authentic historical
tradition for two reasons at least. First,Matthew, who is reticent r
about Jesus" being such an ordinary exorcist (see below),
-.- -. ------'- ---- ._----_. --.--- _..- '.
'. ' :. -,.' '0
' . 1
thereforepnmesthe stories, does not see himself able to obliter
ate entimly this.aspect of an exorcism story about Jesus (cf.Mark
s: 7 and Matt. 8: 29; Mark9: 20 and Matt. 17: 17f). if MarIt,
'fot example, had introduced this idea of consternation then we
might.expect some consistency in his portrayal of this element,
bQt shows no such consistency - see Mark 1: 23; 3: 11; 5:6 (33)
and 9:.20. Luke a!spshows no consistency in his reporting
heJe - see 4: 33,.41; 8: 28; 9: 42. As other exorcists of the time were
',.'"
involved in dramatic confrontations with demoniacsand as the
elU'ly Church was not consistent in the attention it paid to this
e1emen.t in the stories we can conclude that Jesus probably did
cause consternation in the demoniacs he met.
(b) The Words PI the Demons. In Mark 7 a mother speaks for her'
dallghter and inchapter 9 a father speaks for his son. In the other
two stories; at Capernaumand Gadara, whereJesus is said todeal
directly with the demoniac theconsternation felt bythe demoniac
0.'
in the initial dramatic confrontation is vocalised: 'What have we
todo with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I
knowwho you are, the Holy One of God!' (Mark 1: 24)'and 'What
have I to 40 with you, Jesus son of the Most High God? I adjure
, .
.youby God not to torment me' (Mark 5: 7).
Whydid the demons ordemoniacs vocalise their distress inthis
wayUt is sometimes thought that the demons had supernatural
Im.oWledge of Jesus' (true) identity and were
tIleir defeat to the world. But if the demons were distressed on
Jileeting}esUSi knowing him to be their ultimate enemy, then it.
, J ..
would have been more .likely that the demons should have
l'eIJDilinedsilent. So why did the demons speak, and speak inthis
'.....
w.y?
Inboth places the wordsof the demons begin in the same way
'What have we (or I) to do with you?' There are parallels to these
words in the Old Testament and in the literature of the New
Tesw:nent period. In 1 Kings 17 a widow is providing food and
warerfor EJijahand her son becomes seriously ill.'. . . she. said to
Elijah, "What have I to do with you, 0 man of God? Have yOl,1
;CilOIDe to call my sin to remembrance and to slay my son?'" (I
Kgs. 17: 18). In this story thoe widow connects son's illness
wIth the arrival of Elijah, a man of God. What the woman .
';..... , .attempts to do in these words is. to defend her household by a
kind of warding off of Elijah from the situation. In Judges 11: 12
. . Jephthah sent messengers to the king of Ammon in an attempt to
a.verlwar. The messengers wen tosay 'What have you todo with .
JBSU5AND JlXOItCJSM
61'
me, have you come against me to fight in my land?' (d. Josh. 22:
24). That these words were used in the New Testament period to
ward off evil is shownbya passageinPhilo where 1 Kings 17: 18is.
. used. 'Every mind that ison the way tobe widowed and emptyof
evil says to the prophet, "0 man of God, you have come to
remind me of my iniquity and my sin'" (Immut. 138). From these
paraHels it seems that the words of the demons are a verbal
defence in the face of an advet'!ijll)' rather than displaying. a
supernatural knowledge of Jesus' Messiahship., .
Two other elements in.these words of the demons confirm the
idea that the demons were seekingto defendthemselves. First, in
Mark 1: 24 the demoniac says 'I know who you are ...' 'The .
Magical Papyrt furnish us with a number of parallels to this
formula. For example, 'I know your name which was received in .
heaven, I know you and your forms ...' (PGM VIn: 6f) and '1
know you Hermes, who you are and whence you came and
which is your city' (PGM VUI: 13). Although these words are not
spoken by demons they do illustrate the use of incantations to
gain n t r o l over a 'spiritual' enemy. A second element in these
initial words of the demons which shows that they are d.efeN:li!
mechanisms against Jesus are the words in Mark 5: 7 'Iadjure YO\l
by God ..' To adjure (horkiz.ein) someone was thought to bind,
or even to put a curse upon a person to do or say something. In 1
Kings 22: 16 (LXX 3 Kgs 22: 16) Ahab says to the prophet Mk:aiah
'How many times shall I adjure you that you speak to me nothing .
but the truth in the name of the Lord' (d. 2 Chr. 18: 15). Joshua
cursed: (horkizen) or put an oath on the people of Jericho against
them rebuilding the city Gosh.. 6: 26 (LXX); But the ~ t
parallels to these words of the demons are again found in the
magical material. The following two quotations are typical of the
use of 1 adjure' tobinda spiritual enemy. 1 adjure youby the God
of the Hebrews ...' (PGM IV: 3019) and 'I adjure you, demonic.
spirit, who rests here . . . by the God of Abraan . . .,5 .
Not only do these incantations illustrate the user 'binding' an
adversary but they show that the adversary is bound by a third
party. From the second example where an evil spirit is being
adjuredor boundby the god of Abraan we can probably conclude .
-' that non-Jews were taking up Jewish material in their exorci.ltic
incantations just as non-<:hristian exorcists attempted to take up
the name of Jesus in theirheaIings (d. Acts 19: 13, see chap. IV
below). InMatthew26: 63 we see this sameform of 'binding' by a
third party where the high priest says to Jesus 'I adjure you by'the
.. "":'- '-':".
living God, tell us if you ate the Quist . , :' Returning to the
WO!'c:ls,of the'demons in Mark 5: 7 we see that the demonis trying
_to prevent Jesus the exorcilt from tormenting him by attempting
tobindJesus by God. . .
We have not completely shown that the words of the demons
.... me- defences rather -than supernatural knowledge leading to a
, confeSsion forthe view depends to a large extent on
what is lobe made of the way the demons address Jesus. InMark
1:24 the demoniac addresses Jesus as 1esusof Nazareth' and 'the
of God'. In Mark 5: 7 Jesus is cal\ed 'son of the Most
, .J"
ItigIt God'. In other words, does the use of these particular titles
or:.ac:ldresses indicate that the demonS had a supernatural know
ledge of Jesus, Or should we look in the area of preternatural
defence for the explanation of the use of the titles? .
From what we saw in the Magical Papyri it seems that it was
important to know the name or identity of the enemy to be
O\terpowered - toknow the name oridentity ofanadversary was
Uucore a point over them. Part ofthat identity was the origin of
the'one over whom power1was sought (d. PGM VllI: 13 quoted
aJ,ove).In the light of this it is'not surprising that the demons
identifyJesus as from Nazareth. .
Whatthenare we tomake of the designations 'the Holy Oneof
Cod' (Mark 1: 24) and 1esus son of the Most High God'? The
phrase or title 'the Holy One of God' is used of Jesus only here
(Mark1: 241Luke 4: 34) and inJohn 6: ff} (d. Luke 1: 35; Acts 3: 14; .
4:27,30; 1 John 2: 20; Rev. 3: 7). Although the early Christians
tJR4erstood this phrase to refer to Jesus' Messiahship, as John 6:
t1J makes clear, we must not too quickly identify the early
Christi8n understanding. with what the demoniacs may have
or the designation. .
._, ....;.
,
'11\ 106 (LXX 105): 16Aaron is called 'the HolyOne of the
Lord'; In one of the texts of the LXX at Judges 16: 17(8) Samson
says '1 ama Holy One of Godfrom mybirth' (see alsoJudg. 16: 7, .
IJ(X(B. 5irach 45: 6 has 'And he exalted Aaron a holy one .like
hir.rr .. ',' (see also (LXX) Wisdom 11: 1; Isa. 62: 12; Dan. 7: 27; and
then later bythe Christians, e.g., Acts 3: 21; 1 Cor. 7: 14;Heb. 3: 1;
1Pet. 16; 2 Pet. 3: 2; Eph. 3: 5and1Oement 8: 3; Barnabas 14: 6).
Th_ texts show that to call someone 'holy' or 'a Holy One of
Qk!' could mean nothing more than that the individual had a
. 'spedahelationshipwithGod. It was notedin the last cbapter that
in'.the rabbinic material demons recognised the ).lasid.im as
ha'9inga special relationship with God. And inanycase the.word
JBSUS ANn EXORCWM,
or phrase had no tradition as'a messianic title, that is before Mark
the ,word or phrase -was not understood asreferring to the
Messiah, Thus what the demon(iac) in Mark 1: 24 is saying is
probably no more than that he considered Jesus to have a special
relationship with God.
The demons also calledJesus 'Sonof the Most High God' (Mark
5: 7). In relation to Jesus 'Son' is of such special-interest to Mark
(d. 1: 1, 11; 3: 11; 9: 7; 15: 39) that he may have added it to Utese
" words. However the rest of this phrase'.- .. of the Most High
God' - can be accepted and 'understood as coming from,
the demon(iac) rather than having been introduced by the early
Christians who, usually quoting the Old Testament, made onJ.y
very sparing use of the"title (e.g., Matt. 21: 9ILuke 19: 38). In fact,
apart from Hebrews 7: 1, a quotation of Genesis 14: 18, the precise
phrase or title 'of the Most High God' (tau theou tau hupSistou)
occurs only on the ttte demoniacs in the New Testament
(Mcuk5: 7/Luke8: 28 and Acts 16: 17). For the Greeks the title
'Most High' was predicated to the great god Zeus (e.g., Pindar
. Nenietl1: 60; 11: 2 and Aeschylus Eumenides 28; Sophocles Philoc
teks 1289). The Jews also attributed this name (tUan - the Higit
est) to their God (e.g., Gen. 14: 18-22; Num. 24: 16; Deut, 32: 8; 2
Sam. 22: 14). Then, important .for our study, the appellation
occurs in the Magical Papyri where it is used, in
where victory is sought over an adversary (d. IV:, 1068; V: 46)
. Thus ,in the demoniac's attempt to disarm and score a point over
Jesus it is not surprising that the name 'of the Most High God'
should be used.
In this section (b), a case has been made to show that
detJ1on(iacs) said in their consternation as they confrontedJesus,
was not the result of supernatural knowledge but what any ,
demon(iac) might have said when facing a well-known powerful
Jewish exorcist. What the demon(iac)s were doing - despite hc;Jw
it was understood later, even by Mark - was not intentionally.
-declaring Jesus' messiahship. Instead they were, through Pant:"
ing and attempting to bind Jesus, trying to themselves bY.
disarming their adversary.
(c) The Words of Exorcism. It is often said that what sets Jesus
apart from his contemporary exorcists was his simple 'non
magical' healings - he only had to, command the demons and
depart.
6
How correct is such a view in relation to
what Jesus said to the 4emons?
at the three stories in whicll Jesus 'addressed

-':;:. ,,, '.... '".'"
--..
demeiliacs' - he does not meet the demoniac in MaJk 7: 24-30
.... J..
theft arefuur elements of the words of exorcismthat demand our
attention:
,'First, in Mark 1: 25 Jesus says to the demon 'Be' quiet ...'
(NIV). But this translatiQn does not give the full sense of the word .
pIdmoiJ. This word is strongly related to 'incantational restriction',
_ther than simply talking, and its use puts someone in a position
where they are unable to operate. Thus P. Oslo 1: 161 has 'A
Mlnedy'to prevent the wrath of a person ... bind the mouths
wNdt speak against me . . .'. And in other magical material the
word is a synonym for 'to bind' (kIltadein): And it is quite likely
that not even Mark understood phimMJraC. as 'be silent' for Mark
tHen goes on to say that the demon caused the man to cry out in a
loud voice. Thus it would be better to understand the word of
.,/. ,.....
closely paralleled in the magical material, as 'be bound' or
'berestricted' . ' ,
Second, in all three stories Jesus is reported as saying 'Come
oat'of (him.f (Mark 1:25; 5: 8; 9: 25). As we sawin the last chapter
the coinINmd is also found in the stories of other exorcists of.the
period. It was usedin Lucian (Philops. 11 and16) by two Rabbis (b..
MeIl. li'b), a similar expression 'quit' is usedbyApollonius (ute IV:
)and
l
importantly, in the Magical Papyri (PGM IV: 1243ff). The
cQftunand tothe demon to 'come out' is the basic command fmmd
in commonWithall the kinds of exorcists we know in this period;
..; , of whether or not we would categorise them as
'1J'88ical'. ,
.Third, in Mark5: 9Jesus asks the demon 'What is your name?'
some might ,find.it even to q>nsider that
J8uI may not have been initially his healings, the
cure of the blind man in Mark 8: 22-6 is, along with this
"
exomsm, cleat evidence that the early Church accepted the idea..
wturt is suggested at Mark5: 9 is that Jesus hadalreadycomman
dedthe dembn tocome outof the manbut in response the
, ' ...
:as' we have argued in the last section, rather than submit
tmg, tried to fend off Jesus' attack. So apparently, being initially
unsuccessful, Jesus attempts another way of overcoming the
. -:
demon by asking its name. As we saw when surveying the .
Magical Papyri knowing the name of an adversary was anessen
tial,eJementin overpowering an enemy or gaining a power
authority's assistance.' Specific instructions were designed to
name and nature from SUent spirits PGM V: 258;
d. chap:: n above). The form of the answer given to Jesus'
..... J .....
. ,
65
questioitis interestingin that the detnon says 'Myname isLegiOri
for we are many'. This change in number between the singular,
(my) and the plural (we) suggests that a multiform demon is in
mind. In minds of those of the period, sonteone or some
thing's name and nature lVere'inextricably bound'together.. In'
PGMN: l017ff a god reveals its name and nature - 'My name is
Bairchoaoch. I am he that sprang ftom heaven, my name, is
.
It is into this category ..,.. the need to 'know Orie's ...:.
that we should place Mark 9: 21f, where Jesus asks about the '.
history of the young lad's illness (d. Philostratus Life IV: 20). We'
have seen that in the ancient WOl'ld it was thought that demons
inhabited fire water and so the father's reply to Jesus"
question also shows that the dialogue had to do with discovering
the nature of the demon. In asking for the name of the demon ill '
chapter 5 Jesus was then making a second attempt at overpOwer
ing this stubborn adverSary. That Jesus was thought to be S1IC
cessful is shOwn not only by the demon surrendering his name'
and nature but also by the desperate plea not tobe sent outof the
region(v. 10) ' ' ,:
'Ote fourth, andfu'la1 element Of Jesus' words of command to
, the demons, which we need to explore briefly.in relation to thetf
so-called/magical' character and understanding, is the injunction
I. " and no longer enter into him' (Mark 9: 25). The .ideaof
demons returning to a person is extremely old:.In a Babylonian
text, perhaps '700 to 1,000years. Be; there is an incantation 'That
the eVil spirit ... may stand aside,'And a kindly spirit ... be
present'7 - obviously a precaution against the evil spirit'8return.
And in the New Testament Jesus mentions an unclean spirit;:
having roamed waterless places, returning toa manacCompanied
by seven more eVil spirits (Matt. 12: 43-5lLuke 11: 24---6). The
words of Jesus to the demon not to retumare paralleled, in some
cases eXactly, in a number of pieces of literature. In the story of
Eleazat, Josephus says that the exorcist'adjuredthedenton never
to come back into him . . .' (Ant. 8: 46-9). In a story PhilOstratus
tells of ApoIJonius the demon I swore that he leave the
yoting man alone and never take possession of any man again'
(Lift IV: 20). In the Magical Papyri there is a Jewish presaiption for
.anamulet tobeworn for protectionafter the demon has left(PGM
IV: 1254) as well as an inCantation to catch a demon 'on the
,.loose' - 'Let your angel descend . . . and let him draw m.o
, tivitythe demon as he around this creature . . .' (PGM IV:
'
.
'
'
I'
'
'
. 3024f).l1ui!."Jesus'
m the repertoll'e of other exorCISts, or 'magical'
llterahQ:'e. . . .. .
So; in conclUsion here, Jesus' words to exorqse the demon are
indeed simple and straightforward. They are repOrted as - 'Be
and come out of him' (Mark 1: 25; d. 5: 7; 9: 25); 'What is
your name?' (Mark 5: 9) and 'Come out of him and no lo.nger enter
intohUn' (Mark,9: 25). In every case the words, or, as we should
now say, 'incantations' used by Jesus are paral
lekd in the incantations of other exorcists (see the stories quoted
in t:hap.II above). It is thus not pOssible to say that one of the
distinctive features of Jesus' method of exorcism was his simple
or 'non-incantational' approach. Like his contem
poraries, Jesus made use of a readily recognisable stock of incan
tational formulae. .
(d) The Demons' Plea. In Mark 5: 10ff where the demons are
reported to have been overpowered by Jesus they plead for
leniency. We have seen, in Chapter II, that in stories of other
exorcists of the New Testament demons a plea for .
mercy on realizing their impending defeat. The plea by the
demons in Mark 5 to stay in the area rests on the notion that
demons were especially associated with particular regions. In
II we saw that in the story of Tobit, Asmodeus, the
defeate<idemon was sent away to Egypt (Tobit 8: 3). So, here,
thanbeingsent out of the region the demons are allowed to _
the herd of pigs. which was grazing nearby. Although
Matthew and Luke give a theological understanding of the plea
Mar:I[(; does not, which, in view of the history of religious parallels
Jne8IlS that this is probably an authentic element of the Jesus
. (d. Matt. 8: 29; Luke 8: 31).
. It is not immediately clear what was thought to be drowned,
thepigs.only, or the pigs as well as the demons. That is, were the
denlOIlS considered to be destroyed or simply transferred from
the man into the herd of pigs? In Matthew, going into sea is
seen as an alternative to eschatological torment (d. Matt. 8: 29
and 31). Also inLuke, entering the pigs is seen as an alternative to
being sent into the abyss- thought to be the place of final
_ for evil (a1?ussos, d. Luke 8: 31 and 32. See also Rom.
10: 7; Rev.. 9: 1, 2, 11; 11: 7; 17: 8; 20: 1, 3). And Luke uses the
singular 'it droWned' rather than the ambiguous plural 'they
drowned' showing that he thought that it.was the herd (of piss)
that perished. That Mark also thinks.that just the pigs drowned is
; <
(iF ,
suggeSted by5: 13which mentionS the drowningin cloSe connec
tion with the pigs rushing down the bank. Not only does alookat '
the text show $it all the Gospel writers understood onlY the
pigs to have been drowned butso does ancient demonology. As
water was thought to be one of the habitats of demons,
8
so for the
demons - via the pigs - to enter the water would hardly have
been considered to be the cauSe of their death, rather that 'the
demons hadbeen transfened from one habitat to another.
This leads us on to consider the idea, sometimes expressed by'
scholars, that the destruction of the pigs was the proof of Jesus'
success in the exorcism.' However consider the 'following three _
points. First, as we have just seen, the demons were probably
thought to have been transferred from the 'man to the pigs and
then to the sea. Second, in antiquity, to effect a CUre it was'
sometimes thought appropriate to transeI: the demons from t:M
sufferer to some object like a pebble or piece of wood or a Pot or'
some water. These objects, thought to contain the demons, were
thrown away or destroyed to effect and perhaps" signify the' '
demon's departure from the situation. 10 Then, third, the proofof
the cureinthe storyinMark5is not the destructionofthe pigsbut
the people seeing cured man 'sitting there, clothed and in his .
mind' (v. Thus rather than as a Jm?Ofor cure, 'the p;s'.
episode was probably understood as an mtegra1 part 01 the
cure. " .
(e) the Violent Cure. Thedestructionof the pigs, just mentioned,
is the best example in'the Jesus tradition of the violence aC<.'OIil::'
panying an exorcism, but it is also found in Mark 1: 26, where the,
demon is said to convulse the man and in Mark 9: 26 where the
demon also apparently convulSes the boy and leaves hUn like a
corpse. We have seen that the demon cast out by Eleazar upset.
bowl of water (Ant. 8: 49), and the demon Apolloniu5 exorcised
destroyed a statue (Life IV: 20), That this violence has not
added to, but was already part of the authentic Jesus tradition is '
indicated by Mark's showing no consistent use or interest in this '
violence. That is in 1: 26 the convulsion occurs as the dett\On
leaves" in chapter 9 the' whole story is couched in violence;.'
violence in the encounter as well as in the healing.
(f) 'So,far we have been trying to identify those' elements that
were part of the historical Jesus' technique of exorcism. Arid
when we set Jesus the exorcist within his own milieu it becomes
obVious that there are certain aspects of techniques "Of
, , whichJesus did not a'Vailbimself. ,
,;' ,
(i) Jesus does not seem to have used any mechanical in
Tobit 8: 3 incense is burnt to expel the demon;
inJubUees 10: 10 and 12 'medicines' are used: in the Genesis
Apocryphon 20 Abraham lays hands on the Pharaoh; _Eleazar
UBe&a finger ring and a bowl of water; in the Talmud
amulets, palm tree prickles, woodchips, ashes, pitch, cumin,
. .'
4og's hair, thread and trumpets are used; Lucian tells of the
.' . use of iron rings and the Magical Papyri of amulets, olive
branches, marjorum and special, sounds were used by the
exorcists.
How different the techniques of Jesus seem with the'straight
forward incantati.ons like'Be bound, and comeout of him' (Mark
1: 25)1 The only thing near a mecha,nical aid was the use of the
herd of pigs. However the pigs are not used to exorcise the
demons but to provide a habitat for the expelled demons. But
cannot be claim,ed,.to stand alone in not using any technical
aids in exorciSm. Evenamong the rabbis, those most likeJesus, he
be saidto be alone in his simple verbal cures. Even if using
the tone of his voice and a gaze, Apollonius used his words alone
10 expefthe offending demon in Ufe IV: 20. Nevertheless, despite
these two parallels an outstanding characteristic of Jesus' tech
his unaided words of command to the demons. And
this is not a characteristic of Jesus' healing method which tne
early Oturdteither added or sought to cultivate. For example, it
.. -quite happily transmjtted the stories in which Jesus, is said to use
spittle, which is also part of the recipes in the Magical Papyri (d.
.Me6k7: 33;8: 23; John 9: 6 and PGM ill: 420).
'J& there an explanation for Jesus'not using mechanical aids in
hisexorcism? On the one hand the use of aids inour period seems
Ii() have been by the anonymous or unknown exorcists who
appealed to an outside authority fot success. On the other hand ..
what Jesus, Apollonius, and some of the rabbis have in common
isoot only their success without 'aids' but a reliance on their own
personal force for success. .
'. (ii} Jesus did not use any 'proofs' to indicate the success of his
cures. The truth of.this statement depends on how Jesus under
.. srood the destruction of the pigs at GadCl!a (Mark 5: 11f). We bave
. tried to show that those who reported this story, as well as Jesus
hitnselfas a man of his time, would have understood the pigs
episode as part,of the cure - a providing oian alternative habitat
for the demons - rather than as a proof. It would have consider
ably enhanced Jesus' reputation to. be able to rePort 'proofs Q{
f.
JBSUS 4ND BXoaasM
cure' and so it is unlikely that the early Church would have.
excised any such PJ'OOf& that were in the Jesus tradition. It is,
then, reasonable to conclude that proofs were not part of Jesus'
technique as an exorcist.
(iii) .Uf\Iike even some of the Jewish holy men Jesus is not
reported. as praying when he performed. an exorcism: Even
thOUghI;lanina ben.Dosa did not use incantations. he, like the
Abraham of the Qumran ScroUs, prayed to remove the demon
(b. Ber. 34b; d. b. Ta'an. 24b; 1 QapGen 20). Although theeady
Church, particularly Luke, was keen to accentuate the prayer life
of Jesus (e.g., proseuchomai(pray) occurs fifteen times in Matt.;
eleven in Mark; and eighteen in Luke)ll at no point does the
tradition seek to attach the practice of prayer to Jesus' exon:istic
technique. Thus like Apollonius (Life IV: 20) and some of therabbis
(b. Meil. 17b) rather than pray Jesus used simple, recognisable
incantations, relyingonhisown to defeat the offendiDg
demon.
(iv) Related to the previous point, it seems thatin.his exor
cisms Jesus did not call up or invoke any power-authority. In.
Chapter nwe saw that in the Magical Papyri one of the important
pre1iJnirlary steps in an exorcism waS to invoke .theaid of some
'. god as the power-authorityfor the ensuingconflict. Onefrequent
source of power-authority was found in the useofpoWerh&l
names. The name of Solomon seems to have been frequently
used and in Acts 19: 13 the Sons of Seeva try usiJ:lgJesus' .
does the Strange Exorcist in Mark 9: 38 (/Luke 9: 49f). In
Matthew 12: 28 (/Luke 11: 20) Jesus declares his source of
authority to be the Spirit (Luke has 'finger) of God. We misht
then expect that in his exorcisms he would call on the Spirit.x
'finger') of God to aid him. But he does not. In view of the early
Church.being anxious to show Jesus was enC:lowed with the
eschatological Spirit it is unlikely that those who preserved
theJesus-traditionexcisedthis aspedofJesus' technique from the
tradition. Jesus is not the only exorcist of his time not to have
appeared to call up any source of power,:,authority. We have seen
that Rabbis Simeon benYohai and' Eleazar ben Yose exorcised a
demon from the emperor's daughter without declaring any
sourceofpower-authority. Also Apollonius mentions no out:side.
aid in his healings. Once again we see that Jesus is an exorcist,
like others of his time, who relied. not on outside aids but on .
his own charismatic personal force to subdue artd expel the"
demon; .
(v) It does not seem that Jesus used the formula 'I bind you'
(Aramaic =. shb'). From the discussion above it was established
that this word, used by the demoniac in Mark 5: 7 and frequently
in the Magical Papyri (e.g., PGM IV: 3019), meant to 'charge',
'adjure' or 'bind' someone by another power-authority. For ex
ample Mark 5: 7 has '1 bind you by God, do not torment me'. Acts
19: 13 reads '} bind you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches', and 1
'Thessalonians 5: 27 has 'I bind you by the Lord that this letter be
.read to all the brethren' (d. Matt. 26: 63). As the word is closely
associatedwith exorcism and found in the exorcists' incantations,
and from its use in 1 Thessalonians 5: 27 showing that the early
. Church was not averse to using it, it is perhaps surprising either
that JeSus did not use the word or that the early Church did not
attribute it tathe tradition. As 1 bind' is used in conjunction with
the power-authority being used to perform the exorcism and the
early Church :i'e'cognising that Jesus relied on the Spirit/finger of
God, the tradition is probably faithful in recording that Jesus did
not use the word. Thus again, like Apollonius and some of the
rabbis, Jesus apparently neither acknowledged the use of a
source of power-authority nor used the accompanying '} bind
[you by . . .J' formula.
. . In the light of this it is important to recall Jesus' use of the
emphatic T (Aramaic =amz) in Mark9: 25. I can find no parallel to
this.emphatic use of 'I' in any other incantation or exorcism story
in.ancient world. Thus along with no declaration.of his source of
ptIfM'-1ZUthority Jesus deliberately draws attention to himself and .his
oam resources in his ability to expel the demon.
In this section we have been examining the techniques Jesus
ueed in his -exorcisms - or at least what his audience reportedly
9Itw and heald. In many ways Jesus seems to have been a man of
his tiD\e in that he used readily recognisable techniques, and
what was reported of other exorcists was also reported. of Jesus'
e x ~ s . There. was the vocalised distress on the part of the
.demon as it was confrontedbyJesus; there were the then familiar
though brief incanta.tions from Jesus; there was the demon's
desperate plea for leniency; as well as the usual violence accoJP.
panying the healing. Then like the others of his time Jesus'
technique was so simple that it contained no mechanical aids, no
prayers, no invoking of a power-authority, and no proofs
save. the cured demoniac; Despite this simplicity we cannot
say either that in this he was unique or that he stood over
against the incantational or what we might call a 'magical'
---
71
I
-','-- _... ..
.'.;'
! :
-/
tradition. Jesus' use of incantations places him firmly in ,!his
'magical' tradition. .
. We have just seen that in drawing attention to his own auth
ority in his ability to. subdue the demons,. Jesus' technique
appears to be unique. This point probably reveals'an important
aspect of Jesus' technique. That is, an exorcism performed by:
Jesus was a confrontation between the demon and Jesus. The
uncluttered incantations, the absence of calling upon the aid of a
third party, the absence of all mechanical or .physical aids and
especially the use of the emphatic l' all point to Jesus' being
successful'bearuse ofwho he was and the demon's beingfotcetl toconfrqnt
Jesus. Even Jesus' asking,the demon's name (Mark 5: 9) .fits this
idea ofa demand that the demon confront Jesus. We ahall again
a:une across this notion when we look at exorcism in the early
Church.
Before discussing how Jesus .and others understood his exor'-:
cisD\S we need to draw attention to the important point that
according to the Synoptic Evangelists exorcism was not the only .
form of healing undertaken by.Jesus in his ministry (d. pp. m
below on Matt. 11: 2..,.6ILuke 7: 18-23). In other words demons
were not thought tobe the cause, and exorcism the cure for every .
illness. This demonstrates that Jesus (and the early Church, see,
e.g., Matt. 4: 24/Mark 3: 10f1Luke 6: 17f; Mark 6: 12) made.seJne
distinction between sicknesses which required exorcism and
fbose which, did not. The immediate question is: On what
grounds did Jesus between these sicknessesl
Answers to this question will help in our discu.ssioninthe final
chapter. . . .
There are several distinctive symptoms associated. with the"
. apparenlneed for exorcism in the Synoptic reports. (a) In. the
story of the Gadarerle demoniac extraordinary strength (Mark
5: 3f) and a disregard for .pain (5: 5) are mentioned. With this can
becompared the violence associated with the suffering ohheboy "
in Mark9:22. (b) lnthree stories in Mark (1: 24; 5: '1 and 9: 14) the
demoniacs are disturbed when confronted by Jesus, and in the .
first two mentioned, the demoniacs vocalise their distl'6s..(c) J:n
Mark 1: 24 and 5: 8ft the demons are said to speak. FromhistoJry.
of religious paralIel8. (see Chap. II above and the discussion in
Chap. VI below) we can' at least say that the voice of the sufferer.
waa thought to be affected. Thus from the Gospelaa:mmts Wf)
:nz:e on these groUJ'ds. that
72 .
3 How did others understand Jesus and
hisexordsms7
In pursuing our principal objective of discovering the part exor
cism should play in the Church's ministry today it will be import..
ant to discover what the early Church made of Jesus' exorcisms.
. That we shall do in the next chapter, but here, in order to clarifY
our Viewof Jesus the exorcist, weshall briefly examine how some
Of his audience and critics assessed him. . .
. Reading through the Gospels it seems to me that Jesus' exor
. ,
c.isJils evoked a number of responses. In two of the stories we .
.have been examining the observers are said to be fearful and
amazed (Mark 1: 27ILuke 4: 36; Mark 5: 14/Matt. 8: 33lLuke 8: 34;
and also 'Matt. 12: 23/Luke 11: 14). In the context of Jesuti'.
exorcisms in 21 and 30 people were saying that Jesus was
mad. and had a demon. With this can be compared the tradition in
theFourth Gospel that Jesuswas said to have a demon (John7:20;
8: 48; 10: 20). TIum it is reported that some said that it was by
Bc,elzebul that Jesus expelled the demons (Mark 3: 22/Matt. 12:
24ILuke 11: 15). Finally others are said to declare that Jesus the
exordst was the Messiah (Matt. 12: 23). To these responses we
must add another which we fmd in literature just after the New
Testament was written. That is, Celsus, for example, says that
Jesus was a magician.
What we must do now is not only attempt to assess the
and meaning of these charges but also, to help us
understandJesus,as an exorcist, ask whyJesus may have elicited
those responses which we can show to be reasonably
ntliable.
(a) "fearful and Amazed. There are at least two things to be said
against the historicity of this kind of response to Jesus' healing of
the possessed.. On the one hand in the telling of healing stories in
the ancient world, it was traditional to add at the successful.
of the healingstory: that the crowd was astounded and
fiBedwith awe or fear. We even see this tendency, though only
onc:e each, in the way Matthew and Luke retell the stories they
.tab"pfromMark (Matt. 15: 31; d. Mark 7: 37and Luke 9: 4&; cf
Mark 9: 23/Matt. 17: 18). Thus we cannot be certain that Markalso
asWeUas his predecessors, did not indulge in this same practice.
On the other hand. having exan\ined Jesus' technique and seen
.bow he wasindeeq a man of his time we are left wondering if, on
observingJesus, his audience would have beenamazed and filled
JESus AND ExORCIsM
with awe. However on closer examination neither ofthese
stands up to critical v\s just noted, despitewhat maybe a
traditional story-telling motif; Matthew and Luke only once each
addit to their Turningto Markit is evident that he never
uses'the motif in the summary-reports he probably composed
(e.g., Mark 3: 7-12). And in the exorcism stories he does not'use
it, m' at least report it consistently in that it' is present in' the
exorcism stories at 1: 27 and 5: (14), 15 and (17) but absent at 7: 30
and 9: 28 perhaps where we (and Luke (d. 9: 43a would
expect it. Thus, althoughwe have not shoWI"t what happened
before Mark, we must entertain the possibility that the early
Church did not always add the motif of amazement to ,
the JesUs stories. ThiS conclusion is also supported by asking
there was anything about exorcism that may have caused
fear 01' amazement. Indeed, although healing bya mere com..,
mand was not, as we have seen, a uniqUe feature of
technique, to his audience it may have been sufficiently extra
ordinary so that.it.would have been 'the cause of some
ment. The same may perhaps be said of the brevity of Jesus'
. healing technique. Also,the'stampede and drowningof the pigS
, in Mark 13 is such an astounding that it is not surprisirig
that the herdsmen fled and that those who came to seewhilthad'
happened were afraid. Thus we can conclude that on witneSSing
an exorcism by Jesus the bystanders probably 'were fearful
amazed. . .
(b) MIld and DemOn Possessed. In the ancient world these tWo'
ideas were synonymous. In 3:' 21 and 30 Mark shows that he als9
equated the ideas and. accusation. MarJ< also says Jesus'
detractors accused him of being possessed by 'Beelzebul'. This is '
the earliest occurrence of the word artd it may well have
been coined for the occasion. But even though it was a new' word
its Meaning would have been plain. 'Beer is an echo of 'Baal' the
pagan high god of tl}e Canaanites (d. 4 Kgs. 1: 2 (LXX ahd
'Zebul' (from the 'lord') would have been underStood as
meaning 'heaven' or 'house'. In the parable with which he
answers his critics Jesus picks up this play on words in talking
abouta diVided house. I find this accusation, that in his exorcisms
Jesus was authorised and empowered by Satan, to be one ofthe
most cruel accusations against Jesus in the whole of the New:
Testament. And in view of the, nature of the accusations here..:..
mad, demon or it is extremelyunlikely that Ute
early; Church would have created this material. Matthew' arid
.- - _. -----_..- --..., .
, ,
,4
found these ideas so that altered peri
......
.oope-toexcise thereferenc.es. AU can bring to say
.that it was by Beelzebul (lUke) or the Prince of. demons
... '
(Matthew) that performed his exorcisms (d. Matt. 9: 34;
12: 241Luke 11: 15). That this tradition is is also attested
.. John's Gospel transmitting the same accusation (7: 20; 8: 48,
52; 10: . .
(c) IS it likely that, having seen Jesus perform an
audience would have declared him to be the Mes
_-.1:
thiSqueJtion is important in the light of a number of
. which give a positive answer to our question - note
Matthew 8: 29; 12: 23; Mark 3: 11; Luke 4: 41 ,... yet our
ConclusioninChapter nwas that the Messiahwas not expected to
'. ...
.1iowever when we examine the material our evidence for
appearing to gemonstrate his Messiahship is
C9ns1... reduced if not destroyed. (i) Mark 5.: 7('Jesus son of
see 2(b)above) has bE;.en reworked by
at 8: 29 ('Son of God')u to clarify and make more
the Messianic potential of the innocent words of the
(il) The passage (Matt. 12: 22-4) containing Matthew 12: '
2;l. ,iBa.doublet is it is alsofoUnd ,at 9: 32-4) of a Q passage
. (1.Ulce.11: i4). By comparing these passages it is seen that it is
likely that all that Q contained here was a reference to
the crowd marvellin'g (d. Luke 11: 14). That the reference to 'the
Son 9t. David' is probably Matthean red,action is also evident
wbenone examines the use of this phmse in Matthew.13 That is,
uses it more often than the otherEvangelists (Matt. = 10times,
,Luke = 5; Mark = 4) andMatthew associates it particularly with
Jt$us' healings Esee Matt. 9: 27; 12: 23; 15: 22; 20: 30, 31). (ill) We
a,1ready suggested. that Mark 3: 11 is part of a summary
ri!por.t which Mark wrote so we must exclude this verse from
(iv) We areleft, then, with Luke4: 41. Buteveri thiS
.Dl1S.. t be Luke has simplyadded t.o Mark }:34thatthe
. _ demons 'You are the Son of God' and that 'they knew he
Christ'. .
.. Even though none of the Gospelmaterial stands up to critica,l...
)' . eXaJNnation on this point the still remains open. Some .
scholars suggest that there was a hope which expected that the
Messiahwould deal with the evil spirits. ThUS even";f the Gospel.
t:qlditiqns have not transmitted it the possibility would still
.remain that because of hisexcrcjsms Jesus may pro
. -(
. /_
claimed tileMessiah:.The evidence cited to show that the Messiah
was expectedtobe anexorcist comes mainly from the Testamenta
oHheTwelve Patriarehs'(Test. Levi 12: 11; Test. Jud. 25: 3; Test.
Zeb. 9:8; Test. Dan 5: 10f; Test. Reuben 6: 10-12). However, as
mentioned in the conclusion to the last chapter, recent sChol
arship has shown that although older Jewish material may have
been used in this literature, it has been so thoroughly reworked
by a Christian editor that the Testaments cannot be' used as
evidence of a pre-Christian hope that the Messiah would be iU\
Andamong the other evidence cited (Siphre Lev. 26: 6;.
PR 36; and Eth. En. 55: 4) only the Assumption of Moses 10: 1, 3
and Ethiopic Enoch 10: 4 remain as possible useful references.
However the Assumption of Moses 10: 1 - 'And Satan shall be no
more' - describes the new state of affairs in the Kingdom not
the work of any Messianic figure. Assumption of Moses 10: 3
mentions a Heavenly figure but he has nothing to do with the
destruction of Satan nor is he an earthly figure, but God himBeIf
(d. 10: 7). Then in Ethiopic Enoch 10: 4 - 'Bind Azazel hand and
foot, and cast him into the darkness . .' - nothing is mentioned
of exorcism. It is best'then to conclude that in pre-ehristian
literature there seems to be rio connection between a Messiank
.individual or figure and his specific battle with Satan cptdthe
demons' through exorcism. Thus in turn, remembering that we
must exclude the words of the demons from our consideration,
we ought to conclude that it is difficult to see Jesus' observers
connecting what was a relatiwlycommon occurrencein their day
with Jesus' being self-evidently the Messiah. This is not to argue
that, in genetal, it was not possible for Jesus' audience toean
clude that he was the Messiah - that isa different question.
Howeverwe are bound to conclude that on observingJesus as an
exorci.stthere is little or nothing to suggest they would conclude .
he was the Messiah.
(d) Mflgician. WouldJesus' audience have considered him,to be a
magician? This question arises for two reasons. First as Professor
Morton Smithhas argued, a careful reading of.the Gospels shows
that Jesus' audience charged him with being a magician. 14
Secondly some later Christian writers contain references to sucha
. charge (see Chap. IT above).' '. .' '.'
;The most important evidence Professor Smith offers is that 'to
. have' a demon sometimes meant that the person had control of
a demon and could get it to do miracles. But the word 'to
have' (echein) probably does not have this meaning in the New-
r ..
.1.6
.. \
Testament. In the minds of the ancient world although an ev.i1
posgeS$- a man, with a good. spirit it was thE:. man
who, 'had' the spirit. The accusation that Jesus 'had. Beelzebul'
ar.5atan could be seen as a difficulty here. .
However, reply of Jesus, given by Mark,- 'How ean Satan
ca$t .out SalaJl7' (3: 23), not that Jesus is using or
latins the possessing power, but the revetse. In the Fourth
GOspel 'to have' a demon, 'to be mad' and 'to be a Samaritan',
synonymous accusations (8: 48, 49; 10: 20). But in each
case the charge relates not to being a magician but to what Jesus
was sayinginhis message, more specificallyon relationship to
God{noteJohn 8: 48-53). .
Morton Smith also draws attention to Matthew 27: 63, contain
ingthe word pianos which is usually translated or
'imposter' but which he translates as' 'magician'. When we
the use ofplanos and related w<?rds outside the New
is used primarily in relation to erring from the truth
never is it used, so far as leandiscover, without qualification,
to desCnbethework of a magician. It is alwaytl best translated as
'deceiver'. Only in the $econd century AD and after
was the. wordJinked with the accusation that Jesus wasa ma
.gidIm. The only possible exception to this is Matthew 24: 24
1;,or false Christs and false :prophets will arise and show great
sipsand wondet:s"so as t<? lead astray .. ' .'-However what-are m
question here are the false and. false prophets who will
lead. the people astray (planestll) not the signs and wonders which
Mein question as 'magical' .
. place. Professor Smith sees a reference, to, an
of magic against is John 18.: 30 - 'They answered
hUn, "ll.this were not an evil doer [kakon "oiOn], we would
nOt have handed him over'''. When, in Latin, Tertullianand
Cyprian cited 1Peter 4: 15, which also contains'evil doer' (RSV =
. 'Wtongdoer'),they used maleficus which Smith says means 'rna
gi!::ian'. The term is Qnly a generic tem\ for any evil activity,
.. l)owever,and needs qualification to give it the meaning of
, . m,.J'
rnae-'
.Later Christian writers are also cited by Smith as showing that
'"":.
Jesus was considered to be a magician. But there are two
portapt problems foi Smith's case. First,. although these
writhlgs certainly refer to of 'magic' being made against
Jesus, the earliest is many years separated from the
Gospel writings. But not onlyis this evidence late; Smith does nQt
J'l!SUS AND EXORCISM
. show that it reflects views of those who witnessed Jesus'exor
ciSms or were even contemporaries of his. Second, the debate
oflater times, noted in our last chapter, two factors were impor
tant in determining whether or not a miracle worker was thought
to be a magician. First, if the life style of a miracle worker revealed
him to be a cheat, liar or murderer Jetc) he was deemed to bea
magician. Second, of most importance was the reality and longevity
of a person's work. Thus if they were mere apparitions or did not
last then the person was thought tobe a magician. But so far as we
can see from the Gospels none of Jesus' detractors, not even in
.;,..
connection with the exorcisms, drew attention to either his life
style or the reality of his miracles - including the exorcisms. It is .
only legitimate to conclude that in observing Jesus as an exorcist
no one would have considered hUn to: be a magician. .
In the light of this it is worth clarifying an important difference
between these definitions of 'magic' used in the ancient world.
and those which are often used today. In our time 'magic' is very
much connected with the perfOrmance of healing; the technique;
If a healer was to use either special words or unscientific potions .
most of our contemporaries would consider the healer to be a
magician. Thus if ourdescription of Jesus earlier in this chapter is
correct, we carmot avoidthe conclusion that in our eyes Jesus was
using'magic' to perform his exorcisms, However it is a mistake to
call hima magicianor even attempt to rescue himfrom that title or
charge by creating false barriers between Jesus and his world, fqr
.' to call him a magician is to use twentieth-eentury categories to
understand a first-eentury figure. .
. 4 '. How didJesus Understand his Exorcisms?
I .
Matthew 12: 28lLuke 11: 20 is important in providing materiaHo
help answer this question. It is most probably ail authentic Jesus
for in it Jesus' source of is revealed bUt
the early Churchdoes not, as we have just seen, pickup thispoint
in its portrayal ofJesus as an exorcist. Although this verse places
exordsm in the centre of Jesus' ministry we should not conclude
that in exorcism the whole of Jesus' ministry was summed up,
whether for himself or for the early ChurCh. Despite the central
impOrtance Jesus gave to exorcism,' the clearest that he
considered his ministry much wider than exorcism is in the
answer toJohn the BaptiSt.
- .- ,
:""
_ when jQhn heard in prison
,about the deeds of the Christ, he
_sent WQrd by IUs .disciples 3and
__SlUdto him,
.
'Are you-he who is to come, or
shaD we look fOr another?'
4And,lesus answered them, 'Go
and tell John what you hear and
I-
see: sthe-btind receive their sight
and the _lame walk, lepers are
-deansed and the deaf hear. And
.the dead are raised up, and the
-peor-havegood news preached to
-. theIR. 6And blessed is he who
,takes no offence at me' (Matt. 11:
2-6)._
- 1'The disciplesqfJowtoll;1 him-
-of aU these things. _And }ohn,
calling to him two of his dis
ciples, sent them to the Lord
saying, _- .
- 'Are you he who is to Come; or
shall we look for another?' 20And
- when the men IuuJ come to him,
they said, 'John the Baptist has
sent us to you, saying, "Are you
he who is to come, or shall we
look for another?:'" 211n tlrilt hour
he cuxed many of disetJses and
plagues and evil spirits, _and on
many that were blind he bestowed
sight. 22 And he answered them,
'Go and teD John what you have
seen and hew: the blind receive
their sight, the lame walk, lepers
are cleansed, and the deaf hear,'
-the dead are raised up,' the poor
. have news preached to
them. And blessed is he who
takes no offence at me' (Luke 7:
18-23).
Il'lvv. 20f Luke says exorcism formed part of the new state of
I .
affairs attending Jesus' ministry. However, the vocabulary and
style (in italics above) and the awkward addition of v.21 into the
context probably means tha.t Luke has added this reference to
exOJ'cism to Q, his source. It is Matthew then who more nearly
reproduces the Q tradition. That this tradition goes back to the
earfiest-reports of the historical Jesus is probable because the
cIialogu.e fits sowell into the life situation of Jesus; in particular
-Jesus' -reply is. Unlikely to have been composed Easter and
tbetraditionis unlikely to invent the notion of John the Baptist, a
lI,\Ajor witness to Jesus, questioning the status and ministry of
_}e$I8. lSThereore in this pericopewe probably have a description
originating from Jesus of the new state of affairs attending his
iIiinistry - yet there is nO mention of exorcism. Here it is not only
beaIii1gs, but the climax of reply that draws attention torus
pteadUngasintegraltohis ministry. -Thus in thelight of this reply
toJohn the Baptist we cannot claim that exorcism was tJu= key to
, .
JJlSUSAN1) BxOaCJ$
his ministry, simply with Matthew 12:,28/Luke 11: 20 in mind, .
that ,exorcism was at least one of the important functions or
aspects of hisministry. .. . .
it is in the collection of sayings now found in what is usually
called the 'Beelzebul that we fmd out most about
how Jesus understood his ministry of exorcism (Mark 3: an4 .
Matt. 9: 32-4112: 22-30lLuke 11: 14-23). Within these the
'SpiritlFingetsaying of.Matthew 12: 28lLuke 11: 20 is in tum of
considerable significance. There Jesus says 'If it is in the Spirit
(Luke has 'fIDget) of God that 1 cast out dem()ns then the
Kingdom of God has come upon you' . From this saying we leama
number of things about how Jesus viewed his exorcisms. First,
Jesus says he was castingout demons by the Spirit (finger) of God
(d. p. 33 above). We have seen that in the New Testament period
other Jews were using 'God' as the source of power-authority
(e.g., PGM, IV: 3(19). But significantly Jesus says he is operating
by the Spirit of God. The Jews believed that when the special
indiviqual - the Messiah - came from God he would be
lyendowed with the Spirit of God e.g., lsa, 61: 1; Luke 4:18;
Acts 2: 33). Here Jesus claims to be authorised by that very $pirit.
. This then is one of the cleflrest that Jesuswas aware of
hiS special relationshipand status before God. Second, not onlyis.
. Jesus' mention of 'Spirit' important here, but so also is .the
emphatic '1'16 about which we have already spoken. If we take
this into account Jesus was not simply saying that because the
Spirit had come then the Kingdom had arrived but that beause
the Spirit had come upon him, and he was casting out demons,.
thell the Kingdom of God had come. Thus Jesus believed that
where the Spirit was pperating in him there was the Kingdotn of God.
Thus, third, it is clear that Jesus understood his exorcisms not to.
be preparatory to the Kingdom but actually the Kingdom of G<;Kl,
in operation; not even illu.strations of the Kingdom but
coming of .the Kingdom - God's reign itself in operation in the'
defeat of Satan in people's lives. Fourth, within the Beelzebul
Controversy sayings there is. a parable which helpselud.da.te
Jesus' understandingof his exorcisms. In Matthew 12: 29/Mark 3:.
, 27lLuke 11: 21 Jesus likens his exorcisms to S()meone enter
ing a. strong man's house, binding him and .plundering ..
.house. Thus in exorcism Jesus sees himself as binding
order to plunder his property - those hitherto held by Satal\.
From what we have seen so far can conclude that
is the first gne to mtlke a specifiC connection between therelDtively,
mmts of aurcisin and the d/!fetlt of 5JJtd1J, between exorcism
.' -tst:f*oIogy. . ".
But here we meet a difficulty. IfJesus understood his exorcisms
u the- defeat of satan, howare we to explain the sayings of Jesus
WI'lid\ assume the continued existenceand operation of Satan (d;
....
e.g., Luke 10: 17fand22: 31)?IfSataiiwasthoughttobe defeated
itl}esus'ministry why did the early Church so readily accept the
'-"," .
reality of Satan's existence and power? And if exorcistic
.... .
IDiDi$try was the defeat of Satan why does materiallike 2 Peter2:
4-1Oi Jude 6 and Revelation 20: 1-3 see Satan's defeat.s taking
plac:eat the judgment? Of particular interest to us is the
qUestion - if Jesus' ministry marks the defeat of Satan then why
"" ..
didtheearlyChurch engage inexorcism?Canwe answer aD these
in Barrett's words - "The devil is defeated, but he is not
. !
.. . The Church was too well acquainted with his devices
to-suppoie that Satan had died'1
17
The answer to these questions
isimportant for it maycontribute to the solutionof the problemof
whether and how the Church in the twentieth century should be
irtvokredin exorcism. .
It is possible-that, while Jesus may have viewed his exorcisms
the-ctefettt of Satan, the early Church was still confronted with
tt..reality of evil and 80 inserted secondary material into the
tladition toaccount for -this well as its own experience.
n.e material in the Jesus tradition that assumes the continuing
reidity'ofSatan or evil to the- end of the age is not extensive. It
iRdudes the commission lit Mark 16: 17, the parable of the Wheat
andtheWeeds (Matt. 13: 2...,30), theexplanation of the parable of
tbeWheat and the Weeds (Matt. 13: 36-43), the parableOf the Net
auditsexplanation (Matt. 13:47-50), the parable of theSheepand
Geats (Matt. 25: 1-46). '
: An ex.amination of this data shows thatsome, if not' most, of
tkis material is almost certainly secondary and cannot be traced
bade tO,the historical Jesus. The ending of Mark (16: 9-20),which
includeS the commission,(v. 17) is not in many of the best
manUSCripts (e.g.; Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) and there
- m-probably does not convey authentic Jesustraditiort. Views
vary on the authenticity of the parable of the Wheat and the
SOme see-the whole parable as reflecting the
1WmIS and views Of JeSlis, while others regard the core, 240-26
and3Ob, as authentic. 18 An important contribtltion to the. debate .
Oft 1heparable's authenticityisthat it is also found in the-Gospel
ofThOmas. ". ..
81.
I,
.Jesus8Ud: The kingdom of the Father is like a man who had (good),
seed. His enemy came by night (and) sowed a weed among the (PId
seed. The man did not aDowthem to pull up the weed. He soHd to
them, Lest you go to 'pull up the weed, and you pull up the wheal
,alongwithit; For on the day of the harvest the weeds will appear; they
will6epulled up and burned (par. 57).
This probably independent witness means that we can conclude; .
not only that at least the main features of the parable are audl--.
entic, butalso that the.reference to the destruction of the enemy's
work in 'the eschaton probably goes back to }esus. The expla;-'< '
nation of this parable is most probably Matthew's own inter
ptetation.
19
,. And .the explanation of' the' parable of the Net is
ptoba!'Jy not autherttic while the parable itself maywell befrom
Jesus.
20
Yet, while the parable could have referred to thelut
judgment, no clear reference is made to Satan or his works, 11te.
parable of the Sheep and the Goats is generally agreed. to contain
at least significant traces of authentic Jesus tradition .:...espedaBy..
in 25: 35-40 and 42_5.
21
However verse 41 ('Then he will say to
those at his left hand,''Depart from me, you cursed, into the
etmuU fire prepared for the devil and his angels ..' ."') and verse t6
('And they will go away into etenJll1 punishment, but theriglrttoNs
into etmrtlllife') show by the Matthean traits (in italics) that
haw -eottte from the Evangelist's hand.
22
In conclusk1R'
this means that the .tradition which Matthew has used herein
chapter 25was free of the notionofSatan's defeat or destructioni:n
the eternal fire. .
Fmmthis very brief investigation of the Gospel material wheft,
Jesus is said to have associated the defeat of Satan and evil with,
. the last judgment only the parable of the Wheat and the Weetis'
stands up tosautiny. Nevertheless, evenwith thissmall amount,
of material we have evidence that Jesus believed that his ,exor,;
cisms were the defeat ofSatan.and yet that Satan's activity would
also continue until the final judgment. How then canwe explain .
this apparent tension? Doe&Jesus assUll\t> two defeats of satan?
I
Recalling some of the literature surveyed in Chapter IT, which
/
illustratedcontemporaryideas about the destruction of Satan, the
may be quitesimple. Some of this data. like fsaiah 24: 22
describes a simple two--stage defeat of evil - "they Will be shUt up
ina prison, and after many days they will bepunished' (d. Jub.5:
5-"10;(10: 5-9); Eth. En. 21). Ethiopic Enoch 10: 4-6 develops this
siIRplepicture clarifying how the' first-i:entury .mind probably,
I .
82'
understood the nat\ll'e of each stage of the defeat. 'The Lord said
to Raphael: "Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the .
darkness. . . and let him abide there for ever. . . And on the day .
of the great judgment he shall be cast into the fIre'" (note also
vv; 11-13). Ethiopic Enoch 19: 1 is even more explicit about the
second stage ,-'here (in a deep abyss of heavenly fire) shall they
stand tiD the day of judgment in which they shall be judged till
they are made an end of.' What is in mind seems to be a fltstor
preliminary stage In which evil or Satan is bound or constrained
for; an extended period until the second and final destruction of
Satan and his minions. From what we see reflected in the auth-
e.Jesus tradition this is howJesus understQod the destruction
of Satan. His exorcisms were the first stage of binding Satan
(Mark 3: 23WMatt. 12: 25f1Luke 11: 17f; d. Matt. 12: 281Luke 11:
7D) but the final defeat would take place in the fInal judgment
. (Matt. 13: 30). .
So far in this section' we have been discussing Jesus' under
Standing of the 'cosmic' significance of his exorcisms. But is it
possible to say something abo.ut what he thought he was doing
for the individuals concerned? The material in the Beelzebul
CoDtroversypericope, particularly the parable of the Strong Man
(Matt. 12: 29/Mark 3: 27ILuke 11: 21-3, see p. 79 above), indicates
tbaUesiuJ thought that in exorcism. he was releasing the indi
vidual from Satan's grip (d. Luke 13: 16). This pericope (note
Matt. 12: 281Luke 11: 20) aswell as the parable of the seven other
returning evil spirits (Matt. 12: 431Luke 11: 24-6, see pp. 189f
below) shows that Jesus also thought that the destruction of
Satan's Kingdom in an individual was only part of the ministry of
exorcism. There needed to follow the coming of the Holy Spirit to '.
the individual's life. Thus the person whomJesus e ~ e d became
pert of the coming of the Kingdom of God;' was the action of the
Kingdom of God. in microcosm (d. Matt. 12: 281Luke 1 1 ~ 20). .
5 The Mission(s) 'of the Disciples
\.
If. what we have said in the last section is correct it is not
surprising that the early Church engaged:in exorcism - they also
would havebeen wotking witha two-stage model of the defeat of
Satanandhis minions. Further, notonIy its continued experience
ofevil.but also the connection that Jesus made between exorQsm
. and tbedefeat ofSatanmay have provoked the Churchintoeither .
/
., .
jB5US AND BXOltCISM
beginriirtg or continuing exorcism. But from where did the "
Church's warrant for exorcism come? Did it come from within its
own commurtity, say, from prophetic utterances or from Jesus?
Perhaps the most natural place in the New Testament to look
for anansWer tothese questions isin the post-Easter commisSion
iilg(s) (Matt. 28: 18-20; Mark 16: 15-18; Luke-24: John 20:'
21-3; Zl: 15-23; Acts 1:8). Regardless of the authenticityof any of
thesepericopes and traditions the surprising point is that
Mark 16: 17. mentions exorcism, but as we have noted above it is
unlikely to convey reliable Jesus material. The most reasonable'
concluSion we might be able to draw from this is that so far as we
know from the Testament documents the earliest Church .
did not think it had specific warrant for exorcism from their
Risen Lord.
However, before consolidating this conclusion we need to
examine briefly the Gospel traditions which relate tlle earthly .
Jesus commissiOning the disciples in the pre-Easter stories. The
passages to be considered are Mark 3: 13-19alMatthew 10: 1-41
Luke6: 12-16; Mark6: Q>..13/Matthew9: 35; 10:1,7-11, 141Luke9:'
9:37..:.8; 10: 7-16/Luke 10: 1-12 and 17-20. An
examinationof this'materialreveals that all these reports arise out
of three traditions only - MIlrk 3: 13ft, usedby Matthewat 10:1-4
. and Luke at 6: 12-16;MIlrk6: 6"", used by Luke in chapter 9; and
LuktlOj . probably Q. Matthew has conflated all three of these
reports in hisstory' (9: 35-10: 16). Luke with his succesSive- .
chapterS 9 and 10 gives the impression that there
were two missions by the disciples. However, from the pattemef
the traditions (d. Mark 6 and Luke 10 (Q which are roughly
parallel, it is probably best to suppose that there is just a.single
tradition behind these stories;23
. What then of' the histOricity of the commission to' cast .out
demons?
And he went up into the hiIJ$, antl; c:iUled to him those whol,ll desired;
and they (2lIIle to him. And Mappointed twelve to be with and to be'
sent out to preach artd have authority to cast out demons (Mark 3:' .
.13ft). And he ooZed to him the twelve, and began to send them out'tWo.
by two, andgrwe them Il1lthority over the uncletln spirits (Mark 6: 7, cf..
. The vocabulary and themes of this material (in italics) suggest
thatthese verseS been written or reworked by Mark to in-
troduce1he idea that Jesus gave specific authority tothe disciples
84 CBlUST'I1UUMPHANT
out demons. Luke 10 does not even mention casting out
demons or ha"Ving authority over evil spirits: the command to
.\, I
'cast out demons' in the Matthean parallel (10: 8) is from Matt..
hew's hand (d. Matt. 10: 8; Luke 9: 2; 10: 9 and Mark 6: 12)..
However Luke 10: 17 - 'and the demons a,re subject to us in your
name' - suggests that if there had been a reference to exorcismin
}eus' commissioning it is unlikely that Luke would have drop
ped such a reference. It seems then that in our Gospel traditions
ofJesus' commission only the directive 'to preach the kingdomof
. God' (d. Lulce 10: 9) remains historically
\ , As the historicity of the command to exorcise fades so also, for
some, does the hiStoricity of the missionitself. For example F. W.
.Beare questions whether or not Jesus ever sent. his disciples on
such a mission, and Bultmann says that originally the mission
charge came from the lUsen Lord, as opposed to the earthly
}esUS.
24
On the other hand T. W. Manson said that 'the mission
of the disciples is one of the best attested facts in the life of
}esQ.s'.2.5 Indeed a number of things can be said in favour of the
. likelihood that the Gospel tradition is faithful inits representation
ofa pre-Easter Palestinian mission by the disciples. First the direc
tive to 'salute no one on the way' is so harsh and out of harmony
withooaunon courtesy in the East that it is unlikely to have been
produ<:ed by the post-Easter Secondly.the phrase
'a<$on of peace' (Luke 10: 6) would fit well into a Palestinian
..uJieu as would the notion of shaking dust off one's feet (Matt.
1Or141Luke 10: 11).27 Thirdly the charge to preach - 'the King
. dom of: God haS come (to you)' (Luke 10: 9 and 11; d. Matt.
:10:7)- while containingechoes of early Church preaching (e.g.,
Acts 8: 12; 14: 22; 19: 8; 20: 25; 2& 23, 31), is so much like the
actualmessage ofJesus (e.g.,d. Mark 1: 15; Matt. 12: 281Luke 11:
20).yet absent of Christology, and unlike the heart of early
Church's message (e.g., d. Rom. 1;: 1-4; 1 Cor. 15; 3f), that the
charge is probably authentic.
. Theref()re we'can conclude that, even though we may now be
able to recove,.. very little reliable information on the mission of
the disciples, Jesus probably did send hy;. disciples out on a
preaching mission to announce the coming of the Kingdom of
God. . .
It is no longer possible to say, with confidence, that the extant
Gospel 4'aditions contain an historically reliable charge. to the
disciples to exorcise. However this does' not preclude the prob
ability that the disciples performed. exorcism or that Jesus in
jJSSVSANDEXORGISM - 85.;
tended them to be exorcists, or such a beep.
lost. For example, to support the notion that Jesus intended
disciples to be exorcists we can note ,that embodied in the tra
dition of the story of the epileptic boy is the assumption that the
were exorcists (Mark 9: 14-29): The story of the Strange
Exorcist (Mark 9: 38flLuke 9: 49f) also implies that the
engaged in exorcism. The Return of the Seventy (Two) disciples \. . I
also indicates that the disciples were ,,!xorcists. There is a tension
10in that orily vv. 17-20 mention exorcism,
that either or both parts.of Luke 10 (vv. 2ff and 17ff) are at least.
pre-Lucan, and 10: 18 - Satan falling like lightning - is usually.
taken to be authentic Jesus tradition.
28
That exorcism. (of the
disciples), and perhaps a command to exorcise that we no langei:
have, provide the background to this verse;is likely in the
Jesus' connection of exorcism and the defeat of Satan. Following'
on. from this, for Jesus the coming of the Kingdom of God,
exorcism and of Satan were all interconnected, it.
would probably mean that the disciples w()uld have uriderstoqd
tliat a chargeto preach the Kingdom of God would have carried
with it an implicit warrant to carry out the associated exorcisms"
Wecan probably also say that this have citlter been the
intention or at least the understanding Jesus wOUld have had
behjn'd his C0lI\I1'1.8I\4to preach the Kingdom of God (d.
. 281Luke 11: 2Q). Thus Jesus was involving his in his oWR.
As Jesus understoo4hisexorcisms wbe the
defeat of Satan,w.be completed in the final judgment, and
the sharing this mission it is reasonable to suppose,
that Jesus intended his disciples to continue their preachingand.
':exorcisms until the complete comingof the Kingdom. While
lmay have expecte4 the Kingdom to come soon -pe,rhaps in
aSsociation with. his death and vindication - the early Cburc!l's
l.continuation of the ministry of exorcism seems a reaSonable
Ilpractice in the light of the eschatological framework within which
they, and the earthlyJesus, had been working.
I
16Condusion
;[The purpose of this chapter has been toe'xamine the of
This enterprise has been necessary beCause a popular line
argument claims that the early Church modelled its own
lministry of exoccism that of Jesus and that, in turn, the
I
86 CHRIST TlU'UMPHANT
twentieth.-eentury Church should model its ministry, and there-'
fore exorcisms, on Jesus and the early Olurch. '
From data both within and outside the New Testament there is
no'daubtthat Jesus was an exomst - a very successful exorcist.
. Just as with other dtarismatic exorcists of his time demoniacs
were disturbed whenconfronted byJesus and, usingrecognisable
formulae, sought to ward off Jesus. In performing an exorcism
Jesus used the simple incantational language familiar to other
exorcists. In response the demons, not always immediately obe
dient, pleaded for leniency and' departed with characteristic
violence.
,'Also like other similar exorcists Jesus used no mechanical aids,
save the' pigs into which some demons were transferred, no
proOfs or prayer;' nor did he reveal his source of power-authority.
HoweVer in debate with his detractors Jesus revealed that his
source of power-authority was the Spirit of God. Yelcontrary to
Our expectations in an exorcism Jesus Rever used the formula 'I
eXOi'dSe you by the Spirit of God'. Instead he said '1 command
yOu [to come out . . .]' showing clearly that he thought he was
adirrg on his own authority while being endowed with the Holy,
etdlatologicaI Spirit.
From this same debate with his-detractors we also see that Jesus
unclerstood' that in his exorcisms he was carrying out the fitst
I stageof the defeat of Satan. The second stage, he believed, would
be thelast judgment. And fromwhat we have saidJesus seems .
to have been thE! first to associate exorcism and eschatology. The
aUdience response to the exorcisms varied from fear and amaze
ment to saying that he was mad or demon-possessed. But it is
only later Christians who saw in the exorcisms an expression of
his Messiahship and later detractors brand him 'a magician'.
It is no longer possible to show that Jesus commanded his
, disciples to include exorcism in their ministry either before or
after Ea}Jter. But in so far as exorcism, the defeat of Sat'an and the,
coming of the new Kingdom are interconnected, and that Jesus
sent his disciples out to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom, ;
then we can assume both that Jesus intended the disciples to be
exorcists and that in fact they were exorcists. How far the early ,
Church took up the ttlethods of Jesus will be discussedin the next
. chapter. . .
. I
IV
THE EARLY CHURCH
So far we have looked at Jesus as an exorcist inthe light of hisown
world. At the end of the last chapter it was concluded that JetlUS
sent out his disciples to share iri his ministry of proclainting the
arrival of the new Kingdom. Jesus and the-disciples believed that .
part of the coming of the Kingdom of God involved the of
Satan and his kingdom, initially through exorcism, then finally
one dayat the last judgment. Although the disciples shared in
Jesus' pre-Easter ministry of exorcism, in of relatively
little mention of in the early Church (see below), we
must now ask if the early Church continued this practice and if
what little reference is made to exorcism can be set aside as
unimportant and peripheral to its main mission.
.After an eXamination of some of-the New Testament data
Kenneth Grayston says that the problems ofdemon-possessionh;
GaJiIeewere marginal to the work ofJesus 'that the
earliest Christians were not much interested in exorcism'. ISO
having drawn his conclusions about the New Teswne1'lt data
Grayston asks - .
Is there any instruction in all this for us? Yes - for Jesus was interested
in God, not in demons ... When he was denounced asa demO1\"
possessed man, he threw this answer back: '00 you see in my
the finger of God or the activity of demons?' We should apply the
same test to ourselves. If we are pre-occupied with God - may
manage to do God's work; if weare pre-occupied with demons, of
course we shall produce demons.
2
Yet on the other hand Albrecht Oepke says - .
The unparalleled missionary vigour of Christianity in the first cen
turies derives not least of all from the bold supremacy continually
confirmed by striking experiences, with which the new
_brought freedom to those who were enslaved by demons ...3_
With this the Bishop of Exeter's report onexorcismagrees. At one
point the report states
. -' ,
CHRIST TRIUMPHANT
Itisclear that the.priJnitive preaching (e.g. of Peter, in Acts 10: 38) gave
as one of the chief characteristics of the mission of Christ the fact that
he freed men from the power of the devil.
4
The report also says that the New Testament teaches that the
mission of Jesus was primarily. the triumph of God over the
domination of Satan in the world and concludes that in man's
into Christ the Church shares this triumphant life
andwork.
5
. .
So did;the early Church include exorcism in its ministry, and if
so whyI and how important was it, and what was
given \t1 In so far as the New Testament documents and the
perspectives of the early Church remain significant in informing
contemporary Christian beliefs, answers to these questions are
iInportant for us when we come to discuss exorcism in the
mission of the modem Church. However, in seeking answers to.
QUlquestions we have to recognise that the NewTestament is not
a single book but a library of books with different writers rep
views of different sectors of the early Church. In
we.must be prepared. for different answers to our ques
.
0Re of .the anomalies in the New Testament in relation to our
subject is the fourth Gospel and so we shall begin by examining
Jobannine theology. Next we shall look at Paul, the earliest
Christmri writer in the New Testament. Luke is our most im
portant writer when discussing exorcism in the early Church
and so .we shall spend considerable time setting out his per
spedivebefore turning to theother Synoptic writers and finally to
James.' .
JobaJmj.ne Theology
Hit is to be argued that the early Church was not much interested
in exorcism then John's Gospel may provide alllple evidence.
This Gospel mentions nothing about either exorcism or Jesus'
being an exorcist. Why? .
Itcannot be that John's Gospel presents Jesus correctly as
having nothing to do with exorcism - the evidence to the con
trary is too great (see above). Thus John has suppressed or
ignored what both Jesus and other sections -of the Church
ttiought important to his ministry. Why? Contrary to Vincent
taylor's view, John was not embanas&ed about portrayingJesu8
,"

; '!.'
.'
asa man of his time, using the healingteclmiques of his contem
pOraries, for John is happy to' include a story of Jesus' healin3
froma distance (4: 46-54) and the use of spittle (9: 1-1).
6
Both are
techniques used by other healers of the period (see above). '
It is m6re likely' that together a number of aspects' of the
exclusiveness of Johannin theology have contributed to the
exclusionof references toJe ' as an exorcist from the
this aspect of Jesus' minis was not taken up into Johanrdne
JeSus tradition because it was at variance with Johannine
theology. '
First the Johannine no . of the function of Jesus' miracles is
summed up at the end of an earlier edition of the gospel:
,.
Jesus did DUlJly other signs' the presence of the disciples, which are .'. ,
not written in this book; bU these are written that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the n of God, and that believing you may
have-life in his name (20;
In other words the miracl are considered so to reveal the
identity of Jesus that the re ders are led 'to believe that he is the
Christ and find life in his Ii. me. Thus in 2: 11 the miracle' at the
wedding was the first d'sign' (semeion) and it'manifes.ted
his gIoryand his disciples 'eved in him' (d. 12: 37; and 2:23;.3:
2; 6: 2). Not only does John use 'sign' but also 'work' (ergon).to
describe the miracles ofJesu (e.g. 7: 21 'I did one work, and yoo
all marvel at it'). Ahd, im ntly for our point, these:worksaft
also seen asthe work, not 0 oIesus but also of God (e.g. ' .. ';
theFather who dwells in does his works' 14: 10; also 4:
36; 7.: 21; 9: ,4; 10: 25-38). The 'ter/author of the Fourth Gosper.;
belief that the miracles' ested his glory' and were the work
of God has determined both the choice and telling of the miracle
stories. So, at the woodin 120 to 180 gallons of wine were
, .
produced (2: 6), the healing at a distance took place at precisely i [.' '
the same time as Jesus prono the healing (4: 52), the manat ./
Bethesda was healed after -eight years of illness'(5: 5), 5,000
were fed with only:five lodes and two fish (6: 1-14), theDUU\
whose Sight was restored'hatt been born blind (9: 1) and Lazanas
was raised having been deatl for three days (11: l-44).But not

onlydidJohn choose spectacWar miracles, he chosemiracles that
fitted the idea that they wert the work of God. For example-the
walking on the water may have recalled, for the readers, the
legend of the god Dionysus leading his followers across the river
,
....,...
Hyda$pt$.1'fte DiQi:lysus:legends also contain the story of empty
;... with wine.
7
Compared with,these
which were chosento showJesus' gloryan4
. ,".
hisdivineruUure, the.relatively commonexorcisms perfon.nedby
Jeeus' contemporaries would have appealed banal.
A factor which may have contributedtoJohn's ignoring
9'. suppressing the exon;ism stories may be because he dtose tQ
]
give little.-ttennon to the Kingdomof God inJesus' teaching. We
have &een'that Jesus - and the Synoptic Gospels - closelyassoci
atedexorcism and the Kingdom of God (Matt. 12: 28/Luke 11.: 20); .
forJollnto exclude one probably meant that he felt obligated to
preclude the other. In any case John's intention was to focus on
the King tather than on the Kingdom(18: 36).
. '. Third, in the Synoptic GOspels, and probably in the authentic
Jesus tradition as well, an aspect of the defeat ofSatan is directly
liRkedwith Jesus' exorcism (Mark 3: 22-7; Matt. 12:
. 11:15-22). However, in John the defeat of Satan is linked with
the cross. Talking of his death Jesus says 'Now is the judgment of 1J;,
this worki, nowshall the ruler of this worldbe c;astout'.(d. 14; 30; Jl.JI
16: 11; also 5: 27ff). As we have seen that the Synoptic tradition .
haifollowed Jesus in linking part of the defeat of Satan with
-.osm the transferen(e. of that defeat to the cross probably
meent that the exorcisIllft did not have.the $arne importance for
him. for these reasons John has chO$en to disregard
th4t Jesus was an and that exorcism should
pJay.anypart intheChurches'mirUstry. We have thenat least one
example ofan-early communitywhich felt it possible to fulfil their
their traditions without either acknowledging that
Jesu was an exorcist orthat Christians should be involved in
. .
exorcism.
Paul
Paul is interest to usbecause he is the earliestwitness.
we'have"Of the as well as the and
,
. JDirii&try of the early Christian conununities.
....... 1'.' Perhaps contrary to our expectations very little to say
abOQt demons or evil spirits. In the undisputed Pauline letters,
tiemonsare mentiortedinonlyonepassage.. 1CQrinthiafls lO:2Off
('4.'. . what pagans BaCrifice. they offer tQ demons and n to God
,'d. 1 Tim. 4: 1). Paul, like the author of Revelation 9: 20, ..
"
taking upthe b.eliefreftectedin theSeptuagint that the gods ofthe
Gentiles are demons and-'that non-Jewish sacrifices are
orisedby-the demons (seeDeut. 32: 17;Ps. 96: 5 (LXX 95: 5);
106: 37(LXX. 105: 37); En. 19: 1; Jub. 1: 11).
Unlike his contemporaryGreeks Paul did not-even attribute the'
troubles of 2 Corinthians 11: 24--7to demons or evilspirits.Only
in 2CorinthianS 12: 7 does he attribute evil, a thornin the flesh, to
a messenger of Satan. . .
With such an infrequent"association of Satan and demons with
sickness and human suffering we shoUld not be too quick to
conclude that Paul did not believe in the power of evil.
In anwnber of places Paul 'Shows how real and vapous he,
" believes the unseen evil powers to be (e.g. 1 Cor. 5: 5; 7:5; 2 Cor:
2: 10; 11: 14; 1 Thess. 2: 18; 2 Thess. 2: 9). Much of what Paul .
thought about evil is contained in his notion of'principalitiesand. .
. powers'.
8
And in this idea it becomes apparent that althOugh he
mentions demons. in only one passage (1 Cor. 10: 2Off) Paul's
notion of evil is not as far from the Synoptic Gospels'and Jesus as
might at first be thought." ..'-. ;
The most obvious meaningof Paul's 'principalities and powers'
is theJeWish idea that behind the pagan world Ol'der:
were the supernatural motivatinK powers (Deut. 32: 8; Isa. 24:
21ff; 10: 13, 20; Eth. En. 89: 59f; 90: 22; 1 Cor. 2: 6-8). But
this by no means exhausts the content of Paul's Use of 'princi.;,:
patities and powers'. In relation to evil spirits-Romans 8: 38;'1
Corinthians 15: 24and Colossians 2: 8-15 (d. Eph. 3: 10; 6: 12) are
of importance. In this context the principalities and
powers in Romans 8: 38f are probablynot intendedto'refer to civil
authorities but to evil opposing spiritual beings,' potentially at.
least, able to separate men from the love of God. However,as a
result ofthe cross and Christ's.intercession these powers have
been deprived of. their authority over men. In 1 Corinthians
15: 24 it is not clear exactly how Paul. envisages the rulers
and powers save that they'are enemies to be defeated before the
Kingdom can be handed over to God. Thereis no direct link, but .
the mention. of the defeat Of death, the last enemy, makes the
resurrection the focal of the destruction of the principalities
and powers. Again in 8-15, especially verses 14,
Paul portrays a consequence of the cross-event. The unseen
rulers and powers which would otherwise enslave, men are
disanned and publicly displayed as a victorious emperor would
. display his spoils in a victory march.
/
I
While, likeJesus and the Synoptic Evangeijsts, Paul has linked
the; ,destnlction of s emissaries with the Kirlgdom of
God (Mark 3: 12: 22-45lLuke 11: 14-23), like the
Fourth Evangelist Paul has this destructi()n mQre firmly to
the aoss. In, linking the. destruction of evil with the cross
, we may ru-ve a reason why, Paul also tells us nottUng either
'&bout Jesus' being an exorcist or about the early itS
exorcists.
. One place where we tnighthave expeq:ed Paul to mention
ecorcisIn is ,in,the lists of gifts to the Church in Romans 12; 4-8
. andin 1 Corinthians 12: 7-11, 28-.30 (d. Eph. 4: 11). However the
function of these charismata.may have precluded the ministry of .
exorcism. In both liSts Paul has the Christian community (the
bOdy) in mind. Romans 12: 5 ... we, though many, are onebOdy
iIl.Christ, and individually members one of another.' 1 CoJ;in
tbians 12; 7 'Toeachis given the numifestation of the Spiritfor the
c:ommongood.' Andas the verse from 1Corinthians makes
the giftslcharismata are given, and to be used, for the benefit" or
JIlOI'e properly, edificationor upbuildingof the Church (1 12:
7;14:, 1-4,5. 12,17,26). For Paul all men are seen in relation to
eitherCbrist or Satan, the Holy Spirit the Spiritpf evil (1 Cor. 5:"
S; 2 COr. & 15; Gal. 5: 16-26) and the ChrlstiaA nas passed from
Siatanlo:Christ from darkness to light (2 Cor. 6: 14;,CoI. 1: 13; d.
Rom. 13: 12;2 Cor. 4: 6).
9
Seen in this way it would be
able for the Oturch to require or use the gift ofexorcisminits own.
, csmmunity; as Paul himself put it 'What accord has Christ with
Satan?' (2 ear. 6: 15). As Paul's letters are written tothe Church
'primarily about matters of it is tl:ten not so
SLU'prising that he has not ,meJ\tiQned exorcism or. exorcists.
ixordsm would be needed only as the Church confronted those
, Outside the Christian community stillin a particularly severe grip
of Satan.
. Paul does not even mention a spiritual gift or function
, 0( in his letters; again is.a function of the
. Churchin relation to the outside wQrld - and, iUs in that connee
lien that he mentions evangelism (e.g. Rom. 10: 15;(2 Co..;.

8: 18. (Only in later Pauline literature are evangelists men
tioned -Eph. 4: 11; 2 Tun. 4: 5; also Acts 21: 8; d. 8: 4, 12,
35,40).
:'Although he does not elaborate, Paul does that as an
apostle be won 'obedience from the Gentiles byword ,and deed-,
by the power of signs and wonders, by the power, of, the Holy
, ,
93 nm EAKLY CHUIlCH
Spirif(Rom. 15: 18t). That these or 'signs and wonders'
may have included exorcism is suggested by the author of Acts;
andit is to Paulin Acts that we must now turn.
InteUing the story of the arrival of the Gospel in Europe Luke
selects three very different st9ries of the power of the Gospel in
Macedonia: the stories of Lydia, slave girl, and the gaoler. In
the second story Paul and Luke (note e.g. the 'we' of Acts16: 16)
are followed by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination.
Exasperated at the girl's crying out Paul exorcised the ..
Despite what we have just said, the fact remains that Paul
nowhere lllentions exorcism, yet Acts.attributes an exorcism.to
. him, and as it has often been suggested Luke's portrait of Paw .
may be historic:ally defective
lO
it is necessary to discuss the
historicity of this story (16: 16-18). . ,
Emst Haenchen lists a number of points which tell against the
story's historical veracity. 11 First, the storyis not logically tied to
the coIltext in which it now stands: but of itself this does ,nat
impinge upon the historicity ()f an account. Second, he says
nobody can be indicted for driving out an evil spirit. However;
Paul andSilas are not y"dicted specifically for the exorcismbutf()r
causing a public disturbance and for advocating un-RoD\Cln prac
tices'(Acts 16: 2Of). These charges were couched inail anti-JeWish
sentiment, as common then as inour own time (Acts 18: 2, 12-17).
Haenchen also says that peOple would be careful not to arrest a
.p()werful exorcist for fear of being harmed. Against this is .tne.
classic precedent of the powerful exorcist being arrested,
tried and crucified. Although Haenclten's case against the histol'
icity of this story does not stand up against examination there i$,a
wealth of evidence in the way that this story is writf;en which
indicates that Luke has told it in his own words rather than
having copied it &omany.tradition. 12
This of course would no:rmally tell against the reliability of a
report. On tbe other hand the report forms. part of the 'we::.
passages' (Acts 16: 20: 5-15; 21: 1-18; 27: 1-28: 16). Luke may
have incorporated this material &om the hand of someone who
had accompanied Paul. However it is more natural to assuine-that
in these passages the author refers to himself,I.3 in which case it is
to be expected that the style would be Lucan. Further, the way in
which Paul is portrayed makesit likely that this report does refie<:t
an-actual incident in Paul's life. That is as Paul is a key figure and
hero of Acts it is unlikely that in the course of trying to enhance
Paul's reputation Luke would create a story in which Paul's
,
CHItISTTllIUIO'IIANT
....
ministry, was motiVated by annoyance (dUzponeistIrai ,
.
Acts 16: 18). '
Also, even though Luke has reported this story himself he has
_induded some' details which are better as befug
authentic rather than froM Luke's creative hand. In the cry of the
girl,. Paul and his associates are called servants of the Most High
God :.... not a designationin which the earlyChurchshowed much
interest (see above). These men,are said to 'proclaim to you away
of salvation'. Only here does Luke use the phrase 'a way of
t
salvation'. In everyother case whereLuke describes the Christian
lifeas a 'way' he describes it as 'the way of salvation' (Acts 18: 26)
or't1rewayofthe Lord' (18: 25) or simply 'thtWay' (9: 2; 19: 9,23;
4; 24:'14, 22). The exceptionis Acts 2: 28, an exact quotationof
Psalm 16 (LXX 15): 11, which does 'not have the article. In other
wOrds here in Acts 16:' 17, the atisence of an article before
, 'salvation' suggests that LUke is not attempting to make the
worcJs of the girl in this report conform to his own theological
interests.' ,
remains - was Paul an exorcist? or did he recog
ms,e exorcism as a, pclrt of the ministry of the Christian commun
ity? From our discussion of Acts 16: 16ff we can conclude that
tiIebind this' report there is probably' an exorcism by Paul
WhichLuke saw and reported in his own words. Paul's apparent
I'eludance to carry out the exorcism indiCates that it was pr0b
ably not an aspect of ministry which ,he sought after, yet
when'riecessary was a CQrnpetent exorcist. With this in mind,
andtfle nature''Of-Paul's1etters - dealing with internal mat
ters'in a Ch'UJdt - riot often touching on the Church and out
,,side, wOrld 'it is not surprising, that although he probably,did
.at least one exorcism, he does not mention it in his
, . From our discussion in Chapter'n we sawthat in the use of an
individual's name as a power-authority in exorcism it was
often found that that person had a reputation as an exorcist. In
AdS 19t 13someJewsattempt an exorcismwith the incantation '1
you' by Jesus whom Paul preaches.' Although the
p6wer-aUthorityi here is Jesus it is possible that a reputation in
,eltOrdsm using the name of Jesus (Acts 16: '18) is witnessed to
here.
" Finally then Paul was an exorcist, recognising it as part of his
mi:histry - yet he probably gave it a very lowpriority.- .
Luke
Of all- the New Testament writers Luke is potentially the most
useful in sheddinglight on exorcism and its related themes in the
earlyChurch; not only has he written a Gospel but in Acts he has,
told his story of the post-Easter situation al1 from Luke's hand
we have 27 per cent of the New Testament). Because of the scope
of his work it may be through Luke that we gain some
insights into at least one section of the Church's view of heafuig
and exorcism and the relation between Jesus' ministry
cism and exorciSm in the early ChurcJ'l. We also discover
something of the tedmiques used by the early 'Church in
ministry. So let us spend some time in discussing Luke's mat-erial
in detail. .
The material related to exorcism in Luke's work is quite extefl
sive: Luke 4: 33-7/Mark 1: 23-8 (the demoniac in the synagogue);,
4: 38f1Mark 1: 29ff (Simon's mother-in-law); 4: 4O-4IMark 1: 32-:-,9 '.
(sunuruuy report); 6: 17ffIMark 3: 7-12 (introduction to
mon); '7: 18-23/Matt. 11: 2-6 (Answer to John the Baptist);
8: l-3IMatt. 9: 35/Mark 6: 6b; 16: 9 (women followers); 8: 26-391
Mark 5:1':"20 (the Gadarene demoniac); 9: 1-6, 10lMark 6: 7-.l3
(the Mission of the Twelve); 9: 37-;43IMark 9: 14-29 (the epileptic:
boy); 9: 49flMark 9: 38-41 (the Strange Exorcist); 19: 1-12, 17-20/
, Matt. 9: 37; 10: 7-16 (the Mission of the Seventy); 11: 14-26IMatt.
12: 22-30, 43-5IMark3: 22-7 (the Beelzebul Controversy);
13: 10-17 (the woman with a spirit of infirmity); 13: 32 (summary.
Acts 5: 12-16 (summary of apostles' ministry);,
8: 4-8 (Philip in Samaria); 10: 36-43 (summary of Jesus' ,
ministry); 16: 16-18 (possessed slave'girl); 19: 11-20 (the Sons of
Sceva).
I
It is without question that, like the other Luke
is most concerned to write a Gospel essentially through telling'
the Jesus story. Thus the place to begin in'
ing Luke's message, including what he has to say about exor.,.
cism,is to look at what he has to say about Jesus in reIatiQD to
exorcism.
, '-
. . \

jesus in Luke-Acts
Tb.eJesus of Luke-Acts is not only Saviour (e.g. Luke 2: 11; 19: 9;
Kdl2: 21; 5: 31; 13: 23), Messiah/Christ (e.g. Luke 2: 11, 26; 3: 15;'
.4:-11; 9: 20; 22: 6-1;:23: 2, 35, 39; 24: 26, 46; Acts 2: 31, 36; 3: 20;
5i: 42; 8i 5; 9: 22; 17: 3; 18: 5, 28; 26: 23), Prophet (Luke 1: 17; 7: 16,
39;13:33;24: 19; Acts 3: 22; 7:37), Lord (e.g. Luke 1:.43, 76; 2: 11;
19: :n(d. 34); 24: 34; Acts 10: 36), and Son (Luke 1: 32, 35; 3: 22;
403,-9,41; 8: 28; 10: 22; 22: 70; Acts 9: 20; 13: 33). Jesus is aIso, and as
we hll'see, most importantly for our study, fhe ptltternJor the life
tDJd. ministry of the esrly Church. Thus just as the Holy Spirit is
inVo19edin the conception of Jesus (Luke 1: 35) so is he involved
iRthebirth of the Church (Acts 1: 8; 2: 1-4). Jesus' ministry is
empoweredby the Spirit (Luke4: 18)1. and so is the early Church
(Aicts1: 8; 2: 1-4). The two ministries are also directed by God the
Spirit(J.uke4: 1, 14; 22: 42; Acts 10: 38-42and Acts 1: 8; 4: 31; 8: 29, .
$; 10: 19; 11: 12; 13: 2, 4; 15: 28; 16: 6f, 10; 18: 21; 19: 21; 20: 28).
Jesus is a marl of prayer (Luke 3: 21; 6: 12; 9: 18, 28f; 22: 32) and so
.18the early qturch represented as a prayerful community
(Ads 1: 14; (2: 47); 3: 1; 4: 24; 6: 4,6; 9: 40; 10: 2ff (ct. v. 3Off),9ff;
.12: 12; 13: 3; 16: 13, 16, 25; 22: 17; 28: B). The ministry of Jesus is a
. for the tniJUstiy of the earlyOturch;the Church
.foIIiveness of sins (Acts Z:' 38; 5: 31; 10: 43; 13: 38; 26: 18) just as
jesUs'did before it (Luke 1: 77; 5: 17-26; 7: 36-50; note 24: 46f and
thesimilanummaries of thetwo ministries - Luke 4: 40; 6: 11-19
and Acts 5: 12-16;8:4-8).
. " Then isnoticeable that the deathofJesus - inthe giying up of'
".
his Spiritand the forgiveness of those who killed him (Luke 23:
311' 46) - is "the pattern for Stephen, the first Christian martyr
(Ads 7: 59).15 Not only is the early Church, then, seen as'
following a pattern of life and ministry found in Jesus, but for
the early Church actually continues the ministry of Jesus.
Luke opens his second volume on the Church by saying that his
first volume was about what Jesus began (erxato
l
6) to do and teach
(Ads 1: 1) gMng the iinpressionthat this second volume was to
be about the continUlltion of Jesus' ministry..
That Jesus' was the pattern' for the early Church's healing
.ministry ...; includingexorcism is seenwhen welook more closely
at Luke-Acts. The Twelve - who became the embryo ofthe early.
Church (ActS 1: 15-2: 1; 2: 14, 37) - had accompanied Jesus and
..........
. JJeetI and heard him in his ministrY (Luke 8: 1-3) were then sent
out the same mission-as Jesus (Luke 9: 1-6): Just as exorcism
I f
:: . ". .'.
". '\
was an integral parf of Jestis'ministry (Luke 4; 41;6: 18; 7:Z1;8:
1-3and Qf course more spectfically4: 38f; 8: 26-39; 9:37-43) so the
early Chun:h is represented'as including exorcism as part of its
ministry (Acts 5: 16; 8: 7 and of course 16: 16-18; 19: 11-20). Luke
represents Jesus and the early Church showing similar
techniques. In Luke 6: 19 and 8: 43-8 people are said to be heale3
as they touch Jesus and in Acts 5: 15 Peter's shadow heals, ariain .
19: 12 Paul's clothing is said to heal.' Therefore if Jesus is under- .
stood to be the far the eatIyChurch's ministry- inclucl
ing healing .:. and if the early Church. was considered by Luke" to
'. bea continuation of Jesus' ministry, what Luke has to say about
Jesus as an exorcist, and the way that story is related is probably.
an important contribution to what Luke wants to say about the , '
ministry of exorcism in the early Church;
(a) Exorcism in the ministry of Jesus. Mark's juxtapositioningoi
stories and material in the early part of his Gospel (1: 21-8 - an
exorcism is the first public act of Jesus in Mark - 1: 32-4; 3:7-12) .
gives the impression that exorcism was the' most Significant
feature of Jesus' ministry (see below). But as Mark's
progresses this impression is moQified so that exorcism
f1I.nctions ofJesus' ministry(e;g. seethe $it4: ..
After: reference to exorcism is dropped in Mark.. Jesus no
confronts sickness but the religious opponents .,...
pnnClpally the Scribes (e.g. 11: 27-12: 34).00 -the other hand
although the first three pericopes in Luke have to <10 with
exorcism (4: 31-7, 38f, 4Of) the perspective of Jesus as simply, ot
primarily, anexorcist is less sharpin the early stages ofthe Gospel
because of material like 3: 1-20 (the ministry of John the Baptist
announcing the coming salvation) and 4: 14-30 (the beginning of .
Jesus' ministry, teaching'in the synagogues) which broadens the
view of the ministry ofJesus. Inthis early part of Luke there is alJ
emphasis on Jesus as full of or empowered and led by the spirit
(1: 35; 3: 16, 22; 4: 1, 14, 18), as preaching the Kingdom of God
(note 4: 43 -'1 must preach the gESOf the'KingdOm Of
God to other cities Illso; for I was se t this purpose' sums up
Jesus' ministry sofar (d. 1: 33 and 4:8) . d on Jesus as a he.,
particularly an exorcist (4: 31-41). Th ee important
of jesus' ministry in Luke are illustrated and brought together iJl
the summary of the first stage of Jesus' public ministry - 4: 40.:..4.
The exorcisms reveal Jesus as 'the Son ofGod' and Messiah(4: 41;
cf: 9: 35 and 37) and are performedinthe powerof. the Spirit, for ift
the early part of Luke Jesus' Sonship is linked comiI'!gof .
I
-- -- ----- .- -'
'. .
,'.
the Spirit (1:35; 3: 22; 4: 3, 9; d. 4:31 and 18). This connection
between being empowered by the Spirit, healing- particularly
'e:xoJrism - and Christology is oI:>viously important to Luke for he
:...
d.lawsattention toit in a summary of Jesus' ministry in Acts 10: 38
'how God anointed (echrisen) Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Spirit and with power; how he went. about doing good and
healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for Goo. was with
him'. Then, as We have mentioned above, Luke sums up Jesus'
early ministry as preachingthe good new!' of theKingdomof God
(Luke 4: 43).' .
Ui:ili.keMark, Luke makes anattempt to sustainthis impression
that remained an aspect of Jesus' ministry.
Thus when. the disciples of John the Baptist ask ifJesus is 'he who
is- to come or shall we look fbr another?' (7: 20) Luke adds the
words 'In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and
wilspirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed .sight' (7:
21). This not only makes sense of John' s disciples returning able

'\,.. they had heard and seen but Luke has alsobeenable to
and exorcism as part of Jesus' ministry. The
little biogfaphicaLstatement in 13: 32 'Go and tell that fox,'
"Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures t9daY and tomor
row
r
and the thirdday I finish my course . . ./11 also has the effect
of maintaining the high status of exorcism in Luke
'
s portrait of
jesus. The same end is also served by Luke's introduction to the
aermoo on the plain (6: 17ff) and mention of the disciples as
exorcists (9: 1and 10: 17-20). Finally as part of Luke's attempt to
make exorcism an important part of Jesus' ministry is Actsl0: 38
(quoted in the last paragraph). This not only draws attention to..
exOrcismbut the generalised reference - 'those oppressed by the
devil' .... suggests that the demonic is broader than or
I ..
that all sickness has a dimension of the demonic (d. Luke 13:
10-17). . '
thoou
g
. h Luk..e could not contribute any exorcism sto.ties to
into the latter part of his story, through these ways
'. Luke has been able to heighten the place of exorcism in his
relating of Jesus' ministry. However, although Luke wished to
emphasise the e?Wrcistic dimensioR in the Jesl;ls tradition he did
not wish to isolate it or set it against. other aspects of Jesus' life.
lndee-dLuke goes to considerable lengths to show that exorcism
was.a part, anintegral part, of the ministryof Jesus. For example, .
at the conclusion of the Beelzebul Controversy which focuses on
'. Jesusasanexorcist (Luke 11:-14-28)Jesusresponds toa womanin
:;. ....
{F
e aowd with 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God
and keep it' (11: 28). Note also 4: 40.-4;.6: 17-26; 7: 18-23; 8: 1-3;
9: 1ft; 10: 8f, 17-20. . . . .
It is obvious that Luke wants his readers to understand that .
exorcismwas an integral and important dimensionof the mission. .
of the Jesus. Thus we should now ask what bearing this
tnay have onLuke's viewof exorcismin the post-EastercOmmun.. .
ity. In thatJesus is portrayedas the model for the earlyChurchwe
should expect Luke to understand that the early Church would '.
not only be involved in exortism, but from what we have seen of
his portrait of Jesus, .involved in exOl'cism as part of a broader
mission perhaps under the rubric of 'preaching the Kingdom of
God'.
"
.,
Indeed, we see the ministry of Jesus reflected .firstly in the
mission of the Twelve (9: Iff). They also are endowed with power :/:
and auth.ority to exorcise demons and to heal (d. 1: 35; 4: 14, 32,' )
, 36; 5: 17; 6: 19; 7: 1-10;.8: 46; 20: 1-8) ,and sent to preach the

Kingdomof God (d. 4: (18), 43; 8: 1; 16: 16): Andaswe have seen,
these Twelve who are portrayed as sharing the ministry cfthe
Jesus, formed the of the early Church (Am.. '.
1: 15-26; 2: 14). . . , . '. /'
But Luke includes a second mission - of Seventy \ ..'
'others' (10: 1-12, 17-2OIMatt. 9: 37-8; 10:7-16). As.Luke .
.related a 'others"hereis probably as a contraSt
to the earliet UUSSlon of the Twelve - a contrastwtth those who.. '
were particularly pre-Easter mission ofJesus;
That the Seventy and thetr UUSSlon probably represent or pre-
figure the universal post-Easter mission of the Church is also \..,
suggestedby the nUmber seventy, for in theeyes of the Israelites .
this was the number of nations intheancient world (Gen. 10; Eth. :. I ..
89: 59; Tanchuma Toledot 32b).18 Also the background to
the notion of mission as a 'harvest' is the eschatological gathering '.
of God'speople(lsa. 27: 2. Baruch 70: 2;
17;d. . low). ForLuke, tNslIUSSJOni
representing the mission of the . Church, modelled on .
ministry, includes exorcism (10: 17-20) and could also be put
under the rubric of 'preaching the Kingdom of God' (10: 9). We
shall return to this passage later but for the moment all we nl!ed to
note isthat inhis Gospel Luke is givinga warrant for the ministry . i .
of exorcism as part of the broader ministry of the early Chun:h. .\....
And in his second volume Lukeshows the,early Church carrying . .'
out sucha ministrywhichincludedexorcism. Inthesummaries of
100
adMties 01 the early Christians Luke shows this most clearly - .
Ads 5: 12....16and particu1arly.8: 4-8.. .
What we have tried to showin these paragraphs is that not only
did- Luke wish to portray exorcism as an impOrtant aspect of
jesus' ministry of 'preaching the Kingdom of God' but that in
following the model of Jesus the early Church had Ci: warrant to
include exorcism in its ministry of 'preaching the Kingdom of
God'. If this is correct then it is important that we look more
..... ....... Luke's portrayal of Jesus as an exorcist.
'/esjlS as an exorcist in Luke. The statement that probably best
deScribes Luke's view ofJesus as an exorcist is Acts 10: 36--9:
'
'"'.,'
'. .
You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaChing good news of
peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), the word was proc
laimed throughout all Judea, beginning Galilee after the baptism
which Johnprea,ched: how God anointed Jesus of Nazarethwith the [{oiy
.. Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing aU

who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
mshort, itis Luke's view that Jesus was an exorcist because of the
tfo1y Spirit; in other words, that God was with him. Inhis Gospel
Lukemakes this plain ina number of ways. In 4: 18 the ministry of
Jesus is prefacedwith lines fromIsaiah61: 1'The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me .. .' 4lit is as God's anointed (Christ) that Jesus
tDe:exorcist is knQwn by the demons. In 9: 43, having witnessed
an.exprdsm, the crowd is astonished at the majesty of God. Luke
mates the healing of the infinned woman as an exorcism (gune

pneuma husa astheneias 13: 11) and the healed woman praisedGod
(13: 13).
In this connection, and of the long-standing. and
ongoing debate surrounding it Luke 11: 20 is of special interest ..,
!But iMt is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the
. lCingdom of GOd has come upon you'. The debate is, in part, over
whether Q,the tradition behind this verse, contained the word
. 'finger' (Luke) or 'Spirit' (Matt. 12: 28), Dunn, a recent contributor
to the debate, has beenable to show that it is probably Matthew
who h.as preserved the Q tradition and that Luke has introduced
the word 'finger'. 19
-In the light of suchpassages as Exodus 3: 20; 7: 4; 8: 19; 9: 3 and
lS,.itmay be, as Dunn also suggests, that in changing 'Spirit' to
'finger' Luke wanted to bring out a parallel between the miracles
by-which God released Isiaelfrom hbndage and the miracle by .
which God in Jesus, also released people from the bondage of
,'-" .
.. .. "
..... '''C /."
m:
Satan (d. Luke 13: 16).20 In SO doing Luke has maintained an
important view he holds on the relation between and God.
Luke has. been at.pains to show that Jesus was full of the Holy
Spirit (4: 1),thathis ministry was inthe power of the Spirit(4: 14),
that he was endowed by the Spirit (4: 18) and that he rejoiced iIt
, , the Spirit (10: 21). Inother wordsJesus is portrayedas the servant
or the instrument, of the Holy Spirit. Jesus does not1l.ave'
'control' the Spirit. Concomitant with this it is noticeable that
Luke never talks of anyone; including Jesus, as having (echo1 t.he- ' " ,
Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the controller not the controlled.
Returning to Luke 11; 20 we see that for Luke to,retain 'Spirit'
" '
",: ..
would have given the impression that Jesus 'used' theHoly Spirit
to petform exorcisms in the way that Jesus' contemporaries used.
gods and powerful names (see Chap. n above). In conclusion,
, Luke's portrait of Jesus as an exorcist is ()lle in which he is
sUCCe5$ful and powerful because he is empowered by the Holy
Spirit. Thus to see Jesus at work is to see God at work (d. e.g.,
7: 16;'8: 37..,.9).
(c) WithJesus' work of exorcism being considered, quite direct- '.
ly as the .tWrkofGod Luke has, rewritten the stories in his
to conform to and support this notion. When Luke's .',
cism story (4: 31-7) is compared with his source (Mark 1:21--8) '.
some significant changes are, evident. Mark has the demon ay "
outafterJesus1scommandedsubmission.(I:26)butLukeomits: '
this detail of apparent disobedience (4: 35). At the 4: 3S ?
Luke adds that, despite the of the situation, asl/f.-' :
, done 1\0 harm - Jesus was m -control. In the next story- .,
the healing of Peter's mother-in-law Luke also makes changes.
to draw attention to Jesus' power and authority. Mark says that , '
the woman was lying ill (1:30) but, Luke says she was gripped'OI'
seized (sunechDmeni, 4: 38) with the fever. Luke also says th4t the
fever was great (megas, 4: 38). It is sometimes said that this is
simply a medical description of the sickness - a contrast to
(smikros) fevers.
21
However Luke probably uses 'great' here le
heighten. the fever and hence Jesus' healing ability.
Consider the following three points. (i) In. the story of the
epileptic boy (Mark 9: 14-29lLuke 9: 37-43) Luke has heightened
Jesus' ability by the description of the demon as 'hardly .
leaving the boy' (Mark 9: l8lLuke 9: 39). (ll) In Acts 28: 8, the only
other place he uses 'fever' (puretos) Luke makes no medical ,',
distinction between a and a 'slight' fever and (iii). here '
(Luke 4t 38) Luke has aheadyheightened the severity of the
102'
plight. Also illustrating the power and authority of
Jesus as an exorcist Luke is saying that' the fever left 'her im
mediately (parllChema) and that she rose (anastasa). .
In the story of the healing of the, Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:
1-2OILuke8: 26-39) we see the same motive in Luke's writing
to Jesus' ability. Mark has the demon trying to 'put a
spell on. Jesus (horkiz6, 5: 7) in an to ward off Jesus. Luke
changes Mark so that the demon sunplyasks Jesus not to torment
him (8: 28). In Mark (5: 10) the demons ask not to be sent out of the
. (d. Tobit 8: 3) but Luke gives the story and Jesus' exor
cisms an eschatological dimension by having the demons plead ..
, not to be sent into the abyss - the traditional place for demons to
be efinal judgment ijub. 5: 6ff; Eth. En. 10: 18 and,
--::;;e::;.:6",2 Pet. 2: Rev. 9). The same theme is evident in the stOl}' ,
.01 epilepticboy (Mark 9: 9: 37-43) when Jesus has
19 ask no questions (d. Mark 9: 16, 21) he lacks no knowledge.
InMark the h-ealiitg seems to be in two stages - the demon leaves
the bQy as dead so that he has to be raised - but in Luke Jesus is
immediately successful. However, ,there is a trace of a two-stage
,heating fu 'Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the boy
(9: 42). .
Jesus, doing the work of or, perhaps, as God, is not only
lJketched as 'larger than life' but also as deeply compassionate. For
.'example, the Gadarene demoniac is described as a man from the
dty but without a home and without clothes (Luke 8: 27/Mark
f:. ;5: 3f): In the report of the healing of the epileptic boy (Mcu:k
.C9; 14-29lLuke 9: 37-43a) Luke alters the story so that the boy IS
an"only' (mcmogenes) son, and so that the father'cries out' (boaO)
arid begs (deomai) Jesus and his dilKiples to help. In Luke Jesus
refers. to the boy not as 'he' but 'Son' (huios, Mark 9: 20ILuke 9:41)
and then hands the healed boy back to the father (Luke 9: 42, is
addedby Luke). .
Inall of this redactional activity Luke is most likely trying to say
something about Jesus":" that he was powerfuf, that demons
submitted to him, that he was all-knowing and compassionate
rather than reflect directly on the nature of the early Church's
ministry. However in so far as exorcism is the work of and
that the Church's ministryis part of that work(-see Luke 9: 1-6; 10:
.... ,9; 17-20), thatJesus is the pattemfor the Church's ministryand in
view of the brief reports of very successful exorcists in Acts (16:
.. 16:-18; 19: 11-20) Luke most probably expected Christian exor
" ,tobe as authoritative, powerful andcompassionate as Jesus.
-;: '" ", : ". . .,,'"
--;'. -;..
LAter .we shall have to Luke's message to Christian
exorcisl$ in the ,',., ,
(d) The techniqueS Exorciitin Luke. Hfor LukeJesus,ie:
the Christians' paradigmas anexorcistthen we need to paysm:ne
a.ttention to what Luke about the techniques ofJesus usedin
exorcism. ,
IUs in the handing on of the major exorcism
says most about Jesus' ex,onistic technique. In each 0,f= the s nea' "
(Luke 4: 33-:-7/Mark1: 23-8; Luke:S: 26-39/Mark 5: 1-20 '
9:37-4311 Luke faithfully reflects the tradition he gets fro . '9., '
(see.abofe) and does!,ot question that Jesus, few variati<>;ns' .i' "
used the.same tedmiques and procedures as his . ,
But one..other stoJy deserves attention. In Mark (1: Z9-31) ,the ,
story of the healin,g of Sinlon's mother-in-law is not told a.s an, \'5'
exorcism. Mark simply says that the womanhad afever and:that "',
Jesus healed her by taking her by the hand and lift:ing her up.' But ,\
Luke (4: 38f) says that Jesus 'rebuked' (epitiman, v. 39) the ever
a word characteristic of a report describing the action. of cmc
exotPst.
22
, In rebuking the fever or demon (cf. e.g. Luke 9:
42/Mark 9: 25) Luke's readers would have understood that this '
enemy(c.f. the wind inLuke 8: 24/Mark4: 39) was being subdued
or brought under control (cf, Luke 4: 35. 39, 41; 9: 42;'10: 17); ,
In contrast to Mark's saying (1: 31) that Jesus tookthe.woman, . '
by the hand" Luke says (4: 39) that 'he stood over her'and
rebuked the fever. In view of Luke's writing. this story as an
exorcism it is unlikely' that Luke says this use the.
woman is,on a pallet.
23
The practice of anexor to . '.: "
. over the patient has its roots in ancient Babyloni9 '.' and '
,in the New Testament period it is directly paralleled in Magical , .
Papyri (e.g. PGM IV: 745, 1229 and 2735) where the focus ,of
attention in healing was often directed towards the head. Thus' '
what Luke is probably assuming here is tbatin his stance"
Jesus was adopting a hecmng technique of his day. "
place where Luke shows not only what he, wants to
say about Jesus' techniques but also his views of healing and
sickness (see next point) is Luke 10-17 the healing of the,
woman with a spirit of infirmity. Inverse 13there is the line ,And.
he laid,his hands upon her, arid immediately she was maete
straight .. .'. Again, in view of the laying on of hands being,
understood aspart ofexorcismby the Qumranpeople (see above)
Luke must have seen healing technique as the
those of hisamtemporaries. ' '0"
" ,1"C'
, ',WhileJesus may have !1sed the techniques of his contemporary
exorcists, Luke will not have the procedure go so far as to allow
.. ,the an attempt at puttingjesus under a spell So in Mark
5: 'I, what is putas such an attempt by the demon as self-defence
('I adjure (Or" bind) you by God') Luke changes so that the,
'. less threateningly, 'begs' (deomJll) not to be tormented. So
, Lukeis not at all embarrassed about portrayingJesus as a man of "
histiine in using contemporary healing techniques. However
JeSus' power and authority being the most important aspect of
himasan exorcist mean that his techniques have been portraye,d
, unuch a way as to focus attention on his power arid authority.
(e) In the last two major pas9aSes mentioned - the healings of
Simon's (4: 38f) and the woman with a of
, mlirmity (13: 10-1'7) - we see that among the Gospel
Luke has the least clear distinction between 'healing' and 'exor
" cism'. That is in the case of Simon's mother-itt-law,a story which .
Markhas told as a healing, Luke has treated as anexorcisminthat
aft enemy is being subdued and caused to flee. In the healing of
the womalt bent over with a spirit of infirmity, although the
healing is not characteristic of an exorcism story, Luke writes of
the woman 'having' (see above) a 'spirit' of infirmity and that she
- had been 'bound by Satan'. In words Luke not only blurs
the distinction between healinH' general arid exorcism in par
ticular.; but (and this may ex Ja .. y includes why he so readil
'eXord,sm' in the summaries sus' healing ministry), he in
. effeet gives all ,sickness a demonic and cosmic dimension; in all
heaIing'God's adversary is being subdued. .
(l) The'signifiCance oflesus' exorcisms for Luke. ,
(i)-In viWofwhatwe 4iscovered in the lastchaptel', that-]esus
understood his exorcisms as part of the defeat of Satanwe can ask
ifLukeshared this perspective. One of the most important venes
is Luke 11: 20, 'If it is by the fInger of God that I cast out
demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon ybtl' which is
the focal point 9f the Controversy pericope (Luke 11:
l4:-23, see above). From the parable of the Strong Man which
foUOws (vv. 21f) the c6ming of the Kingdom of God assumes the
defeatittg of the Kingdom of Satan. And the parable of theStrong
Man. most probablY a parable of exorcism, mearis that this defeat
M tbeKingdotn of Satan was, for Luke (as for Jesus) taking place
in the exorcisms of Jesus. The use ofthe word ekballo ('I cast out')
helps confirm -this; The LXX extremely Important for' the
early Church as it sought to understand Jesus' ministry. In the
.....
--'
10&
1
LXX eldMllo is used mostly in -the context where an enemy,
fntstrating or standing in the way of G<?d's fulfilling his purpose
for his chosen people, is 'cast out' SO that God's purpose may be
fu1filIed (d. Exoct 23: 30; Deut -33: 27f). - .
That in Jesus' exorcisms Satan, God's enemy, was thought to
bebeingdefeated is also indicatedbythe use of 'rebuke'
above). Then, also from the story of the woman with a spirit of
.infirmity the release from the spirit meant being released from
Satan's binding' (13: 11 and 16). . .
While he may have thought exorcism to be defeating Satan,
again, like his tradition, Luke did not see Jesus' exorcism as the
final defeat of Satan. A glance across the two volumes of Luke
this clear. At the end of Jesus' healing ministry, Satan is
stillactive and is said to enter intoJudas (Luke 22: 3) anddemand
to have Simon (Luke 22: 31). In -the portrayal of the post-Easter
situation Luke says that Satan had filled Anariias' heart (Acts5: 3)
and that Paul's ministry was the delivering of the Gentiles from
the power of Satan (Acts 26: 18). The material related to exorcism
,in Acts (5: 16; 8: 7; 16: 16-18 and 19: 11-20) also confirms the
general perspective of the Luke-Acts corpus that, for the author,
satan had not been finally defeated in Jesus' ministry. Then, in
accord with this - view, in an. important detail Luke has
made a significant change to his tradition.
In the storydf the Gadarene demoniac Mark has the demon.beg .
Jesus not to send him out of the region (chOras, 5: 10) but Luke hti
'And they begged him not to command them to depart into the
abyss (abussos).' Luke does not clarify what he understands the
- abyss to be. but from the present context and from its use in .
Revelation (9: 1,2, 11; 11: 7; 17: 8; 20: 1, 3) and by other writers in
the period (e.g. Jub. 5: 6ff; Eth.En. 10; 4ff, 11ff; 18: 11ff)-Luke
.clearly means that the demons felt that .in JeSus there was the
for their final defeat and imprisonment in the'un
fathomable deep' . Rather thanbe sodefeated the demons request
to be sent into the pigs. On-being given leave, they enter the pigs
(Luke 8: 32) - tihepigs are drowned and the demons enter their
watery home: In this way Luke hasspelt out in detail what he has
said through two volumes, -that Jesus' ministry was not the final
defeat of Satan and his minions; rather it was the first stage of that
defeat. '
Given the two-stage model of the -defeat of Satan (see above)
that was most probably part of Luke's mental furniture, we
should expect him to undet:Stand the final defeat of Satan to take
,
106.
place in relation to the paroU,sia. However Luke does not say,
. explicitly what he believes about the end ofSatanandlUs I<ing
dom.Tbus* for example, Luke 40es not have the equivalent of
Matthew's parables ofthe Wheat and the Weeds (Matt. 13: 24-30)
and the Net (Matt. 13: 47-SO) in whi<;h the end of evil is pictw:ed.
I..\Ike'8 eschatology is most explicitly portrayed in Luke
21: 5-36. Here we see, what Robert Maddox also saw, that the
has been reduced and the personal and earthly dimen
.sions of Luke's eschatological expectation emphasised (d. Luke .
21: 25-81Mark 13: 24-7; Acts 3: 2Of). We can only infer from
-.. "
. the notionpf a two-stage defeat of, evil, which Luke does not
ckmy, particularly from such a general stateDlent as Acts
3:21 ('until the times of restoration of all things') that in
the testoration (apalaltastasis)26 of the harmony of creation
that Luke Wlderstood that the final defeat of Satan would be
involved.
. (li) In our discussion of Jesus as an exorcist in Luke we have
. already seen.much of the significance of Jesus' exorcisms for
Luke. We saw that they powerfully demonstrated the compas
sion Jesus, his authority and power .as well as the majesty of
God. The exorcisms, along with the whole of Jesus' ministry were
to elicit faith (d. e.g. 8: 35; 9: 41; (d. 8: 1-3 as they also
were for the early Christians in Acts (8: 4-8).
, (iii) Then, as we have seen; most importantly from our per
spective the stories of Jesus as an exorcist were intended, by
Luke, as a pattern for the early Church's ministry (pp. 96f
above).
II
Lul,iand Exprcism in the Early Church
When we .compare the amount of material on exorcism in Luke
with the amount in Acts (see above) it is surprising how little we
find in Acts. Yet if, for Luke, Jesus is the pattern for the ministry
Qiexorcism in the Church then this is perhaps less surprising in
that what Luke has to say about why and how the early Ch:urch
. ,.
should go about exorcism he will be saying through the telling of
the Gospel ofJesus. Nevertheless the small amountof material on
eJ(,(.>rcism in Acts and from what we have seen .of Luke's .taking
just onepart ofJesus' ministry, Luke does riot permit
..... '..' .
, "
........
THIl BARty ClfuKCH
107 , ~ " ,
us to,take exoicism as in,any way the most important part of the '
Church' & ministry. ,
Before looking at Acts we need to look at, his C;;ospel'to see what,
he may have to say to his readers about their exorcisms. '
(a) The Call and Mission of the Twelve. F ~ o m Luke's saying (6: 13)
that Jesus 'chose' (eklegomat)27 the Twelve from among the dis
ciples and also that he called them 'apostles' (apostolot)28 the '
reader is probably to understand that the Twelve held a special
place of leadership which was eventually to be exercised in the
emergent Church (see previous two notes).
From 6: 13 to 7: 50 the wider group'(or crowd) of disciples is
listelling to Jesus' teaching (6: 17-49; esp. vv. 17, 20,,40) and
witnessing him raise the dead (7: 11-17; esp_ v. 11) - which-in
effect"is intended to establish the character of Jesus and his
ministry (note 7: 18-SO). But from 8: 1 Luke narrows the focus 'of
his attention to the Twelve. It is expressly stated that the Twelve
were with him as 'he went through cities and villages, preaching
and bringing the good news of the Kingdom of God' (8: 1). ' .
, Before the Twelve are sent out (9: If) they are shown to have
heardJesus preach about the Kingdom of God (8: 10), declare the
true nature of discipleship as hearing and doirtg the word of God
(8: 12; d. v. 39), have watched him cast out demons (8: 26-39>., '
heal a woman's haemorrhage (8: 40:....8) and raise a dead girl (8:,
49-56). When the Twelve ~ commissioned they are told to
preach what Jesus preached (the Kingdom ofGod, 9: 2; d. 8: 1), to
heal a,s Jesus did (9: 1 and 6) and, like Jesus, are given authority
over demons (9: 1). The scale of their authority and power is seen'
in the light of the stories that precede 9: I, especially 8: 43 where
others are said tobe unable to heal. Thus, those who were to form
, the foundation and leadership of the Church (note Acts 1: 8, 21f,
, 26; 2: 14)29 had as their brief the command to model their ministry
on Jesus' ministry - which included exorcism. No details are ,
given of either what they taught or how they healed. However in
that their model was Jesus it may be that Luke wishes to convey
the notion that they taught what Jesus taught, and healed as Jesus
did. , '
(b) The Call and Mission of the Seventy (Two) Luke 10: 1-12, 17-20.
Luke is the oitly'Gospel,writer to have two mission stories (see p.
99 above). Why having told one story of the sending of disciples,
dOes Lu,kegive us another storywhich has many simijarities? The
,answer may be' found in exploring the idea that Luke uses a
pattern of climactic parallelism as a means of communication. 30
Despite the number of points of contact between the two stories
(d. Lllke 9: 1-6, 10 and 10: 1-12, 17-20) it is the differenceswhich
probably highUght Luke's pwpose. There are not Twelve but
Seventy (two) disciples. The number seventy could be modelled
onUle seventyelders ofIsrael appointedbyMoses (Num. 11: 16)31
bqt with the. administrative nature of their role this does not
provide a likely. background to Luke 10. On the other hand the
number of the nations of the world was thought to be seventy
(Gen. 10 (LXX = 72
32
); d. Exod. 1: 5; Eth. En. 89: 59t33).
Thus in this stoly Luke may be the universal
mission of the to the wider world. Other points in the
story confirm this. First in 10: 2 the mission is likened to a harvest .
(therismos) which for all the New Testament writers who used the
word it was a similitude of the eschatological harvest (Matt. 9:
37lLuke 10; 2, John 4: Matt. 13: 30, 39; Mark 4: 29;" Rev.. 14:
. '15).36 The.eschatological gathering by God of his people from the
wider world (Isa. 27: 12; d. Gen. 15: 18) is now the task given to
the Seventy(d. Luke 10: 12; (Jude 7. Second 10: 3-1send youout
. lambs in the midst of wolves.' The metaphors of wolves and
. Iambs peacefully together is also associated with the eschaton
(Isa. 65: 25). But lambs in danger from the wolves probably
aignifies defenceless disciples (d., the first century Be, Ps. Sol. 8:
28) among the nations of the earth.
37
We see a further aspect of.
L\Jb's parallelism here in that just asJes1,1s was the Lamb (d. Acts
8: 32, 35 and Isa. 53: 7) so now the disciples are the lambs .sent
.
Therefore tells this stoly of the' sending of the Seventy
(two) as a way of prefiguring mission of the Church, not only
as based in and modelled on Jesus and apostolic activity (esp.
Luke 9) but also to spell out the nature of theChurch's mission. In
contrast toJesus' restricted mission- note how 17f}omits
Mark 6: 45-8: 26 where Jesus is in Gentile .;.. the mis
siOnofthe Church is to be extensive (d. Luke 10:2band 16;40 Acts
1; 8). The mission is to comprise healing the sick and saying that
. 'TbeKingdomof God has come near toyou' (10: 9,11; d. Acts 1: 3;
8: 12; 19: 8; 20: 25; 28: 23, 31). Exorcism is not mentioned in the
coJItission but Luke assumes that it is part of the mission of the
Seventy (two)/ChUrch for on their return the,focus of attention is
onexordsm (Luke 10: 17).
From this story we can discover little about the 'methods' of
to be used. However the returned disciples
saying'the demons are subject.(hupotasso (d. 2: 51)) to us in your'
109 .. ,
'nil! EARLY
,
name' helpful clues.
1
What the demons (or enemies, d.
, v. 19) are8aidto do is to 'subject' themselves, which carries the
not so much 'to obey' but 'to lose or surrender one's,
own rights or will. The word often had military associations. 43
Thus in the context of the whole saying, what the disciples
were thought to be doing was confronting the demons with (the
authority of) Jesus. This confrontation and subjection of demons
to an'exorcist (or 'magician') was a known method of controlling
demons '(e.g. PGM V: 164-6 has 'Subject all demons to me, that
/
each " . may be obedient', d. IV: 3080, ' ... and every demon
and spirit shall be subject to you'). .
. This control of the demons was not done on the basis of the
disciples' own power-authotlty. This is in sharp contrast toJeSus' .
all unique method whereby, he.declate.dthathe
exorcised 'by the finger of God' (Luke 1f:20), m practical terms
. he relied on his own power-authority (see above). . .
However, despite Jesus' beingthe pattern for the early Church
in Luke, he is here promoting the idea that the disciples were not
to use their own power-authority but to confront the
withJesus in order to gain a submission (see Acts 16: 18). Thus in
its technique of exorcism the early Church, as portraye4 by Luke,
had reverted to using contemporary{pagan!) methods of exorcis
ing by spme greater source of power-authority (see above). '
In the Return of the Seventy (two) (Luke 10: 17-2Q) Luke
cortveys two further important factors oihis understanding of '
exorcism - and from what we have said we should add - , .'
cism in the Christian not just for the pre-Easter
JesuS-movement. First LuketeUs his readers of the function or
significance of their exorcisms; 'Andhe said to them, "1 sawSatan
fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you auth
ority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the
power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you'" (Luke 10: 18).
The understaRding of the time or duration of the'fa11ing'
(pesonta, aorist participle, denoting a point of action) of Satan is
governed by the main. verb 'I saw' (etheiiroun, imperfect
tense) which denotes a continuous, protracted action. Thus we
may translate Luke's intention here as 'I have been seeing Satan
falling like lightning from heaven'. In other words, Luke saw
both that Satan's downfall was ongoing and that it was 1inked to
theexomstic nUnistIy of the earlyChurch." That this downfall of
Satan is described 'as lightning' does not, particu1ilrly in the
context of what we have just said, necessari1y mean that it was "
. (.
.. .
CJDISTTIlIUIlPHANT
it may to the modem reader. Rather it probably
mi!an8 bright, spectacular and obvious (d. e.g. Dan. 10:6; Matt.
- 24t 27; 28: 3; Luke 11: 36; 17: 24; Rev. 4: 5; 8: 5; 11: 19 and
The mention of serpents (see 2 Cor. 11: 3; Rev. 12: 9, 14f; 20: 2)
and scorpions (11: 12; Rev. 9: 3, 5, 10 d. Ps. 91 (LXX 90): 13) and
the enemy (d. Matt. 13: 25; Rom. 16: 20; 1 Pet. 5: 8) highlightst:he
nature of the ministry, or battle in which the Church is involved
andso, not surprisingly, the Church is encouraged by the sayiRg
that no harm will come to it. But just as Jesus had authority to
pedcmnexorcisms- (Luke4: 36 and to heal (d. 5: 24; 7:8; (20: 1-8)
and as the apostles received authority over demons (9: 1
authorityto defeat Satan, so the earlyChutch-hadbeengiven that
authority to be involved in the samlpreliminary defeat of Satan.
Stamd, 'Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are
. subject to you; but rejoicethat your names are written in heaven'
. (Luke 10: 20). The implication is that there was rejoicing. 46
Although this saying may have come from Jesus,47 Luke could
,- have .preserved it because of his concern for the early Church's
over-enthusiastic. rejoicing in its ministry of exorcism. We have
. .8eeIl that Luke wishes to modify the great Significance Markgave
'.
to exorcism, Perhaps these two factors indicate that while Luke
underStood exorcism to be an integral and important part ofthe
Church'sministry it was to be kept in perspective in that the
matter ,of central importance WjlS that their names had been
written in heaven (d. Luke 13:23f) - that they were part of God's
people (see Exod.32: 32f; Ps. 69: 28; Dan. 12: 1).48 - _ ..
Having seen what Luke wants to say about exorcism in the
e$'Iy Churclt through the stories associated with Jesus we can
tum to what Luke says in a more direct way in Ads, his second
volume. Our attention will be focused on he says about the
.methods of Christian exorcism and any of the problems that may
.. be raised by exorcism in the early Church.
(c) Pderllnd the Apostles (Acts 5: 12-16). In Acts 4: 30Luke has the
early Christian community pray that its mission or bold speaking
(d. 4: 31; 8: 25; 11: 19f; 13: 46; 14: 1) will be accompanied by (en, 4:
30) healing, signs and wonders
49
through (dia) the name of God's
holyservantJeSus. Inthis little summaryofearlyChurchactivities
in5: 12-'-16
50
the focus is not so much onthe inner life andworship
01 the community (as in 2: 42-7) or on mutual care and support
Withinit(as in4: 32-7) but onthe early missionof the Churchthus
the prayer of 4: 30being answered. Exorcism is part of the
answer to\hat prayer andthe outreach (5: 16). The purpose ofthe
.I
THZ EARLY CRUKCH
SUfIUl'l8ry appearS to be that, although the non-believers (loipOn, .
v. 13
51
) held the. Christians in awe, the healings, including
exorcisms, attracted their interest and were means of gatheririg
people to the community. This function of miracles as 'proof is.
not uncommon in Luke s e e Luke 7: 18-23, (esp. v. 21, contrast
Matt. 11: 2-6 and in Acts see below).
The most interesting and difficult aspect of the summary is the
idea that people sought healing through Peter's shadow falling.
on them (5: 15), which, in the light of v. 16, Luke accepts as a
,Christian method of exorcism. Ancient Egyptian texts are familiar
with the idea of the 'powerful' shadow and sometimes refer to
themas gods. 52 As recently as the eighteenthcentury in GermanJ;
it was believed that the shadow of a lime tree could heal the sick.
P. W. van der ~ has surveyed this, and other ancient material
and concludes:
The common element in all these materials is that the shadow is
regarded as a person's (or animal's) soul, soul-substance, spiritual
essence, spiritual .double or whatever other term one may use to
designate the vital power or life force. To be touched by a man's
shadow means to be in contact with his soul or his essence and to be
influenced by that whether it be for the better or for the worse.511
It is difficult to prove that this concept was current in Luke's time .
or in his mind when writing this summary but it is a notion
sufficiently stable through time and geographically widespread
55
that this quotation above probably does represent the under
standing of Luke and his readers. In other words Luke probably
saw that people afflicted with unclean spirits were healed as they
came incontact with Peter's spiritual essence or life force. In turn,
in the light of Luke 10: 19; 24: 49; Acts 1:8 and 2: 4 Luke would'
have seen this power to have been invested in Peter and the
apostles (d. 5: 12) by the Holy Spirit.
(d) Philip in Samaria (Acts 8: 4-8). Here, though not so clearly,
we see a similar view of healing. No mention is made of any
techniques, but the crowd is attracted to what Philip says because
(v: 6) they hear 'them' (autous - the demons crying out, v. 7) and
see the signs (paralysed healed, v. 7) which he did. The function
of this more spectacular aspect to the mission is, thus, to attract
the crowd to the proclamation of Christ. Luke has aJready told his
readers that Philip s ~ d s out in the community as i n g one of
. those filled with the Spirit (as well as beingof good repute and full
If lU
of wisciom, Acts 6: 3). Thus e)(Ol'dsm, again part of the ministry
oU. appears to be successful because of .the .personal
f9JCe of the exorcist which Luke would attribute to the Holy
Spirit. '. .. .
. PIlWllnd the SlJive Girl (Ads 16: 16-18). This short story is
helpful in our study, for Luke is explidt about both the slave girl's
sickness as well as .the method used in exorcism.
The girl is not said to be but' have a spirit of divination
(pneuJl'lil.fJUthOnIl, v. 16). It is difficult to know if Luke meantthat
had a spirit named puthOnR (python) or a pythonian
spirit.57 Inany case the meaning is fairly dear. It was considered
. that Apollo, the Pythian god, in a serpent or python, ,
inspin!d what Plutarch calls ventriloquists (engastrimuthous).58
Thus we can presume that Luke is saying that the girl spoke.likea
ventriloquist. This probably had strong evil connotations for
Luke since, the LXX uses engastrimuthos of the witch
.of Endor 1 Samuel 28: 7ft (ct. LXX Lev. 19: 31; 20: 6, 27; Deut. 18:
11; 1 Chr. 10: 13; 2 Citr. 33: 6; 35: 19; lsa. 8: 19; 19: 3; 44: 25). The
demonic nature of the girl's activity is clarified in Luke's saying
that she was 'soothsaying', that is, practising divination or
providing (evil) prophetic utterances (mIlnteuomenel. This is the
only the word appears in the New Testament but its
stroJ:!g negative connotations relating to false prophets in th.'e
ucx:'" and use for ecstatic activity in non-Christian litera
lureiU'Ound the period60 shows that although Luke does not say
thegirl is sick he certainly views her as an imposter - inspired by
an,ePil spirit
61
and in need of 'healing'. Further indication of how
abhorrent Luke would have found the girl's situation is the idea
ti\at was earningmoney from her 'prophesying' (d. Simon in
Acts 8: 18t). . .
Luke portrays Paul as somewhat reluctant to 'heal' the girl.
Thus she is 'healed' because she is unqualified to proclaim th!,!
Go.spel62 but because she has been annoying Paul. Paul is re
ported as turningand sayingtothe spirit (pneUmll) 1 charge youin
Qf Jesus Christ to come out of her.' We have
- come. across the' idea of exorcism 'in the name of a superior
power-authority (see above). The .important words here are 'I
chai'ge'(pamngellol . . . .
,LUke is partirolarly fond of the word
63
and always uses it as a
'directive from an authoritative source,64.in Acts (e.g. Acts. 1:4;
. 10:42; 15: 5). SJgnificantly, in Luke 8: 29 (contrast Mark 5: 8) Luke.
UIeS it of Jesus' commanding an undean spirit to leave the
. ",
TRlllLULY c:IIACII '113" 4. '
GadareDe demoniac. Withour passage inActs 8: 18in viewagain,
Luke is seen drawing a parall,el between the ministryof JesuSand
that of the early Church. ",'
The word parangeUo has strong military associations and' its
basic meaning is 'to pass an announcement along [the ranksl
765
Thus, with am in mind and mview of Paul's said to act4agin "
the name of Jesus, Luke is again shown as understanding exor
cism, as confronting the evil spirits or demons with Jesus. Early
Christian exorcism was successful not because of consistent
formUlae but be'iause the exorcists brought Jesus into th,e situa
"
tion.. The result is that the spirit 'came out that very hour', that is,
immediately.66 ' " '
, While this story is told in passing to carry the story of Paul '
forward (d. Acts 16:'9ff), and although we do not know h e ~ ..
or not the girl was converted, which in' any case is of little
consequence for ,the story, we have seen, embedded in it, reflec
tions of Luke's view of exorcism for the early Churd\.' Thus.
compared with I. ~ . Marshall,67 ~ e may not be able to dismiss
this story as we draw conclusions about exorcism in the modem
Church from exorcism in the early Church.
(f)Paul and the Sons of Sceva (kts 19: 11-20). In what is some
times taken as one paragraph
68
there are actually two stories. "The ,
first (vv. 11f) COIl(:erns God, doing extraordinary (ou tuehOn) ,
healing 'miracles by e hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or
aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases
left them and the evil spirits came out of them.' Laying-pn of
hands was part of exorcistic techniques in the New Testament
world (see above) but Luke seems to avoid this assodation(d.
Luke 4: 39 and Mark 1:31; Luke 9: 42 and Mark9: 27; in Luke 4:41
Luke distinguishes (de k a i ~ between exorcism a,nd, heeling ,
through the laying-on of hands). In Acts 5: 12 there is the same
phrase -'throUgh the hands of. . : - where, lik-e many p1aals in
the Old Testament it simply means 'throUgh'. 10 That here in Ads
19: 11 Luke is also thinking in general terms of 'through Paul' ,is
also clear from the construction of the sentencewere he explains.
what he means by 'through thehandsof Paul' by saying 'so that
[haste In'T handkerchiefs or aprons were used. In other words . '
Luke is not saying that Paul used the laying-onof hands, butthat '
healing took place through him in that 'handkerchiefs or aprons
were carried away from his body to the sick.
t71
,
" Whatever a twentieth-centuryreader makes ofthis methodof
healing?2 Luke clearly believed it both possible as well as accept
." .'" .."
':,....
ab.le, for he says (v. U) that God was perlorming
73
the miracles
dunomeis' - a word associated with the Holy Spirit in his Gospel. 74,'
, Luke also seems to see'the healings (probably the method, for
that is the only exCeptional item irithe story) so exceptional'that
heealls them 'out of the ordinary' (ou tas tuchousas). 75 The belief in
the Special powers or representative power of clothing is well
attested in the Old Testameny6 (e.g. Gen. 35: 2; Num. 20: 25f; 1
, Sam. 18: 4; 1Kgs. 19: 19; 2Kgs. 2: 8;Ezek.44: 19and Hag. 2: 12ff),
", ArId in the New Testament period Josephus testifies to asimilar
Understanding in that, for example, when relating the stoty (1
Kgs; 19: 19f) of Elijah's choosing Elisha as his successor he inserts
into the narrative that, on receiving Elijah's mantle 'Elisha im
,mediately began to prophesy' (Ant. 8: 353f). A person's clothing
;' WaS believedto carry with it the wearer's authority and power (as
, seen alsO in Luke 8: 43-8). . .
, :How Luke thought these pieces of clothing would have been
used we' are not told. However, in view of the material just
mentioned from the Old Testament and Josephus and the con
tell\p<muy use of amulets (see abOve) it is most probable that
Luke would have thought that the clothing wOuld have been
placed 9n the sufferers. Thus with the belief that clothing carried
, with it some aspect of the wearer's power, essence or authority,
even though this is a story of healing from a distance, Luke would
have undeistood the healing to have taken place and the evil
,,sphits to 'have left because there had been a confrontation with '
.God'(v. 11). "','
The second storyin this paragraph concerns some Jewish'door
, , to dOOt' exorcists (Acts 19: 13-20). We, have already made
, mention of this story as helpful in telling us abOut ancient views
on dem.on-poss.ession and exorcism (see abOve). In our present
c:xmrext the questions about Luke's attitude to coun
terfeit miracles. But there is a further problem, why, when
using the name Jesus, are the seven Sons of Sceva condemned
yet (in Luke 9: 49) the use of the name of Jesus by the Strange
Ex<m:ist is condoned? What isit about the exorcisms of the sons of
Sceva that Luke wishes to condemn? What is it about the Strange
Exoltistthat enables Luke to condone his activity?
, In Mark 9: 38 John says that he had prevented the man (tina)
from Qlsting out demons in Jesus' name 'because he was not
following us' (hoti ouk ekolC1Uthei
78
hemin). But Luke (9: 49) alters this
read, 1;ecause he does not [presenttenseJ follow with us' (meth'
'hlmoo, d. v. SOb). WhatLukehasdoneinchangingtheimperlect
115,e
to the present tense, is to transfer the reference of the story froM .
the pre-Easter setting to the post-Easter early Church situation.
And, importantly, inLuke'sadding'with' (meta), whatisenvisaged
is not a difficulty between the Christian community and those
outside but a difficulty within the community. Thus Luke deletes , '
the bulk ofJesus' reply ('... for no one who does a mighty work ,
inmy be able soon after to speak evil ofme') for it is no .
longer applicable to the point or application Luke has given
story. This interpretation ofthe Strange Exorcist story inLuke is
further confirmed when we note that Luke has used this story, in
part, for teaching on relationS'Within the community (Luke 9: 46, _
note 'among them (en tiutois)'; cf.Mark 9: 34). In conclU:$it'm
this reduces the apparent tension between this story CI!ld that
of the Sons of Sceva. The story of the Strange Exorcist has to
do with exorcists within (different parts of?) the Christian com- .
munity and the story in Acts 19 to do with the problem of
, non-Christians attempting Christian exorcism (see also Luke

When, inthe light of this discussion, we return our attention to
Act:s I?: what begins to stand out is the alleged response of
the evil spmt to the Sons of Sceva- 'Jel!lus I know, and Paul I know;
bUt who are you?' And this is the stage at which the Jewish
peripatetic exorcists are said to be attacked. The key point seems
to be that these exorcists are not known to belong to the Christian. '
community - they are contrasted with Jesus and Paul. Thus,
what for Luke isprobably important is not the technique usedbut "
the exorcist. Those, like Jesus and Paul, archetypal eXQrcists, are
men of the Spirit (see, e.g. Luke 3: 21;4: 1, 14, 18; Acts 9: 17), the
Sons of Sceva were not. Similarly, in the story of Simon
the sorcerer (Acts 8: 13ff) the distinctive feature, or the key, to the ;'
signs and great miracles is the Holy Spirit.
This story has been seenas an example of the uncritical taking
up of 'spectacular thaumaturgy that is more the stock in trade of
false prophetsla}'Qstles ...' (Mark 13: 22IMatt. 24:
24; John 4: 48; 2 Cor. 12: 12; 2Thess. 2: 9; d. Rev. 13: 13)80 to
advertise the early Church (e.g. Acts 5: 12ff and 8:4ff). That is, it
may be a failure to recogriise the problem of distinguishing
Christian and non-Christian miraclesldu1UZmeis. But as we have
just seen it is a recognition of the difficulty of a distinction.
Luke's answer or solution is that the eptferences between Chris
tian and non-Christian healing and exorcism are, not only to
some extent inthe-magnitude of the miracles - (e.g. J\cts 8:13;
. .
"i16
CHRIS1' 'I'JUUMPHANI' -.
19: 11) - but also that the Christian exorcists are filled and
empowered with the Holy Spirit. .
> Mark
. J\lthough, unlike Luke, Mark has not givenus a second volume.it
.. is widely agreed that he was writing far a Christian community.81
H UUs .. the case then his Gospel may convey something of
Mark's view of exorcism in the post-Easter early Church.
-. One. of the great puzzles in interpreting Mark's Gospel has.
been understanding his portrayal of the disciples.
82
So, for
-ample, in the light of such verses as '. . . turning and seeing his
disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For
- you are not on the side of God, but of men'" (8: 33).83 T. J;
Weedonconcludes
-_that Mark is assiduously involved in a vendetta against the disciples.
He is intent on fotally discrediting them. He paints them as obtuse,
obdurant, recalcitrant. men who at first are unperceptive of Jesus'
then oppose its style and character, and finally totally
_. teject it. As- the eoup deree, Mark closes his GOspel without
.. tehabilitatinS the disciples.. .
On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that the way Mark has
cbaracterised the disciples and, mtum, what he may want to say
through that characterisation is not as simple as this. The dis
dple's are also portrayed as close associates of Jesus (1: 17, 21;
3: 14, 31-5), as being given the secret of the Kingdom otGod
_,'(4: 11), as being privy to special teaching (4: 34; 9: 28), and as
sharing inJesus' ministry (6: 7-13; 9: 14-29). Ernest Best who has
done some important work
85
on the problem and purpose of
r,fark'scharacterisationof the disciples says that Mark's 'primary
objective was pastoral: to build up his readers as Christians and
Show them what true discipleship is'. 86 . .
. Once one notices the telling phrase in 13: 37 - 'And what I say
to you (the disciples, note v. 3) I say to all,87. - and the way some
end with instructions to the disciples (e.g. 4: 10-34; 7:
17.;,..23; 8: 34-9: I, 28) it becomes reasonable to suggest that Mark
builds up his readers as Christian disciples by using the disciples
iIr the Jesus tradition as paradigms of discipleship for his
readers.
88
In other words, if we may reasonably conjecture what .
.Mark intended his readers to do is learn of discipleship- by
"--:-' -----,.... -.,
117 q..
identifying_with the disciples in ,this story. this is correct then
when asking about Mark's conceptiort of within the
post-Easter Christiancommunity we need to pay particularatten
tion to the section 8: 27-10: 45, in relation to exorcism, which is
generally accepted as forming the centre of Mark's pedasogy on
discipleship89 and other pericopae in which the disciples feature
inrelation toexorcism, i.e. 3: 13; 5: 1-20; 6: 7-13, as well as other
material that -may help in gaining ;in understanding of Mark's
perspective of this aspect of healing.
90
' '
(a) Jesus as an exorcist in Milrk
91
In so far as the main character of Mark's Gospel is Jesus (d. 1: 1)
then we ought to begin with a look at. Jesus as an exorcist in hiS'
GospeL .
, The importance of exorcism in Jesus' ministry, from Mark's
perspective, can be gauged by noting that the fIrst public act of,
Jesus is an exorcism (1: 21-8). And, as we noted earlier of the
thirteen healing stories in this Gospel, the largest single category
is that of exorcism, of which there are four (1: 21-8; 5: 1-20; 7: "
24-30; 9: 14-29). Then Mark heightens the impression that
exorcism was, important in Jesus' ministry with the little sum
maries (Sammelberichte) he composes which focus on exoIcism
(1: 32; 3: 11f).92 ,-,'
Jesus the exorcistin Markis empowered by the Spirit (1: 10, 12;
d.3:28ff) and embattled against Satan (3:20-7). But Jesus is not
onlyan exorcist, is alsopreacher of the Kingdomof God (1: 141}.
so that teaching and healing form one whole for Mark's view of '
, Jesus (see 1: 21-8). Through the exorcisms (1: 24, .27) andcon
frontations with the demons (1: 34; 3: I1f, 5: 7) and
demonic (4: 41, see below) the of Mark is shown to be the
Son of God (see also 1: 1
93
, 11; 3: 11; 5: 7; 9: 7; 15:39). .
The techniques that Mark portrays Jesus as using in his,exor
cisms are those that would have been familiar to his readers from
other exorcists. Jesus (epitiman) demons (1: 25; 3: 12; (d.
4: 39, on which see below and 8: 33);'9: 25; see above); Jesus ,"
'muzzles' (phimoo) a demon d. 4: 39) see above}; Jesus orders.the
demons to'come out' (exerchomai, 1: 25, :1,6; 5: 8, 13; (7: 29,30);9:25,
26, 1-29) see above) and never to enter a person again (9: 25, .
above); Jesus uses the supposed power in a name to gain
ascendancY over a demon (5: 9, see above), transfers demons
:,-.
.
.from one habitat to another 12f, above);and e'Xorcises from
. a diStance (7: see above).' ,
. With all of this in mind it is 1: 27 that sums up and focuses on
the essence of Jesus' exorcistic technique as Mark sees it - 'With
authority hecommands evenuncleanspirits, and they obey him.
l

While Jesus- is very much an exorcist of his time in his use of
contemporary methods, for Mark, Jesus' exorcisms are a submis
sion of the demons after being confronted by him and his
commands (d. 3: 11). Just how far Mark understands these
techniques, summed up in the notion of confront<ttion, as suit
able for use in the ministry of the early Church \Vill become
apparent only as we proceed.
" (bJ' The Disciples as Exorcists
The importance of the theme of discipleship in Mark is illustrated,
by1: I6f where the first publicact ofJesus after the announcement
olhis mission (1: I4f) is said to be the choosing of four men to
him. The first exercise in discipleship is to listen to Jesus
teach. and to watch him exorcise a demon from' a man in the
synagogue. The disciples are amazed at Jesus' authoritative
.teaching and that on his authoritative commands the demons
comeout and obey him. .
From 1: 16ft the initial call of some disciples, to 3: I3ff, the
appointment of Twelve to be with him, the disciples have wit- .
neSsed the tw<rfold ministry they have been called to under
take - preaching and. exorcism. This is highlighted by the
previous pericope (3: 7-12) where the disciples are with Jesus
(v. 7) as he teaches (v. 8) and heals, including exorcism (v. 11).
Yet again exorcism is described in terms of confrontation...,.'be
held' (etheOroun).95 Blit it should be noted that the essence of
disciJ?leship, or the reason (hina) why the disciples are called, is
first to be with him' (hina met' Qu.tou, 3: 14; see also 5: 18). Mission
arises outof being with Jesus.
I have discussed the Beelzebul Controversy pencope more
. What we need to notice here, in the light of the
' .. ' '. disciples having just been' called to be exorcists, is that this
. (3: 20-7) functions as.,a discUs,sion.of the
by which Jesus performs his exomsms, The followmg three
'Yel'SeS (vv. 28ft) finalise the discussit>n functioning asMatthew 12:
28/Luke 11: 20 does in Q- asserting that (contrast 3: 22) it is not
Satan but the Holy SPin,'t Wh.O.iS Jesu,ss" . wer-authority. Th.e
Beelzebul pericope also sets out the significance of Jesus' .
. In the parable of the Strong Man (3: 27) Jesus'
are shown to be the binding of Satan and the plundering of his
how;e, that is ta,king the possessed person from Satan's bond
97
age. . The exorcisms of Jesus are the casting out of Satan
(vv.23f). . .
Between the call of the Twelve (3: 14f) and the commissioning
of the Twelve (6: 7-13) they receive teaching on the nab,lR! of
exorcism and the source .of power-authority (3: 20-30), dis:
ciplesmp (3: 31-5), on the trials of mission (4: 1-20), the .
tive of mission (4: 21-5),98 God's sure involvement (4: 26;-9) and,
the breadth of the mission (4: 30-2). The disciples' session on
teachin.2is concluded by Mark - 'With many such parables he
spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not
speak to them without a .Fable, but PriVate.l
Y
to his own
disciples he explainedeverything' (4: 33f).Uutt is, Markis saying, .
'Understandingis possible only inassociation withJesus. . . and
who alone Can explain everything'.99 . .'
Then the stoly of the stilling of the storm (4: 35-41& .
Keeping in mind that Mark has probably placed this story here
l
.
between the call and sending out of the Twelve; this stol).' has a
number of points of interest for us. First, Jesus is described
rebuking (epitiman) the wind, just as he is described as rebuld1lg .'
the demons (1: 25; 3: 12; (ct. 8: 33); 9: 25),101 AlsO, the only other .
time Jesus uses 'Be:s$' (or 'be muzzled', phimool in Mark isirt, a
commandtoa demon(1: 25). Thus,Mark is probably sayingthatin
the stilling of the stonn Jesus is overcoming the demonic. 102
fon:e of this becomes clear when taken in conjunction with the
next point. Second, this pericope is one of a number of places
where Mark uses the boat Wherever the occupants of
the boat are mentioned they are always Jesus and his disciples. i84
The bOat is Jesus' pulpit (4: 1f), it conveys Jesus about in his
ministry (4: 36; 5: 18, 21; 8: 10), includinghis healing ministry (5: 2;
. 6: 53). The boat is also a place where Jesus is alone with his
(4: 36; 6: 32; 8: 10) teaching them about the miracles (8:
14ft). In5: 18thehealed demoniacasks ifhecanbewithJesus (d. 3:
14), that is, be a disciple - as Jesus was getting into the boat. In .
short, for MaJ;k, the boat seems to repreSent the Church. l051}lD,$,
in Mark, a boat (Church?) tossed in a (demonic?) stonn, which
had great fear in the disciples (Churd\?) because they had
no faith, hasbeensavedbyJesus' bringingaboutagreat calm. It is
noticeable that when the disciples are out in a boat by themselves
(6: 45-52)withouf Jesus, 'they face another storm, but 'he' got
into the boat with them and the wind ceased' (6: 51). Thus
Mark is probably showing in 4: 35-41 that the mission of.
the Church, when_beset by' storms of the greatest magnitude
Will be kept safe by Jesus being with them. and their in
hUn. .
'Following the section of teaching, from 3: 20 to 4: 41, the
disciples now witness a number of healing miracles. The healing
of the Gadarene demomac (5: 1-20), which shows the proper
responSe ,of a person whohas received fromJesus is discipleship
(C!f. 5: 18 and 3: 14) and a declaring of what the Lord has done; the
healing of the woman with a haemorrhage who was only (d. 5:
26) able'to be cured by the woman's faith in power from Jesus
(5: 30) and the raisingofJaims' daughter again stressing the need
not to fear but believe 36; d. 4: 40). , ' . '
I Having begun their training at home (3: 19, 31-5) the qisciples
foUow Jesus home (patris, 6:1) for the climax of their preparation
for mission. As has been the case in this aection, where the
c:tisdples witness Jesus teaching and healing, stress is laid on how
JeSus' authority, discipleship and missiOn are misunderstood (6:
. 2f; '.d. 3:' 21, 30, 31-5; 5,: 36) - at tUnes even bY the disciples
themselves (d. 4: 10, 33, 38, 40; 5: 31). This important passage has
shown the hindrance to faith as the invisibility of God's power
COncludes with- 'And he could dono mighty work there,
ex<:ept that he laid his hands upon a few .sick people and healed
And he marvelled because of their unbelief (6: 5f). This
passage stresses the importance of. faith in healing (d. 5:
and in tum 'may have' the Church when it was
troubled because of the ineffectiveness of its preaching
106
and
healing. , .
, Against this background (3: 13to 6: 6) the Twelve are called and
sent out (6: 7). As Jesus' ministry'was in authority, God's
ority,' (1: 22, 27; 2: 10; 11: 28, 29, 33) so the disciples are given
authority - presumably God's authority - over unclean spirits
(6: 7; d. 3: 15).
, Mark says that the disciples go out preaching that men should
repent (metanoeo, 6: 12). In John the Baptist's preparatory
preaching for Jesus' preaching ofthe Kingdom Qf God (1: 14f)
Mark says that John preached a baptism of repentance (metanoUl,
1:4). The oruyother time Mark uses the word repent(metanoeo) is
. when Jesus preaches the Kingdom of God, and repentance (and
..
'fIlE. EARLY CHURCH
121
beliefin is required (1: 15). We are probably to assume
then that Mark the disciples to be preaching the
Kmgdomof God whichon the basis of 3: 23we should
indeed Mark speUs out here in 6: 13, thatexorc:lsm was involved.
This background probably also gave Mark the significance ofthe
ministry- it was the castingout of Satan, the .
destruction of the Kingdom of evil. . . .
In the section 8: 27-10: 52 which as we have. saidis generally
agreed to be the heart of Mark's teaching on discipleship (see
n. 89 above) Mark has an exorcism story in which the theme of
di8cipleship plays an role. This story seems to have
special interest for Mark
1
in instructing his readers how they, In
their should go aboUt exorcism. We see this at least
from the way in which he has rewritten the introduction
108
arid
conclusion to the story.l09 The failure of the disciples as
exorcists is writ large in this passage (9: 18f, 28f). The disciples
are said notto be able (ouk ischusan, also in 2: 17; 5: 4; 9: 18; 14: 13)
to cast 011t the demon, a word Mark does not usually use; he
prefers dunasthai (33 times, e,g. 1: 4O
r
45; 2: 4,7,19; 3: 30, etc). This
means that the motif of the disciples' failure was probably nOt .
invented by Mark, but already in the story. l:Iowever the rebuke
in 19 -'- '0fclithless
lIO
generation, howlongamI tobe withyou?
How long am I to bear with you?' - is an echo of Deuteronomy
32: 5 which was used by other early Christians to characterise
those outside the Christian community111 (d. Matt. 12: 39; Acts 2: .
40; Phil. 2: 15). We suspect then that Mark has redirected the
saying to refer to the disdples
1I2
thus heightening the theme of
the disciples' failure in the story. .
. Thus, as we might expect (d. 6: 6, the only other place where
apistia (unfaith) occurs in Mark, 113 also note pistis (faith) 2: 5; 4: 40;
5: 34; 10: 52; 11: 22) Mark sees the failure of the disciples due to
their lack of faith. But lack of faith, on the part of the disciples is .
only part of the cause of failure. In 6: Sf Mark has shown even
Jesus as unsuccesSful because of the lack of faith of thOse seeking
healing; On the other handin 7: 24-30 Mark has, eventhough the
word is not mentioned, shown that faith is important in an
exorcism of JesuS.
1I4
Now here Mark shows that failure inexor
/
dsmis not onlybeCauseof thedisdples' lackoffaith (9: 19)but also
beCa';l5e ol the lack of faith of the father seeking the healing (9:
22ff). The failure of disciples is also only due in partto their
lack of faith for, in vv. 28fMark has Jesus teU the disciples that
'This kind [of demon) cannot be driven out by anything but
"f, .
122
prayer. '115 This apparent cOInbination of faith and prayer is ,
, otJyiouslyimportant for Markfor in 11: 24heagain brings the,two
tog'etheras essentialinteceiving from God. The thought
': . .'
to be involved is a 'dumb (pneumJl alalon, v. 17) to which
draws attention in v.29 -,'this kind' (touto,to genos) as
apparently difficult to exorcise (see p. Thus the method, of
exorcism that Mark is advocating lot this difficult demon is nQt
"
the usual method of commanding a demon to depart but the
,
pntyer of faith to God (d. 11: 24).
In view of Mark:'s understanding as being 'with
(3: 14; 5: 18), and misSion (including exorcism) arising O\1t
(3: 14f,andseeat>qve on3: 13to 6: 6), as well as
the experienced by the disciples when they are in the
boat Jesus (6: 46 and 51), we may gather from this story
(9: 14-29) that Mark probably saw the disciples' failure as also'
due, to extent, to the of Jesus from the situation.
But was not with the early Christians iD the same way as he,
was with the disciples. Thus in prayer and faith as
impottant.inexorcism Mark may be helping his readers in their
nUnistryof exorcism.
Thereoret while the disciples are, as we have seen, portrayed
_carrying out a preaching and healing ministry similar toJesus,
this in particular does allow us to conclude, that
Mukwas,telling his readers to use the exorcistic techniques of
Jesus. ' ,
, When, in the light of this, we tum back to the healing of the
Syropboenician woman's daughter (7: 24-30) and Jesus' ,healirig
from'a distance, it is noticeable that Jesus is on his own, the
disdples havingbeen removedfrom.the setting. The disciples are
mentioned in 7: 17, and 7: 24, says that he went from there
(ekeithen de a7Ul5tas apelthen) and 7: 31 says that after thehealiI1g he
caJne back from the region of Tyre. It is not until 8: 1 that the
diSciples are reintroduced.
, While the ministries of Jesus and the disci,ples - ther.ef9re
in Mark's programme, the early Church's ministry - are basically
"the,same, ,Mark recognises a certain uniqueness in Jesus' tech:..
.'
..
nique. Mark is not telling his readers to emulate precisely the
techniques ofJesus. On the contrary, the only time Mark tells his
readers how to carry out their ministry of exorcism it is to be by
the prayer of faith. the techniques of Jesus and
those of disciples (early Chl.'clt) remain the same for Mark in
that it isaconfrontation between the divine and the demonic.
123
Matthew
Of all the'Gospel writers it is who most obviously has a
Church in mind when he writes, so it has been ailled the
'ecclesiastical' Gospel. n6 Thus for example the word 'Church'
(ekklisia) occurs only three times in the Gospels, all in Matthew
(16: 18; 18: 17 (twice. 117. 'No Other Gospel is so shaped by the
thought of the Church as Matthew's, so consbucted. for use by
the Church; for this reason it has .exercised, as no other, a
normative influence in the later Church.'ll8
(a) Jesus and Exorcism in Matthew
Although, as in Mark and Luke, the Jesus of Matthew is an
exorcist and, at least clearly in one place (17: 18), uses the
techniques of first-century exorcism, Matthew's viewof exorcism
in-the Christian community and of Jesus as an exorCist is distn.tc
tive among the Synoptic Evangelists. Most notable
playing down of the role of exorcism in Jesus'. ministry. As.
programmatic and paradigmatic of Jesus' ministry Mark has aA.
exorcism story as Jesus' first f,ublic act (1: 21-8). But Matthewnot
only misses Out this storyl 9 but it not until 8: 28-34 that
Matthew gives his readers an exorcismstory. Although.Matthew
mentionsexorcismin4: 24 as part of a summary of theministryhe
is about to relate it is not highlighted as it is in Mark's summaries
(Mark.1: 32ff, and 3: 11) and in 9: 3sffthe parallel passage to 4: 2.4
which concludes the intervening section' in which
sentedJesus as the Messiah in word and deed
120
exorcism is not
mentioned. When we see what Matthew has to say about exor
cism in the Christian community we notice that the first thing he
- has to say is negative'. . . did we not. . .' cast out demons your
name? ... And then will I declare to them, "1 never knew you;
depart from me, you evildoers'" (7: 22). Yet despite this apparent
distancefrom Markingivingexorcisma lowstatusMatthewis very
clearabout theimportanceofexorcisminrevealingboththe signifi-
. cance of Jesus as well as the role of exorcismin Jesus' .ministry.
We shall direct our attention to one of the most important
that tells of Matthew's view of ministry of exor
cism - 12: 22-30 (9: 32-41Mark'3: 22-7ILuke 11: 14-15, 17-23) ..
the debate whichgathers up much that Matt1:'ew says elsewhere
on Jesus and exorcism. .
- ,
L ~ . .
. ~
..
..-!.
," ..;.-.
",.',
- : , , ~ .

. .
.

,
THE EARLY'CHUllCH
125 /1
Jesus enteringJerusalem With the refrainiHosanna '...'). Thus
Matthew may be portraY.ing the crowd not a mere
miracle worker but, the Son of God (8: 29). '
Alter the brief exorcism story there followsanaccusation by the .
Pharisees (d. 9: 34/Mark 3: 22ILuke 11: 15) that Jesus :was operat
.ing as an exorcist 'by Beelzebul
l26
the Prince of Demons' (12: 24).
Ineffect Jesus' reply here is that this blasphemous accusation (see
vv. 31f)cannot be correct for, as exorcisms are directed against
Satan. then to be empowered by Satan would mean that- the
exorcisms would be ineffectual.
.Matthew illustrates this point a little later with the parable of
/ . the Strong Man (12: 29) where the man is obviously meant
to be Satan being cast out by the exorcisms.
l27
But we cannot
conclude that Matthew thought that Jesus' exorcisms signalled
the complete demise of Satan. The' Jews of the first ceritury .
- believed in a tWo-stage defeat of Satan (see Pi'. 53f; d. 2 Pet. 2: 4;
Jude 6; Rev., 20: 1-3). the second and final stage being in the end
time. Matthew. following his received tradition, links'ilie
stage of the defeat with the exorcisms of Jesus. For .
Jesus is also involved in the second stage of the defeat. In the
explanation of the parable of the Wheat and theWeeds (13: 36-43)
Matthew puts this in apocalyptic language - 'Just as the weeds
are gathered and burned with fIre; ,so will it be at the close ofthe
age. TheSon of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out
of his KingdOm all-causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw
them into the furnace of fire' (13: 40ff note also 25: 31-46). That
Matthew expected Jesus to be involved in the second stage of
Satan's defeat can also be seen inS: 29 where the denwniacs
cry out' ... Have you come to torment us before the time?,l28 ,',
,Negatively the. exorcisms are, then, for Matthew, the fIrst stage
of the defeat of Satan. Against this, the accusation of the
the positive side of Jesus' exorcistic is put in ..
,one of the most amazing [sayings] in the Gospels' .1Z9 ;
But if in the spirit of God least out demons, then has' eome
upon you the Kingdom of God (12: 28). .
In 12: 18 Matthew writes of the awaited eschatological spirit
which was upon Jesus. Here he spells out that in the Spirit _
empowering Jesus' exorcisms it means thatthe Kingdom of God
.hadalreadycome.ltisworthquotlngI, D. G. Dunn at lengthon .
this verse from the perspective of Jesus...
:' ' . : the exerciseof thispower waserndena tJult the longed1m' Kingdom of "
, 'God hIId tdretuly cpme his hetlrers;, his exorcisms demonstrated that ,
the last days were already present. We should not pennit our ,
: with this aspect of Jesus' preaching to dull the edge of his
For this' was an astonishiilg and audacious claim. The
esdwato1ogicaJ kingdom was tilrelldy present!131
is Jesus' perspective, and.it is also - Jesus' exor
CISmS meant that God's new Kingdom had amved.
,With Jesus' true identity as the Son of David/God being re
vealed. in the exorcisms it isnot surprising1hatMatthewinakes the,
, .. "
exorciSm stories conform to this motif. ' .
1 in the healing of the Gcidarene demoniac in Mark the demO-:
rWu:, attempts to put a supernatural restriction on Jesus by crying
out1adjuielbind (horlciz6) you by God, do not torment me' (Mark
5:7)., But Matthew removes 'adjUre' (horkizo) - the idea of the
,demon trying to put a spell on Jesus. Matthew also removes the
to the loudness of the demoniac's threatening ciy(Mark
S: 71Matt. 8: 29). Also here Matthew introduces 'Behold' (idoo)
andchanges the description ofJesus from 'Jesus, Son of theMost
High. God' to 'Son of God' to emphasise Jesus' status as God's
Son. .' ' , ,
2 The earliest manusaiptshaye very little punctuation, so in 8:
, 29 Matthew may have intended the demoniacs not to ask but
'You have cQme here to torment us before the time'. Inany
' ......
case Matthew has made two further important alterations to
Mark 5: 7 in line with wanting to highlight Jesus' true identity.
FU'St Matthew has introduced the idea that Jesus has 'come'
(erc:homai). The idea of Jesus' 'coming' was important to the early
in that it expressed the 'comjng' of God's Kingdom and
his specialanointed messenger (e.g. Matt. 6: 10; 16: 28; Luke 3: 16;
John 4:,25; 7: 28, 31).132 The otlter alteration is the idea that the
demons' torment is 'before time' l.prQ ""irou) - before the final
judgment. Thus Matthew is saying that in Jesus the eschatol
, ogiUtorture,of the demons has already begun.
3', Still in this story, Matthew has severely abbreviated the
dialogue,in Mark5: 5-10. The dialogue was thought to be part of
the healing technique. However this has been reduced so that all
that remams is Jesus' simple authoritative command 'Go' - the
, only time Matthew actuaUy mentions Jesus' words to demons. 133
From Matthew's perspective tile Son of God does not need to use
mvolved techniques." .
4 The frightened herdsmen are said to flee and 'proclaim'
---',-'-.
" ,:..
,
THEEAlLl.Y CHURCH
127
(qangellO). what had happened - vocabulary showing that .
Matthew understood them to be proclaiming the qood News
about}esus (see 11: 4; 12: 18; 28: 8, 10and perhaps 2: 8 and 28: 11).
.5 In the stoty of the healing of the Syrophoenician (Matthewhas
woman's daughter Mark says the woman 'fell down'
(prospipto) at.]esus' feet (Mark 7: 25). While for Mark prospipto (in
. Mark at 3: 11;5: 33; 7: 25) does carry the sense of 'worship' (esp. 3:
11) for Matthew it does not (only at Matt. 7: 25). Thus in preferring
to say that the woman 'kneels' or. 'worships' (proskune6) Jesus
Matthew clearly wants to reflect on the divine character of Jesus,
for in the NT the object of proskuneo is always something sup
posedly or truly divine (e.g. in Matt. note 8:2IMark 1: 40;
9:18/Mark 5: 22; Matt. )4: 33IMark 6: 51; Matt. 15: 25IMark 7: 25;
Matt. 20:201Mark to: 35. d. 'knee'lgonupeteo in Matt. 17: 14/Mark
9: 15f).134... .
6 The in Mark only half-way through the story (7:
28), addresses Jesus as 'Lord' but in Matthew the woman begins
'Have mercy on me, 0 Lord, Son of David' (15: 22 see also Matt.
8: 29/Mark 5: 7; Matt. 12: 23lLuke 11: 14; Matt. 15: 25lMark 7:26;
Matt. 17:J5IMark 9: 17).
7 In Mark 9: 20-7 Jesus' technique in healing the epileptic bpy
includes asking questions about the illness - but the Jesu!i of
Matthew suffers no such ignorance (Matt. 17: 17f). In 9: 2M
Jesus is not immediately successful in completely healing the
lad - Jesus is instantly and completely successful in Matthew (17:
18), In short, for Matthew, the exorcism reveal Jesus to be
the Son of David/God. . .'
(b) Exordsm in Matthew's Church
In contrast to Mark it does not seem that Matthew's material on
exorcism was used to any great extent to help the Church j,n its
exorcism; Matthew's priority is to show that in his exorcisD\s
Jesus' t:nie identity was revealed. As we have just said the ftrst
time that Matthew mentions exorcism in the context of his
Church is in 7: 15-23.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but
inwardly are ravenous wolveS. 16you will know them by their fruits.
Are grapes gathered from thoms, or figs from thistles?
17
50, every
sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18AsO!1f\d
tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
.....
.' tree"1hilt does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into tile
""file. rhusyou wiD knowthem by their fruits. .' .
2lNot eVery one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven. Z2<>n that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do
manymightyworks inyour name? 23And then will Ideclare to them, 1
never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers:
From this it seems that Matthew's Church was suffering frOm
'false piophets'l3S (v. 15 in Matthew here and 24:'11, 24 which
indicates that they are pseudo-prophets within the Christian
community)..In that they are said 'to come' to the readers
(erdtontai pros humas, v. 15) we may assume that they are wander
ing prophets. 136. From v. 22 we learn that they prophesy in the
of the Lord,and do many 'powers' (dunameis),including
exorcism. In principle Matthew is not opposed to wandering
charismatics. As well as 10: Iff, 41 and 23: 34, this passage
assumes that there will be (from time to time? - 7: 15; 23:
wandering charismatics in the Christian community. Thus
Mdtthew's complaint is probably not that the wandering
prophets do not belong to the community. His complaint is that .
the legitimacy of their which includes exorcism, not
de"end on the use of 'the name' (v. 22) or, if this is the way to
i'"
understand v. 21 (d. 1 Cor. 12: 3), their ecstaticutterances (alsov.
22) being claimed to be from the Lord. Rather the test is whetl}er
or not these wandering charismatics do the will of the Father
(whiCh Matthew has just set out in Christ's interpretation of the
:a.W).I38 But Matthew also describes these false prophets as
wolves in sheep's clothing - that is those with the task of caring
for the community yet 'plundering' (harpax, 7: 15, .also in NT at
Luke 18: 11; 1 Cor. 5: 10, 11; 6: 10) it (see Ezek. 22: 27; Zeph. 3: 3).
In vv. 16-19 Matthew spells out how they are recognisabiy not
doiDg 'the wiD of my Father whois in heaven' (v. 21). That is they
are known by their fruits - which eire bad. In its non-literal sense
'.." "
'fruit'"(larrpos) carries the of behaviour in 3: 8 and 12: 33
(contrast 'evil doers' in 7: 23).1 Thus while Matthew admits
wandering exorcists to operate in, and in relation tohis commun
ity, they must to the reguIations of the community.
Nexfwe can consider Matthew's more positive instructions for
tJJe wandering charismatics in his ChurCh whose brief also in
duded exorcism in 9: 37-11: Matthew say!> that they. are
x:'
given authority (10; 1, exOusia, d. 7: 29; 8: 9; 9: 6, 8; 21:23, 24, 27;
28.18) over unclean spirits and to heal (10: 1, 8). They are also to
preach that 'The Kingdom of heaven is at hand' (10:' 7). They are .
to be-peripatetic prophets (10: IH, 23, 40) and to rely on. the
. ,
kindness of others for support (10: 9f, 42) not asking-money for
t
(10: 8).141 ' -,
Despite having had to give up family life (10: 34-9) and the
difficulties that will then be encountered (10; 16-23) they will be
cared for by the Father (10: 26-31) even though they may not be .
very successful (10: 14, 22, 32f). It seems then that the wandering
.. ',
eXorcists connected with Matthew's Church were not very -Sue-:
cessful or weD received. Nevertheless Matthew accords the,;e
wanderers a.share inJesus' eschatological work (note 9: 37). That
is, Matthew, like Luke (see p. 109), believed that exorcism mthe
early Church was part of the destruction of Satan's Kingdom and
the coming of the Kingdom of God. This belief of Matthew's is
perhaps also evident at 17: 17(see below) where, in the conteXt of
. exorcism in the early Church, the example of operative faith,
'.
'moving mountains', is an echo of eschatological expectation in
Isaiah 40: 4. In short these'disciples' in Matthew's Church share' .
the eschatological ministry ofJesus (d. 4: 17; cotnpare 10: 8 with..
Jesus' ministry in chapters 8 and 9). But before moving on we .
should also note that exon::ism isonly one ofa number oftasks
these wandering preachers (10: 8) and they have a much wider
briefthan the disciplesin Mark (6: 12f) and Luke's Church (9: H, 6;
10: 9).142. . . . .
The. pericope in which Matthew appears to.' give spedfi.c
teaching tohis Church onexorcism is in the storyof the healingof
../ the epileptic boy 17: (Mark9: 14-29ILUke 9: 37...;43).
And when they came to the aowd, a man came up to him and
kneeling before him said, 15 'Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an
. epileptic and he suffers tenibly;' for often he falls into the fire, and
often into the water. 16And I brought him to your disciples, arid they
cOpld not heal him.' 17And JesU!l answered, '0 faithless and pelVefl!e
generation, how longam I to be with you? Howlongam I to bear with ,
you? Bringhim here to me.' 18AndJesus rebuked him, and1he demon
came mit of him, and theboy was cured instantly. l'Then the disci.,ples
came to Jesus privately andsaid, 'Why could we not cast it out?' -He
. said to them, 'Because of your little faith. For truly, I say toyou., if you
..
have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain,
'Move from here to- there,' and if will move; and nothing "will be
. ......... '143
' .
CHRIST TRIUMPHANT
130
. Unlike Mark who often has the disciples involved in some
in the healings, this is the only healing in which Matthew has
the disciples play an indispensable part.l44 As he often does,
Matthewseverely abbreviates this miracle story.145 Ifwe
Matthew's abbreviated story with his tradition in Mark 9: 14-29
we notice that the conversation with the father has gone (Mark 9;
W, 18,.20A). But what stands out is the disciples' inability to heal.
(17:'16) especially in saying '0 faithless and perverse generation
...' wlrichremains:(d.Mark 9: 19) directed to the disciples. With
the commentary on Jesus' healing technique, truncated (see p.
70) but thedisciples' questioningas full as inMarkthe motif of the
disciples' failure looms.largE! here ('not able' occurs at vv. 16 and
19, d. v. 20). Thus inMatthew's redaction of this story one has, as
.
theimpression that the evangelist 'is hurrying withlong strides to the
. final point',146 so to speak. The goal is the conversation of Jesus with
his disciples about this ease - not of severe sickness (toUt9
to gmos Mark 9. 29!), but ofthe disciples' failure.
1
4? . .
What then does Matthew 'say about the disciples' inability (ouk
tduffltbtsan) at exorcism and thereby to his Church on its ministry
of exorcislri? In Mark' 9: 23f the faith of the father appears as
important in the success of the exorcism. Matthew (17: 17f)
removes the to the father's faith so. that it is obviously
not thought to be iinportant in the success of 148 But to
the end of the pericope (d. Mark 9: 29) Matthew adds the
Oft faith as (small as) a grain of mustard seed (v. 20ILuke 17: 6)1
.so it clea;r that throughout the pericope it is the faith of
'. the disciples that is the focus (vv. 17,20 twice) of attention not
whether and howJesus can heal. 150 What the father had said the
disdples 'could not do' (ouk edunithesan, v. 16) because of their
1ittle faith' (oligopistian),151 Jesus says that 'with faith' (echete
'pistin) - to use the same verb - 'nothing will be impoSsible'
. (DUden adunatesei, v. 20) to them. ThE! same theme in relation to life
in the Christian commUnity is seen in Matthews story of Jesus
walking on the water where, in a desperate failing situatioI), the
., ChurCh, in Peter, cries 'Lordsave me' and the castigation is
that Peter (the Church)l52 had'little faith' (oligopiste).
. Perhaps because of the difficulties experienCed in his Church,
.compared with Mark, Matthew plays down the role of exorcism
in JesuS ministry. Nevertheless Matthew believes that exorcism
was an important part of Jesus' ministry as it revealed Jesus' true
131 /t '
identity. Matthew also understands the exoIcisms of Jesus to
have' been the first stage of the ,defeat of Satan and evidence that
God's new Kingdom had arrived.
The difficulties Matthew's Church was facing seem to be,
by false prophets :... wandering charismatics. They
do the will of the'Father. Jiowever their behaviour or lifestyle is
probably questionable and they do notsubmit to the
of the community. Instead they are plundering the Christiiul
commumty. On the positive side, Matthew believes that the
wandering charismatics have been given authority to cast out
demons but that their,rninistry was also to include preacl\ing.
Even th01Jgh they may not be they are cared for by
the Father and were taking part in the eschatological destruction
of Satan's,idngdomand the coming new Kingdom. Their
success in exoteism depended on their faith. '
James 2: 19
believe God is one;l53 you do well. Even the den'l()l\S
believe - and shudder.' Is this evidence of exorcism in the eiu:ly
Church as James knew it? And if so what does it tell us about the
exorcisms? In some 154 but particularly in
Jewish155 and Jewish-ctuistian literature
156
there is Some evi
dence tiutt in the New Testament period the name of God was
considered,to cause demons to shudder.157 That in the uwof
(phrissQ) in conjunction with the fundamental Jewish
,affirmation,'that Godis one' (d. Deut.6: 4) James hadexorcism
mind is virtually assured by some lines of an incantatiOn in the
Magical Papyri., ' ,
. . . write this phylactery upon a little sheet of
tin: 1aoo, AbraOthiOch, Phtha, Mesen- '
, tiniaO, PheOch, J&eO, CharsOc,' and hang it
round the'sufferer: it is of every demon a thing to be
at [phrikton), which
he fears. Standing opposite, adjure [horkize] him. The adjuration is
this:.'ladjure [horkizO] you by the god of the Hebrews,
Jesus lllsou], Jaba, Jae .. .' (PGM IV: 3014-20).
From the phrase 'by the God of the Hebrews' and from the re
cital of Jewish historyl58 the exorcist who composed these, in '
cantationswas probably a Jew." '
At this poimwe cannote Jaws5: 14
159

.. .. -"-.-::-. _- .
.-' ...
1
132 CHRIST TRIUMPHANT
Is anyiUl\ongyou sick? Let himcall for the elders of the Church, andlet .
them pray over him {ep' anointing hiJJt with oil in the niUl\e [en
to onomati]of the Lord rho kurios]. 160. '. .
_Here, healing is not, as we might expect in a Christian setting,
'in the name ofJesus' (d. Acts 3: 6; 4: 10, 30; 16: 18; (19: 13) )161 but
. 'in the name of the Lord'. which is not attested anywhere else in
the NewTestament. While the writer of James is most probably a
Christian,l62 which would affect the content of the word kurios
here, this method of healing in the name of the Lord recalls
Jewish healing. Thus the third-eentury BC Jewish author of Ben
writes 'My son, if you have an illness, do not neglect it, but.
pray to,the 19rd (kurios) and he will heal you' (Sir. 38: 9). .
With all this, and the evidence for the name of God causing
demons to shudder being found predominantly in Jewish litera-.
ture, alongwith the Jewish character (e.g. 1: 1; 2: 8,19,21,25; 5:
10, 17),. and the background
l63
of James in mind we can prob
ably conclude that among Jewish Christiclns the name of God
dominant in use as a power-authority for exorcism. 164
And even though 5: 14 is not in itself intended as a procedure
for exorcism, (see n. 159 above) -though to pray 'over' (epi) a
. patient was also part of the directions for some eXorcisms (see p.
103 above) - the role of exorcists in James' Church was probably
confined to the 'elders' (presbuterOl) of the Church. 165
Conclusions
. . .
In the light of the investigations in this chapter it can be con
cluded, the early Church continued the practice of exorcism
after Easter and that, rather than being peripheral to the ministry,
the early Christians adopted exorcism as an important part of
their mission. However this conclusion does not hold good for all
of the Churches represented in the New Testament
The notable exception to our conclusions is the Fourth GospeL
Inrelation to sickness and healing, Jesus and, by implication, the
. Church of without recourse to the conventional
categories of 'demon-possession' and 'exoteism'. We have
already suggested that this is a deliberate programme and the .
acctisation that Jesus 'had a demon' (7: 20; 8: 48,49,52; 10: 20, 21)
shows that John was familiar with the ,notion of dell\on
possession. The only trace or residue of the categories and
. language familiar to the Synoptic Evangelists to be found in John
is the report of the healing of anofficiaI's son where it is said that
'IHE 1lARLY CHUIlCR 133 <;;J
'the fever left (aphihtir) him' (4: 52). However, we cannot press
this evidence at all for aphiemi. had a wide range of use that
extended beyond demons and healing(cf. e.g. Matt. 6: 12; 13: 36;
18: 27; 27: 50; Markl: 20; 5: 19; 1 Cor. 7: 11ff; Rev. 2: 4). Thus the
Johannine community felt that it was possible to fulfil its obliga
tions to the Jesus (and Christian) tradition without acknowledg,;.
ing either that Jesus was an exorcist or that Christians should be
involved in exorcism. Thus, rather than exorcism being part of
the defeat of Satan, the cross in John functions as the focus of the
complete defeat of the evil tuler of this world (12: 31; 14: 30; 16:
11); This defeat becomes existential as Jesus draws all men to
himself (12: 32). Also, rather than concentrating on sickness an<t
its causes, or even its ew:es, the Fourth Gospel highlights and,
focuses on the Healer (note, 'e.g. 9: 1-41). '
, Paul also says very little about demons or evil spirits and
nothing at all about exorcism. What he does have to say that is of'
irtterest to us is found in hiS notion of 'principalities and ,
powers' which have, in part, to do with evil spiritual entities,
potentially, able to separate people from the love of God. Paul
widened the demonic beyond the scope of certain types of illness,
to include even the evil of men's design. From the story of
slave girl in Acts'16: 16-18we have shownthat Paul was probably
involved, even though reluctantly, in exorcism on at least one
occasion. He used the name of Jesus Christ as his power
authority to drive out the,demon. .
, Luke has also broadened the scope of. the demonic. He has'
blurred.. the distinction betWeen demon-possession and other
kinds' of sickness so that in effect all sickness is given a
and therefore healing, a cosmic dintension. Luke believes that the
Church has a warrant for iricluding exorcism as part of its
inission. The basis of this warrant comes, first, in the idea that
JeSus is pattern for the nrlnistry of the early Church. Just as
exorcism was an integralpart ofJesus' ministry so also it was tobe
integral - though not the only or most important part of
ministry. Second, particularly in the mission of'the
:-Seventy (two) - which for Luke represents or prefigures the uni..
versal mission of the Church ..;.. Luke gives a warrant for exorcislU
being an integral part of the ministry of the Church. Like other
Churehes represented in the New Testament the early Church
with which Luke was familiar did not predselythe
methOds of Jesus, even though Jesus was seen as the pattern for
thelife and ministry of the Church. /
. CHRIS'I: nuUMPHANT
Rather, in Luke and Acts we see the Church adopting the
pagan methods of exorciSing by a power-authority. In doing so
they were confronting the demons with lesus, in other words
bringing Jesus into the situation. However, the were
not the key to a successful exorcism. Success depended on the
exorcist- a person filled and by the Spirit. For Luke
the exorcisms of Jesus as well as the Church involved the pre
liminary, though ongoing, defeat of Satan and his Kingdom.
In Mark we most about the Evangelist's views on the
exOrcisms of Jesus and in his Christian community by focusing
attention on his of the disciples. The disciples were
a,ppOiJited to be with Jesus so that they could go out and say and .
do what they had heard and seen of Jesus' ministry - including
exorcism. It seems that Mark's community may not have been
. successful in their efforts to exercise authority over the
demons. Mark his readers that not only is faith impoq
ant on the part of the exorcist as well as those seeking healing,
but with difficult demons prayer is needed. Protection in the de
monic storms of their ministry is only pOssible in association with'
}esull who, with and t:h!ough them, is involved in casting down
Satan's empire. And Mark's community does not use
the same techniques as Jesus they do, likeJesus, exorcise demons
t1u'oQgh aconfrop.tation between the demonic and the
Matthew plays down the role of exorcism in the ministry of
Jesus and in the Church, probably because his Church suffered
&om the exploits of false _prophets whose peripatetic activities
included exorcism. Matthewdoes not condemn thesewandering
. cbalisUUltics but is concerned that they shQuld submj.t to the
alithOrity and regulations of the Christian community. For
Matthew the chief significance of Jesus' exorcism was their revel
of Jesus' identity. Thus they, as well as the exorcismsof the
Church had an eschatological the fa.ll of Satan and
thecomin$ of the Kingdom of God. Just Jesus (and the Church)
was involved in the first stage of the defeat of Satan so also would
Jesusbe involved in the final, eschatological defeat of Satan in the .
future. Matthew tells his readers that success in exorcism de-'
pends to alarge extenton the faith - even as (small as) a grain of
mustard - of the Church. . . .
'The letter of James shows us that Jewish Christians used the
name of the Lord in the ministry of exorcism which was, in
contrast toMatthew, an activity reserved for the leaders/eIders of ' .
theOturch. .
I
-c
-'
;
V
,
TWENTIETH-CENTURY MAN
..
5() far we have discovered, contrary to the conclusions-of some
(seep. 87), that exorcism was a central feature of Jesus' ministry
and that it was, though in varying degrees; very important in the
miniStry of some Churches represented in the New
But as Michael Wilson asks -' .
How far are Jesus' attitudes to things like illness, evil spirits : .. a
'sodally determined part of his Jewish culture? How' far are his
rec.chings divine insights? How do we discern truth in the culturally
created language in which must be expressed?1 ,
5(), having come this far in our discussions, has all or any of
whatwe have found in the New Testatnentany relevance for the
twentieth-eentury Church? Are we to believe in demons, spiri
tual-beings acting as emissaries of Satan? Can a rational twen
tieth-eentury Christian attribute all, some or any illnesses to the,
presence of 'devils' in a person? Should the Church ,become
involved in chasing-away these devils in order to heal people? I
must say at the outset that- I approach these questions with
considerable hesitancy, hopefully. fully aware of all the diffi
culties'involved in seeking some possible answers. I find, often
conflicting input from three directions; the results of New Testa
ment research; our twentieth-eentury world; and the demands of
people in pastoral situations. In seekinganswers to the questions '
we have just set out we need. to try and do justice to three
areas. ' ' .,
There are some sections of the contemporaryChuichwhich,m
"oj
answering the questions about and exorciSm,
place a particular kind of emphasis on the patterns of
and healiiig reported in the New Testament and, almost without
question, demons sickneSs, and exorcism is there:
'.-".'
fore an important part of Christian ministry. The following story'
isan example of sudl an attitude. ' ,
., ,""?'
t? '.'
136 CHlUST TlUUMPHANT
My' husband went forward and .received Christ one night at church
andI wmted to go with him, but somethingheld me back. It was asifI
were in chains. Later that same night, my husband began to talk with
.me about what perfect peace he had found through re(:eiving Jesus
into his heart. . . . ,
. Suddenly, I flew into a violentrage. For a' fleeting instant I realized I
was under the devil's dominion, but I was powerless to do anything
about it. I knewwhat I was doit:tg was wrong, but I could not resist this
overwhelIDing power that had control over my actions.
My husband telephoned'the pastor to come to our house quickly;
All I wanted to do was hurt myself or: someone else. I began pulling at
. my hair, clawing at my throat, biting my hands and arms.
.- I felt, as if o ~ o n e or something were choking me and tearing up
my' insides. I was possessed of superhuman strength. Although I
weigh jUlit over 100 pounds, I threw my husband across the room
when he tried to control me. I was like a savage animal, uncontrolled '
and uncontrollable.
A few minutes later as if coIning from another world, I heard the
pastor speaking thename 'Jesus' andhe commanded the evilspirits to
, telease their hold on me. - .
, I started gagging and coughing up, froth and mucus. There was a
terrible anilnal-like scream. The room was filled with a horrible odor
.thltt resembled the smell of sulphur.
Once the demon released me and left, I felt relaxed and felt a peace
2
of mind I had never experienced before ... .'
But tho$e who wish to take a so-aUled 'biblical perspective'
which includes categories such as 'demons', 'possession' and
'exorcism' ;... as the starting point or as a significant factor in
understanding illnessand healing in the twentieth century have,
soil is argued, a grave, if not confoundingdifficulty to overcome.
IUs argued that the basic difficulty, from which others stem, is
,ttUit we now understand bur world in a way that is, if not
,completely, then in many ways fundamentally different from the
way the biblical writers understood their world. For example, in
contrast to our Js.dentific" world-view Rudolf Bultmatm. has
c1laftlcterised the first-eentury world-view as 'mythical'. That is,
the ,biblical writers had a primitive, pre-scientific conceptuallsa.
tio'n of reali.ty3 which is nowunacceptable. u l ~ summarises
." "',
what he calls the mythical world-view of the New Testament
writers as follows
The cosmology of the, New Testament is essentialIy mythical in
character; The world is viewed as,a three-storied structure, with the
137
earth in the the beaven above, and the underworld beneath.
Heaven is the abode of God and of celestial beings - the angels. The
underworld..is hell, the place of torment. Even the. earth is more than
the scene of natural, everyday events, of the trivial round and Cuql
moo task. It is the scene of the supernatural activity of God andhis
. angels on the one hand, and of Satan and his daemons on the otller...
'These s.upernatural forces intervene in the course ofnature and in all
that men think and will and do. Miracles are by no means rare. Man is
not in control of his own life. spirits may take possession of him,
Satan may inspire him with evil thou,ghts. Alternatively,?God'may
inspire his thought and gfiide his purposes.
4
. ,
This view of the universe is certainly not, says Bultmann, that of
the vastmajorityof us. We no longer believe in a three-storied
universe, nor that God lives in a lcical heaven, nor can we believe'
in spirits, whether good or evil. Rather, he implies, through the
advances of science and technology we know, for example, that it
is not demons which are responsible for sickness but nabn'al
causations.5. Bultmann concludes that - "
Man's knowledge and mastery of the world have advanced to such an
extent through science and technology that it is no longer possible for
anyone to hold the New Testament view ofthe world - 'in
fact. there is hardly anyone who does.
6
,.' /
A. R. Peacocke, the biochemist and. theologian, put the same
point from another perspective in the Bampton Lectures oH978:
What scientists rightly object to, it seems tome, is that ac(:eptance of
the .occult, demonological, 'supernaturalist' myt:hQlogy would imply .
nofjust. of a particular Phe.n.omenon,"the
mental-bl'liin , but .0 the falsity of the entire scientiljc
understan' , .worldso painstakingly built up and, so intellectu
aUycompreh e and inspiring in its scope and depth.
7
, .
Dennis Nineham is another theologian who takes seriously and
emphasises what is known as the cultural gap or distance be
tween the first- and twentieth-century world views.
8
In order to
illustrate this cultural gap Nineham gives a simple analogy which.
is particularlypertinerlt to our discussion. It is, therefore, worth
quoting at length.
Suppose that. some member of this' audience were unfortunate
enough to fall forward from his seat, thrash about on the ground for a
fewmoments andthen become completelyunconscious. What should
l;. ',-' . . I -.
.
138
.we 'do? . ; , if we suspected an epileptic Seizure, we might put
sOmethingbetween his teeth to prevent hisbitinghis tongue. If he did
-," '.
. not regain consciousness fairly soon, we should send for a doctor. The
doctor would examine him and learning perhaps from a friend
of the patient or his usual dOctor that he suffered from diabetes, he
might diagnose a diabetic coma. He would then inject an appropriate
amount of sugar or insulin, as the case might be, and before long the
patient would no doubt regain consciousness and soon.feel little the
worse for the incident. '
, Now suppose that a precisely similar incident had occurred in
Palestine; what wouldpeople.ofthat'time and place have
said and done? I suppose they would have thought that the patient
was possessed of a devil, and perhaps they would have toosened any
tight band round his neck to make the exit of the devil easier. They
would certainly have fallen to prayer over the man, andif the devil did
respond, they.would have diagnosed a particularly stubbom
or a whole legion of devils, and sent for someone known to be
skilled at exorcism. He would have prayed over the man and per
,fOrmed appropriate ritual actions, with what result we cannot teU;
though we may guess that short of a miracle, there would have been
little chance of success in a case of diabetes.
, Now suppose tJtat an identical incident had occurred in the early
seventeenth century; what would havebeen said and done then? I am
not sure, but I imagine the by-standers would have said:'Ah, poor
fellow, the of his humours is .disturbed'; and if he did not
quickly recover, they would have sent for a chirurgeon who would
have come with one of those fearsome articles known, I believe, as a .
cupping-glass, or with some -leeches, and let a good deal of blood,
with what result again we cannot say, though the chances of success
wOuld surely'have been small.. .
By A.O; 2500 we may venture to hope that diabetes will somehow
have been eliminated, or at least that prophylactic measures will have
been discovered which rule out the sudden onset of diabetic comas; if
not, we cannot teU how exactly people of that date will respond to the
occurrence of adiabetic coma, except for being sure that, whatever
they do or say,.it will not,be what we, or any of our predecessors, have
said or done in the same situation; and probably it will be more
effedive.
9
: '. .
The poiIitthat tnese scholars are making is that, as Nineham puts
fr- .' . .
,I .
people of different periods and cultures differ very widely; in some
cases widely that accQUOts of the nature and relations of God, men
.
and put forward in maybe unacceptable; as they
stand, m a different culture . . .' .
TWENTlElB-eENTURY MAN
139-"[
It is'not, though, Ninian Smart pointed out, that the 'facts'
have changed. 'We can easily accept that men andchi:1dren froth
at the mouth and that women go into cataleptic states.,uRa.ther
what has changed is the view of the universe in which there is no
place for demons.
For ages the anny of spirits, once so near, has been receding further
.anp further from us, banished by the magic wand of science from
hearth and home, from ruined cell and ivied tower, from haunted
glade and lonely mere. . . Only in poets' dre..ms is it given to catch a
glimpse of. the last flutter ofthe standards of the retreating host, to
hear the beat of their invisible wings, the sound of their mocking
laughter.
12
'. .
This argument, that there is a cultural gap - or if Nineham is
rigll.t, cultural chasm.- between us and the first century has
serious repercussions for the progress of our present discussion'
ofexonjsm.' .
If Bultmann (and others) are correct, then there are no sucll .
things as demons; possession is an unacceptable pre-scientific
view of sicknesS and the Church should not, does not need to,
bother with such a superstitious method of healing as eXorcism.
.The argument is that the world-view of the New Testament
writers is so differeilt from our own tltt the categories used to
describe illness and healing are no longer legitimate or viable. In
terms of our own study of exorcism, it is argued that, for people
(including Christians) of the first-eentury exorcism was
evennecessary, because their world was infested with demons ot .
evil spirits - ours is not! So the first problem to and which we
shall address in a moment is the question of the existence of
demons.
A second. problem, raised by the' argument of Bultmann,
Nineham and others, of a cultural gap between the first and
twentieth centuries, is not only of man's understanding of his
universe but of himself. In the same essay from which I Rave
already quoted Bultmann says that the New Testament regards
man as a 'victim of a strange which exposes himto the
interference of powers outside himself.'13 But while modem
biology and psychology recognise man's'dependent nature, if .
there is an inner tension iIi man it is not now attributed to the
demonic but is called schizophrenia,I4 Bultmann argues that
modem man has come to recognise that he must bear the full
I ..
for his feeling, thinking and wiDing; he cannot
. \
then, .for example, blame his eVil on the evil spirits.
15
Similarly
Michael Wilson also argues that our perception of man is rio
. longer what it was m." the first century and so he Says '1 am a
twentieth-eentury Western"'CUltured man and I do not perceive
people as if they were This is not the frame of
_t..-.-. ." hich I think ,16
.U3CU::uce m w '" " .
A slightly different suggestion, but with the same result, is
_given by Peter Hebblethwaite. He says. that dne can understand
human evil from' man .'being rooted in a' physical organic .
world.
117
In other the evil once attributed to demons is
now otherwise explained. We shall be addressingthis problemas
we proceed. ' . .
We can turn now to discuss the cultural relativity18 that in turn
rules out use of the categories of'demons', 'possession' and
" 'exorcism' to describe contemPorary phenomena (see pp. 138f). In
" the.oontext of our discussion we do not need to discuss fully the
.case put by Nineham fOr extreme cultural relativity.19 What
.neect to do is ask if Nineham is correct in saying that the first
.. century world was so different from ours in that the belief in
angels and demons was part of the mental furniture of the New
Testament world-view, received unconsciously. into its philo:.
sophical systems.. . . .
. It is extremely difficult to determine what people the New
Testament period took on as an unquestioned assumption in
their world-view. F. G. Downing has pointed to a number of
alleged unquestionable axioms from the period.
2O
For example,
. he noted Frances Young as saying, 'In the Western world,
both popular culture and tI:le culture Qf the intelligentsia-has
come to be doInirutted by the human and natural sciences
to such an extent that supernatural causation or intervention
in .the affairs of this world has become, for the majority
of people, simply incredible.'21 Then she compares with this
'mntrast between the. two worlds,"SOmething. from Philo of
Alexandria.
The view, for instance, is widely curr,ent, that all thingsiri the world
nm alongautomatically, independently of anyone toguide them, and
. that the hUmah mind by itself established arts,
rules of,right treatment bOth of men and artimaIson the
'1'JBrlofthe state cmd in our conduct whethel as individuals or. as
D'Iembers Of communities (de le8. till., 3 30, Loeb). 22 . ....
TWENTIE1lI-cENT\1IlY. MAN
141 a..-u
Downing is cautiqus 'not to overpress this but is conectto
conclude that 'in terms.of attitudes implicit in respective world
views,. what Philo widely current does not look all that
different from what for instanceJacques Monod has suggested in .
his epitypically "modem" Chance and Necessity'. 23 .
Downing also mentions the way Josephus retells the stQry of
the Ark among the Philistines and said that they should not be
'deluded into attributing the cause of their misfortune to the Ark .
. .. their cause to be none other than nature itself, which Period
ically produces such changes' (Ant. 6: 7_15).24 While it cannot be
concluded that no one in the ancient world believed in miracles it .
is clear that at least Josephus (and also Philo) did not take themfor
granted.
25
. .
A clear example of the questioning that went on in some
quarters of the ancient world about demons is a passage in Lucian
of Samosata's The Lover of Lies 8. The passage, with a strangely
modem ring,. comes in the context of a discussion of healing
where one of the characters says - "'Do you think that
certain incantations put a stop to this sort of thing . . . 1" They
laughed at my remark and clearly held me convicted of great .
stupidity . . .' Then a little farther on (paragraphs IS) there isa
discussion about demons. 'You' act ridiculously ... to doubt
everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to
- those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising
spirits so manifestly' (par. 16).26 .
From what we shall note below of the observations of ,the
anthropologists and sociologists it will be apparent that in primi
tive SQ6eties there is an awareness of a distinction between what
should and what should be attributed to spirits. '17
Finally here we can cite a.helpful comment by John Barton on
this whole problemas it relates to our subject.
. . . one instance which touches on a matter particularly central to
Nineham's presentation of 'the New Testament world-view', (is) the
. question of angels and demons. Everyone.in New Testament times
believed in these, it is suggested, as an unalterable part of their mental .
.f!.uniture; it was not just a f1re(Jry that sickness was caused
by demon-possession, sickness was actually eXperienced as such pos
session. Against this might be cited Mark 12: 18, according to which
the Sadducees said that there was no angel or spirit or resurrection.
Whether this is true is beside the point: on Nineham's terms it ought
to have been impossible even to suggest that they held such a belief,
indeed, the proposition 'angels don't exist' ought to have been per
142
",. '..,:
I ..
ceived as an impossible utterance, to which no reaction was possible
~ bewi1derment.
28
.
We may conclude with Downing,29 at least on this point, that
the distance between the first- and twentieth-century world
views is not as great as Nineham and others would lead us. to
believe. In particular we may conclude that while people in the
.an<:ient world and in primitive societies attribute(d) ailments and
n8turaI phenomena to 'spirits', they are not, by their world-view
bound to do so. We may assume that something in their in
leIpletations of their observations led people intheandent world
. tocondude that some sickI\esses were and60me sicknesses were
'not the result of demons in a person. The difficulty of Nineham's
view will becOme. even clearer as we proceed:
. How twentieth-eentury people attempt to llllderstandtheir
world, espedallyin relation to religion and religious experience,
bas been profoundly affected and shaped by some important
writers and thinkers in the last century and more. Ludwig
Peuerbach (1804-72),30 Charles Darwin (1809_82),31 Karl Marx
(1818-83f2 and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)33 are examples. In
the sixth thesis onFeuerbach Marx wrote 'Feuerbach resolves the
religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence
ill no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality it is
the ensemble of the social relations.,34 And in relation to our
particular study Weatherhead sums up the secular workl
~ . '
The idea that the human perSonality can be possessed by demons is
widely rejected today by, the educated' westerner as' an outworn
superstition. EvidenCes and symptoIru! which.to the easterner of
olden days pointed to demon possession are either dismissed as
. unfactual, or explained in terms of nervous or hysterical illness. The
modern man ha$no place for demons " ..35
. '
So the next question in relation to extreme cultural relativism is
ad<h'essed not to the first century, but to theprevailing twentieth
century world-view. Is it possible or correct, to allow a 'scientific
world"view' to determine the categories, understanding and.
o validity.QJ the experiences. of contemporary, m a n ~ Is man's
. knowledge and experience of his environment adequately de
'",
,scn"beG and. interpreted by the prevailingcontemporary scientific
and secular consciousness of our society?3
7
.'.
143 ~ .'
As a way of answering these questions I want to depend on the
brief but important book, A RumOUT of Angels by Peter Berger. He
has, inoutline, sketchedthe allegeddemise ofthe supernatural in
our contemporary situation.
Whatever the situation may have been in the past, tCKhly the super
natural as a meaningful reality isabsent or remote m the horizons of'
everyday life of large numbers, very probably of the majority, of .
people in modem societies, who seem to manage to get along without
. . n38
It qwte we .- . .
The Church, Protestant and Roman Catholic, and ~ t s theo
logians under strong social and psychological. pressure, not
wishing to be cognitively deviant has by and large surrendered
the supe.rmitural. The alternative woUld be to remaih a 'sect' or
cognitive minority - .that is 'a group of people whose view of the .
world differs significantly frc?m the one generally taken for
granted in their society.,39
,But not least because of social difficulties, and stronguniversal
ist trends already bound up in Christianity, this is not a serious
option. The alternative of surrender - so far as it may be put this
sharply - is seen intellectually as an option of 'translation'. t
is, traditional religious affirmations are m a ~ , allegedly, to con';'
form to the Weltanschauung of modernity. 4() . .
However, Berger points out that despite the secularisation
trend this Weltanschauung has not been as all-embracing as some
have thought;41 or we might add - hoped! .
There continue to be quite massive manifestations of that sense Of
the uncanny that modem rationalism caDs 'superstition' -last but not
least in the continuing and apparently flourishing existence of an
astrological subculture! For whatever reasons, sizeable numbers of
.the specimen 'modemman' have not lost a propensityfor awe, for the .
uncanny; for aD those possibilities that are legislated against by the
. canons of secularized rationality.42 .
Berger then .cites a number of statistics .including some from a
study in England in which nearly 50 per cent of the respondents
had consulted a fortune-teller, one in six believed in ghosts and
one in fifteen had claimed to have seen, one.
13
Berger does not want to explain. these phenomena in the .
Jungianfashion of religious 'needS. as he thinks that, empirically,
,- .
the psychological premises here are very dubious.. .
- -
lioWever,psychoJogy apevt, it is pOsSlole to arguethat the human
conditie:ttl, fraught as it is with suffering and with the finality f?f
death, demands interpretations that not only satisfy theoretically
but give inner sustenance in meeting the crisis of suffering and
death.'"
HaYing made these observations he goes on to suggest that as
ail aid to the-supernatural thetheologian should 'seek
out what might be ailled Signals of transcendence within the
empirically-given human sitUation. And I [Berger] would further
. suggest that there are prototypical human gestures that may consti
tute stich signals' .til What he means by 'signals of
are phenomena in our 'natural' domain that point beyond that
reality. And by these phenomena, which he calls 'prototypical
gestures', he means certain reiterated acts and experiences of
.ordinary everyday life andawareness that seemto express essen- .
tialaspects of man'sbeing. 46 . - .
Berger then d.iscussesexamples of what he has inmind. First he
mentions a fundaJnental human trait --the propensity for order.
He quotes Eric VoegeJin, the philosopher of history - 'Every
society-is burdened with the task" under its concrete conditionS,
of an ordet that Will. endow the fact of its existence with
meaning in term of ends divine and human.'47 Then Berger
- I himself says that 'throughout most of human history men have
believed that the created order of society, in one way or another,
corresponds to an underlying order of the universe, a divine
-order that supports and justifies -all human attempts at
OI'derlng.'48 Other examples of pl'Q.totypical gestures which he .
'signals of transcendence' are the argument from
-(stepping out of one time-into another),9 man's FOpensity to
hope {or the future,.50 and the argument from damnation. This
(the argument &om dam,nation] refers to experieI)CeS in whiCh
-our set'lse of what is -humanly permissible is so fundamentally
outraged only adequa
to the offender seems to be a
One other 'Signal of transcen
having to do with discre
ment of the human spirit in th
in thiS discussion is 'to explo
tekeaa their starting point
men'.53 We shall return and
_ question we are answ
response tothe offence as well as
e of supernatural dimensions. '51
nee' is the comic aspect of man
es - which 'reflects the impriSon
world'. What Berger aims to do
the theological possibilities that
hat is generally aa:essibleto all
up this point later.
. g is - Is man's kJtowledge ;md
145
experience of his environment adequately described and inter
preted. by the prevailing contemporary scientific' and secular
consciousness of our society? The decided 'no' that Berger is
givingis supported fromanother quarter.1bat is, findings of the
Religious Research Unit in Oxford, set up in 1969bya
former professor of zoologyand comparative anatomy, SirAlister
. Hardy, warrant our attention. 5& ,
. For example, funded primarily by th.e Research Unit, David
.Hay, a zoologist in the School of Education at the University of .
Nottingham head of the Religious Experience Research
Project there, conductedsome research on religiOUS in
r'
Britain.
55
He used space in National OpinionPolls Ltd surveys'to
collect data. He asked two questions in particular. One was
. 'Have you ever been aware of or influenced by a presence or a
power. . . ?' To this question 36 per cent of the sample of people
gave a positive response. The other question.was - 'Have you
ever felt as though you were very close to a powerful spiritual.
force that seemedto lift you (lut of yourself?' :To this question the
positive. response was 31 per cent.56 This means that we could
predict that over one third. of the British populatiOn believe they
have had some kind of 'religious' experience that is outside the
prevailing scientific and.Secular, descriptions of our society and
. .
COns<:lOusness. ;
In the of our present study it is worth gomg on to say
that David Hay and his assistants did other work taking.this
researcha stage further. conducted many interviews so that
people could put their experiences into spoke Qf
their experience of God, answered pnlyer, a presence not 1"IaJl\faCl
nature mysticism,. the of the dead, premonitioll&,
meaningful patterning of events,. conversion and evil powers.!IIl
After the experience they described most of these people (61'pei
cent) reported a change in state ofmind towards feelings
such as peace, restoration, etc. . . However, 'the 15 per cent whO
were alarmed or troubled had either eXperienced an unnerving
Conition or felt the presence of an evil power'. Hay a
. emistry graduate:
rve experienc;:ed evil. We weie asking questions and testing in
seance .with a. ouija board. It was a purely experimentalsi.t\lation,
the that given to us, a logical explanation.
On one oa;aBlOI\ answers were not gaven, so we asked why; The
-answerspelt QutCHRYSTOS and the g1assended opposite a Person .
wemngaaudfix. At this point, Ioptedout.
60
.
_.__.
/
, . .. . '
.1(.
CHIUST TRIUMPHANT 146
And a late-night experience in the Sussex countryside:
I was out one night in Sussex, near -, and when I came toa ruined
building; I felt the presence of something evil, which made me feel
extremely uncomfortable and frightened ... on no other occasion in
my life have I had such an overpowering feeling of the presence of
'. -evil ... 61 .
David Hay then says in the concluding chapter of his book:
The experiences which we have been examining in this book fall intQ
.the realmof realities which it is not politic to admit are there, except as
a kind of fantasy or aberration. From a traditional scientific point of
view, they conflict with too many well-established theories.
. the weight evidence which has been accumulating over the past
fifteen years or so makes th.at dismissal seem rather premature.
62
I"hope that what the last few paragraphs have done is to
. provide a basis for calling into question the cultural relativism
that wOuld virtually prevent us from proceeding with our dis
CUssiOn. Nevertheless it cannot than otherwise be admitted that
there is a considerable 'cultural distance' between us and the
New Testament writers.
63
In this situation many Christians feel
committed to undertaking both to explain our. contemporary
wOrld, and to do justice to ancient affirmations in the Christian
traditions, including the canon.
Thus, on the one hand, while it may legitimately be agreed that
the 'facts' of our world have not changed - our universe is
objectively the same as it was in the first century - those very
'fads' mean thatsome account must be taken of what may be
termed 'certain expressions of evil'. That is, in terms of our
study, alongside the problem of evil, including natural
disasters, motal evil, the general problem of pain, it is still felt
necessary to give some account of the kind of evil that is rep
resented in the stories at the beginning of this chapter. In other
words, how do we, in the account for what
sOme still want to'designate as 'demon-pOssession'? On the other
hand, some theologians feel the need to re-express incontempor
aiyterms what they see affirmed about the nature of evil, man
and the. universe in the Gospel stories of the 'demon-possessed'
. their heatings. From these two perspectives, what the Cbn
temporary Christian, on his situation well as the
tradition, feels is an obligation to be able to. give a reasonable
account of the humansituation. HewiDalsowant tore-express or .
perhaps, as somewouldsay the truth afrhe seeslt
reflected in his traditions - namely, itt this case, the storiesin the
. New Testament about demon-possession and exorcism.
64
..
Inshort, facing these diffitulties of takingintoaccount what tiN
. early Christians were trying to expreSs-in their traditions, asweD
as attempting to account for expressions or dimensions of
evil in an intelligible way, Christians have-_taken a number of
alternative routes.
One attempt has been. in effect, to 'short-circuit' this
cussion or try and solve this problem by an appeal to the- Bible:
Merrill F. Unger in Demons in the World Today askS the question
'Do demons exist?', and the eomer:"stone of his argument is
statements like - 'the Word of God ,attests the reality of super-
naturalism through the career of both Satan and hiS mYriads of.
helpers called demons or evil spirits.,65 \ .
More recently, Michael Green' has made a similar appeal to
support the notion of evil spirits and a Satan. One reason why .
Green says he is convincedof the existenCe ofSatan-is the witness
of the Bible.
66
He also says - 'The final and to my mind con
clusive reason for believing in the reality of Satan is simply this:
Jesus believed it:
67
- .
With this is to be compared the view of E. Garth Moore
It is obvious' that Jesus himseH believed' in the demonilz and in
possession, and however legitimate it may be to attribute to his
contemporaries an ignorance of modern medicine which could lead
them to mistake illness for possession, it is not so easy.to attribute the
same ignQrBnce or confusion to one so manifestly awcp'e of the _
spiritual and the psychic as was our Lord.
68
. .
In the new edition of the Intervarsity Press New Bible Diction(lry
(1982) Leon Morris says 'There seems no reason a priori why we
should reject the whole concept of demon-possession. When .the
Gospels give us good evidence that it did take place it is best to
accept this' (p. 278). However, in the light of the arguments we
have seenin the beginning of this c;hapter, anappeal to Scripture,
certainly at this st;;tge, is simply not possible. If.theNewTesta
ment was written by people with a different and; arguably,.:in
many ways outmoded and unacceptable world-view, an appeal
. to Scripture is of nohelp in describingand understanding illness .
antbickness in the twentieth century. And if Jesus was a manof
__
148
his time, as the Gospels and current New Testament research
affirm, then we must allow the distinct probability, even certainty,
that Jesus' view of the cosmos was pre-scientific and of little or
no help in coming to terms with how we should understand and
describe our world. In other words, it is illegitimate and impossi
ble to appell1 directly either to Jesus or the Bible in the construc
tion of our cosmology. (We shall say more on this in a moment - ...
in a somewhat more positive tone!) This approach is also
illegitimate, or at least canbe seentobe illegitimate, because it has
Mfusedtoface and speakto the twentieth-eentuty, contemporary
Sitwltiqn.69 Such an appeal to the Bible does not take into account
..... () ..i. the probability that what was described as demon-possession
may now, at least in some cases, be otherwise described. Also, in
wishing to the truth being affirmed behind and in the
language of 'demons', 'possession' and 'exorcism', it may not be
enough to repeat the language of the first-eentury writers.
70
This
point is put dearly in two passages by A. C. Thiselton.
. . . simply to repeat the actual words of the New Testament today may
wen be, in effect, to say something different from what the text itself
originally said. Evenif it does not positively alter what was once said,
it may be to utt-:r 'nothing more than just a tradition, a mere form of
a dead relic of the language of the past'. 71 .
And,
. .Aiiteralistic repetition of the text cannot gimrantee that it will 'speak'
.' to the mOdem' hearer. He may Understand all its individual words,
. and yet fail to understand what is being said. In Wolfhart Pannen
berg's words, 'In a changed situation the traditional phrases, even
when recited literally, do not mean what they did at the time of their
.originalformulation.
t72
Thus Ebeling asserts, 'The SIlm wot4i can be
...
, ...
said another time only by being said differently. t73
response to' the recognition of the cultural chasm
. . causing a tension between categories used to describe the world
of the first century and the way we describe our world, yet
to maintain faithfulness to the perceived truth content
of the biblical categories, has been the programme to demythol
ogise the first-eentury categories. For example, John Macquarrie
says that'thedemons and evil spirits of traditi-onal belief.. . . have
elUninated through the seCUlarisation of our understanding
.of nature and the cornoequellt decline of animism. ,74 But while he
..
149,
gOes on to assert that sicknesses of mind and body, crop-failure
and infertility of animals cannot now be attributed to demons
Macquarrie does wish to m.aintain the category of the 'demonic'
in his theology. But rathe,: than use the label for illness caused by
"quasi-ptlfsonalbeingshe uses 'demonic' for 'the sense of help
lessness in the face of some movements or situations for which no
one seems directly responsible and which no one Seems able to
conUol.,75 Also an idol- something that is not ultimate becoming
an ultimateconcern
76
- may also be designated 'demonic' 'in so
far as it has become'the focus of a distorted existential concern;
reacts by further distorting, enSlaving. and destroying the
of the person who has given it allegiance.' .
In this latter observation of the demonic and idolatry being in.
some way related Macquarrie is, as he aeJmowledges, picking up
in the biblical material (Deut. 32: 17-18). Macquarrie's
notion of the demonic here also has close associations with'Paul's
views expressedinthe phrase 'principalities and powers' .
'8
ThuS
J
in this association of idolatry and the demonic, Macquarrie has
been able both to elucidate an aspect of ancient thinking on the
deinonic and successfully to unpack its significant meaning. for
.the "twentieth century. However, a question-mark must remain
against. Macquarrie's limiting the demonic to the sense of help
lessness, .while not including something of what New Testament
writers called demon-possession. In short, is there nothing
demonic about sickness of body and mind?19 .
We can t:akePaul Tillich as a second example of a theologian
attempting to demythologise the demonic. In a similar fashion
to Macquarrie, where he writes of the association of idolatory
and the demonic, Tillich implies that the desires for food,ac
knowledgment, and unlimited power have the potential of de
monic cluuaeter as is shown in the story of Christ's temptationin
the desert.
80
Time also can have demonic in destroYing.
man if.it is truncated from the 'etemal now'. 81 Even God can be
seen to take on demonic (destructive) traits for those who are not
reconciled to him.
82
And salvation as well is open to demonic
distortion because, in the present situation, it is fragmentary. 83
Thus, so far, we see that Tillich has broadened the conterttof'the
demonic' so that it becomes a equivalent of 'the destructive'.
The nearest he comes to taking account of evil or the demonic,
which is implied in the first-century labels of 'demon'
"semon', is when he Writes of another "!SubjeCt. In" talking: of
revelation he says that ittakes place in theecstatic staterstanding
1. __
CRllIst TlUUM.PHANT
self); ecstasy pres.erves elevates
rational structure of the mmd butdemornc-possesslon destroys it
. as well as, the ethical and logical principles of reason. Tillich does
not have in mind some exterior being taking up residence in the
hliman person or anything objective being-involved. 'In the state
of demonic possession the mind is not really ''beside itself," but
rather it is in the power of elements of itself which aspire to be the
whole mind, which grasp the centre of. the rational self
destroy it.,84 Yet when speaking of 'divine' ecstasy Tillich says
'that which concerns us unconditionally manifests itself within
- thewhole of our psychological conditions. It appears through
them. But it cannot be deriVed frottrthem'. 85 So on the one hand
diviIle ecstasy involves something objective but demonic ecstasy
does not. Therefore, how far Tillich has successfully demythol
d the 'demonic' and 'possession' in so-called biblical myth
orogywill have to remain open to question. In any case, with
Yillid\'stheological constructions and expressions oscillating
bet;ween the pr<>found and the bizarre, his work needs its
own'demythologising before it can be useful for contemporaty
Christians. '
Rollo May, a d!sdple of Tillich' 5,86 speaks of the demonic - or
'diilinonic' as he prefers. He prefers this spelling (from the Greek
daiinonion) as it alludes to the origin of the word which was
ambiguous and included both the positive and the
.. divine as well as the diabolical'.87
The ancient Greek notion of the daimonic is fundamental to
May's thesis.
88
For the ancient Greeks the term daimonion was
used With thros (god). May makes particular .
mention of The Persians by Aeschylus (Pl'. 135f). In that play man
can be a passive victim of the daimonic.. The daimonic can, also
take away judgment - that is. work through man psychologi
cally. Here the daimonic is both subjective as well as objective as
.',' "lday sees it - and it is this sense in which hewants to use it
(p. asserts that the problem is always to see
daunoIUc. .
.Ufhe daimonic is pureiy objective, you the danger of sliding into
superstition in w,ucn man is simply the victim of external powers. If,
on the other hand, you take it purely subjectively, you psychologi2e
. the daimonic; everything tends to be a projectionand to become more
and more superficial; you end up without the strength of nature, and
.' ,; yQUignorethe objective conditions of existence, such as infinnityand
, ., death(p. 136).
151
The over-arching func,tion of thedaimonic is, for May; seen
pre-eminently in Plato who, in 'symbolic wrote 'of
God's giving everyman adaimon which Wji5 therefore man'slink
with the divine.
. . . we note the union of good and evil the Greeks achieVed in their
concept of the daimon. It is the bridge between the divine and the
human, and shares in both. To Jive in accord with one'sdaimon
(endaiinonism) is difficult but profoundly rewarding. It is natuJril
drive in its starkest form but a drive which man, being conscious of,
canto some ,extent assimilate and direct. 1he daimonic destroys
purely rationalisticplans and opensthe person to creative possibilities
he did not know he possessed' (p. 137f, his emphasis):
Although with the Hellenistic and Christiah eras the
split between good and evil dllimons, may be thought to llaye
made facing and conquering eVil easier May regrets such a split.
What is lost is important; namely the classical Organismic cori
cept of being as combiningbothgood and destru,ctive possibilities'
(p. 138).. . .
, For May, then the daimonic either OJ:;' cre
ative, and is usuallyboth. He defines the daimonic'as any natural
function which has the power to take over the whe>le
(p.l23). Itiswhen,foreXample, sexanderos, anger and rage, and'
the craving for power go awry and control the total person t;hat
May would use the description of 'daimon-pqssession' which he
equates with psychosis. ,Thus the daimonic appears as excessive
aggression, hostility and cruelty - the reverse side of the same
assertion which empowers our creativity (p. 123). The daimonit
then needs to be channelled by human consciousness which can
and personalise the daimonic. Psychotherapy aids in
this integration (p. 126). The task of psychotherapy is to'name
the unconscious'. Relief from the daimonic conflict'comes from
the ad of confr
01l
ting the daimonic World of illness by means o/.the
. nJlmes' (p. 173, his emphasis) that is the understanding in know
ing .the daimonic brings relief. the problem is tarlta;.
mount to the therapiSt's saYing, ''Your probleI;T1 can be known, it
has you can stand outside and look atit'" (p. 174).1his
naming is not the integratingchange but its aid so that the patient
can, in dialogue with the daimonic, it (p. 175f). .
In the retaining of the Greek .concept, of daimon May
ptofoundJy misunderstood what the biblical writerS were.,.. even
if in mythologica1language - attempting to assert. It is true that
:.. .. ,..
";:,"..
./ .
'"
. .
.152
the dualistic split between good and evil became pronounced in
Hellenistic and Christian eras (p.l38). .
: l:Iowever, the seeds of a consciousness of the opposing nal\lreS
of good and evil is, in the biblical material clear as far back as 1
Samuel. The New Testament writers wanted to posit the deepest
divide between and evil when they spoke of spirits of good
. and evil. The same view is seen in the Qumran cosmology (see
Chap. II). 'fQ suggest that 'Satan, Lucifer, and theather daimonic
figures are psychologically necessary. They had to be .in
in order tomake human action and freedom possible'
(p. 139, his emphasis) is simply not borne out in the study of, for
.example, the history of the Jewish religion. Consciousness and
."" .
freedom existed among the Jews before the appearance of
in their literature. Also, for May to say that the daimonic is limited
to functions gone awry expressed in termS of aggression,
and cruelty, is to miSunderstand the New Testament
writers' asSertions. They would haye agreed that the demonic
maybe expressed in these (and other) ways but would also want
to add that it was only an expression, and that there was an
uriseen dimension to the evil which had imposed itself from
o\ltside the person. It is only reasonable to conclude that Mayhas
not been: successful either m understanding the demonic in the
New 'Testament or in demythologising it for the twentieth-
century reader. .
A third area which, for' someg..s the cultural chasm
.between the demonology of the tury and the scientific
world of the twentieth century is tli .ea of general medicine,
psychology and psychiatry. In ' the argument, summed up
bythe quote from Dennis NinelWn (pp. 137f), is that the advances
in modem medicine, including psychiatry make it.unnecessary
to resort to such categories as 'demons', 'possession', and
'exorcism' .89 .
. oUr task here is to examine and question this assertion;90 .
There is, I think, no question that general medicine, psychol
ogy and psychiatry have been able to show that a number of
conditions that have been, or in some instances still are, thought
to be caused by demons, have in fact medical explanatioris.. For
paroxysmal conditions such as epilepsy, can be attrib- .
uted10, for example, alterations in the blood calcium (tetany), 91
or hysterical epilepsy.93 Ha11ucinationsare also
as associated with, .for example, hyperthyroidism (e.g.
exophthalmic goitre),94 fever delirium caused by infectious dis
153
eases; encephalitis;95 and schizophrenia.
96
Likewise depression
is associated: with hyperthyroidism (idiopathic myxoedema),rn
I cardiac asthma, paroxysmal tachycardia: and
myocarditis.99 . . ..
The monumental work of collection. of data and srody. of
Possession: Demoniacal and other Among Primitive Races, in Antiquity,
The Middle Ages, and Modern Times by T. K Oesterreich ended
, with the following as part of the conclusion: 'Possessionbegins to
disappear amongst civilized races as soon as belief in spirits loses
poWer. From the moment they cease to entertain seriously the
possibility of being possessed, .the necessary autosuggestion is
lacking.'rtJo . '.
Thus Koch summarises Oesterreich's thesis ;..
. . . the condition of possession is . .. in its essence not. the
Damenon of a possessing but a compulsive process which the
subject pursues against his own will. Hence possessed persons are
. compulsive neurotics, Who are ruled by an inteJl$ive psychological
.process, without acceptingthis processthemselves. Hwe ask concern
ing the cause of this compulsive process, then Oesterreich pointsto
the maximal development of the subconScious. According to. this
View, we, must conceive of possession as a co-ordination 'of this
maXimally developed, intermittently active, subconScious With 'the
conScious mind. At the moment of paroxysm, there is e,,:,en it sub
ordination of the consciousness to the subconScious. Thus conscious
ness and subconsciousness have in their activities exchanged roles.
Hence, there are certain reversing processes in the psychic suuctureof
the possessed persOn ... The nature of the state of possession
thus been reduced by Oesterreich to an anti-transcendent' basis in
depth psychology. 101 " , . '
further, thepsychia:trist P. M. Yap has been able to explain some
cases of 'possession' in terms of modem psychology as a
psychogenic-psychosis,I02 that is an, illness involving high
psychic activity by some external shock or trauma. .' .
This, and what we have just noted, is a large cautiona,ry note
for those who too quic1dy attribute ailments and disorders to .evil
spirits. Koch is correct, to point out that .
. convinced occultists, spiritists and, often simple and SQIid
Christians also sometimes.. accept without question a belief in spirits
and demons where this is completely unnecessary. Over against this
exceSsive belief in transcendentoFwers, we must seek the objective
facts with'sobriety and realism.
1
" '
i
.. :"."._" ,.."
, '-i':"( -"
, 154'
.....:, ..
---, --.,
-Koch then gives threeargumertts towam against PrematW'e
to talk of spirits and 'demon-possession'.104 First, in the
reaJm' of drogs he cites Schmeing and Rhine
lO5
who have shown
,that an introduction of calcium in the blood causes 'second sighf
to'fade. Second, the therapy'work in neurology of W.
was successful in identifying and fusing forms of
dUeodated personality.
__ "Third, citing an example,. Koch points out that the moving of it
glass on a ouija board can, at least at times, be explained in terms
of the intentions of one of the p&!-pants. So he concludes:
"where there are physical,. psycho!oWcal or subconscious' con;.
nexions, we need not make use of any questionable theory of
spirits in order to explain the phenomena.'U17
Although Oesterreich argues to see possession as psychologi
calCOlitpulsion. 'states, he ends his work in an appendix on
PittapsyChology by saying that our knowledge ofparapsychotic
pflenomena is too restrictive to explain all states of possession in
this 'V!'ay. 108 In' other .:.... 'An important unexplaiitable resi
4ue for which there is as yet no psychological explana
tion, ,and, whiCh continues to leave the question open as to
1Irllether certain happenings transcend nature.'U19 This doubt
that all diseases and states once labelled as being caused by
-demons has now been explained by medical ,research - can be
further supported., While hallucinations, and depression may
" I have, as we have noted, natural Gluses, hallucinations canalso be
causedby occult involvement. 110 Also 'depressions are observed
foUowing-every kind of occult activity apart frOm ,spontaneous
telepathy, predictive dreams, dowsing which is limited to the
sphere, and one form of clairvoyance.'lll ,
. In_ti'le area of parapsychology or psychic research Rudolf
TISdmet
lU
found that there was, in cases like the deciphering of
&agments of cuneifol1Il soipt by a secret key, the locating of the
foUndations of anold abbey with the assistance of a'dead person'
'CUldtelekinetic phenomena, the need for the ackrtowledgment
of complete ignorance. That is 'A residue remains which is o
genuine, beyond all delusions .. .'113 This conclusion that natu
, tal and medical explanations do not cover all cases ofillness and
'q<:CU1tic phenomena is confirmed in another area. R. Kenneth
a consultant psychiatrist, gives the following case. '
A:lady who had beenconfinediii a padded cell had not spOken{or two
years and had to be forcibly fed by her htlSband as- she violently
l55
members of the staff. She had failed to respond to any
b;eatment. Onbeingapproached one day with the that she
was 'demonpossessed' she immediatelycame out with the nameOfiUl
ancestor iUld asked to see a priest. This led to her immediate healing
and release.u
4
.
McAILsays that of all the patients he sees 4 per cent need some
form of ministry of exorcism. In the case of epilepsy McAll says
. that in true epilepsy there is a clear pattem of symptoms includ
ing sense disturbances before. an attack, un(:onsciousness and
often incontinence during the attack. He says that the
graph nearly always indicates a focus of irritation in the prain. But
McAll cities a case in which there was a failure of response to
treatment.
A boy 'ofsix had such violent attacks that needed three adults tQ
restrain him. However even during these attacks he. was conscious
and able to speak. When the father, who was a priest, renounced his
allegiance to a spiritualist healer, the child ceased to have any further
attacks . . .us '..
The attempt to explain phenomena once ascribed to evil spirits
exclusively in medical, psychological and parapsychological
terms seems, at least for some researchers, to have failed. There
remains a residue of states of phenomena that is unexplained; . J
This unexplained residue is also a factor in some research done
by anthropologists.
116
Elmer O'Brien set himself the task of
e'stablishing criteria for testing authentic mystical experience.
That is, 1. the reported experience should be contrary to the
subject's basic philosophicalortheological position; 2: the experi
ence is authentic if it can be shown to be contrary to his own
wishes, riot simply a wish fulfilment; experience is auth
entic if it alone gives meaning and consistency to the mystic's
doctrines, so that the mystical experience can be shown to'be
involuntary and spontaneous.
117
. . .
. In'A 5tudy of Shamanism in the Nuba Mountains' 5. Nadel
l18
was able to document that neither epilepsy nor insanity nor any
other kind of mental illness was thought to be symptomatic of
spirit possession. If a shaman was nemotic or paranoic hevwould
not be respected as a priest but considered a lunatic. He eon-.
eludes 'I recorded no case of a shaman whose professional
hysteria deteriorated into serious mental disorders.'119 After
surveying similar works
12O
Lewis concludes - ..
!."
156
: .. where spirit posSessiOft is a regularexpJanation ofdisease, the fact
that certain forms of insanity and epilepsy JfUIY also be regarded as
. :'...
tnanikstations of possession does not necessarily mean that the
people concerned are unable to differentiate between them and other
forms of possession, The range of conditions which are interpreted in
.terms ofpossessiotl is usually, ... a very .wide one; and within
this insanity (or is usually clearly distinguished from
other possession states. . .
From this we cannot goon to conclude that there are no medical'.
psychological or rational explanations for the anthropOlogists' and.
. SOCiolOgiSts' obsertJations of an unexplained residue but it still does
suggest that the question remains QPt1l. It also means that eoen Where
tJisetlses may be considered to a natural or regular explanation the
demonic need nQt be ruled out. Therefore we ought to devote some
attention to considering the question of the existence of 'evil
or 'demons'. .
So fat I have been trying,to show that statements like - 'the
of ... ha.s been ... banished by the. magic wand of
saence' (Frazer see n. 12p. 208) - may possiblybe mcorrect. What
now need to do is to see if we can go further and make a case
for the existence of demons. It must be said however that we CU'e
not trying to suggest a regression to the demonologyandcosmol
OgY of the Middle or earlier. But we want to see if a case Can
be made for a place in our 'world-picture' for unseenemissaries of
evil.
Apre]iminary point to which we need to divert our attention is
of the nature of evil. That is we need to note what
the 'fundamentally and incoherent nature of the
dMbolic enterpr;.g. 122 This can be illustrated at a number of levels.
With regard to 'natural' evil- that is evil not attributable to
- droughts,famine, disease andstorms have a
chaotic and inconsistent dimension; their. timing, extent and
na,ture often do not cohere to any pattern. While it might be
aJSued.that these manifestations of evil are 'demonic' I am not in
any sense suggesting that they are caused by 'demons'. Rather I
want to note the suggested inconsistencyand irrationality.of evil.
/t.t the level of a discussion of the existence of evil spirits
. Ma$call highlights their supposed inconsistency in relation to
good. spirits. .'
Itis that:. just because it is the sole purpose and aim of the gO()d spirits.
to carry out the will of God, their adivity cannot normallY be CUstin
~ .....
TWENTIB11I.:cENTURY MAN 157
guished tram his; nor do they wish that it should ... on the other
hand, the demonic effort is one of sheer self-assertion, and in particu
lar ofself-assertionagainst God. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
poWers' of darkness show themselves as a turbulent multitude of
mutually conflicting egoisms}23 .
A little earlier Mas11 says that
The fundamentally futile and incoherent nature of the diabolic enter
prise has; I think, nowhere been so vividly andstcirtlingly depicted as
, by the late C. S. Lewis in his famous Screwtape Letters; like the damned
inDante's Inferno, theyhave 'lost the goodof the intelleer, theyhave no
more the desire or the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood but
onlyan insatiable cravingtodo as much destructionas possibleandin
particular to absorb other personalities into their own (pp. 111).' .
Not onlyisevil eXperiencedas inconsistent and incoherent, but
it can be difficult to identify. At the level of 'moral' evil it can be
difficult to detect in, for example, the relations between men, and
in what man does to his environment. Or - the same point from.
another perspective - what Christians deem as good 'gifts', for
example, sex, love, intellectual capacity, creativity, and time call
often, with considerable subtlety become, in themselves, or at
least indirectly/ instruments of evil. Then, nearer the level of oUr ~
own enquiry, Heinrich Schlier put it: . . . ..
Frequently there is only a thin dividing line between, good and bad
spirits; andit is onlya clear andsharp insight whichGod grants us that
can teU the difference, and dispel the mist which the evil. spirit
deliberately creates. Where this gift is lacking, there is a danger that
we may suspect the dark influence of the devil to be atw.ork every.,
where, so that we may never recognize him when he is really there; or
we. may minimize his presence and fail to see him even when he is in
our midst. U4 "
The point of this diversion is to note that the task of exploring the
existence of 'evil spirits' or 'demons' as anaspect of evil is fraught
with the difficulties of the chaotic, incoherent and inconsistent
natureof our subject. Our results will always be in the Shadowof
this observation. .
If we are to put forward a reasonable case for the existence of
demons in the light of the present climate of belief about demons
(see, for example, p. 139), then we shaD ~ , broadly, to o two
things. On the one hand we shall have to answer or counter
'" :.t
/'
158
.' ! argwnents that support the present climate of belief, and on the
other handwe shall have to put forward some positive arguments
for the existence of evil To a large we have already
begun, in a general way, to' counter the present almost excIus
ivelyscientific world-view that has noplace for demons. Now we
can enter more specific points.
In the wake of the 'Barnsley Case' (see pp. llf) there was a
considerable amount of correspondence in the religious press.
The Church Times Gune 6th, 1975, p.12) carried a letter from Brian
Hebblethwaite wishing to dispute with E. L. Mascal1 the exist
ence of the devil and demons. The cornerstone of his case was his
-'grave. incoherem:e in the idea that God might be
tilought to be sustaining a creilted universe containing fallen,
irredeemable, non-human spirits and allowing them to interfere
with the human world'. In other words, for Hebblethwaite, to
postulate the existence of a devil anddemons would be to hold an
iRcoherent theodicy; orte would be unable to maintain the C1lrUr
tim view of God as all powerful.
l25
Thus what Hebblethwaite
does instead is
'suggest that there are ways of seeing human evil as' resulting not only
, from men's free will but also from their being rooted in a physical
organic world - that rootedness itself being' the necessary condition
bE their relatively independent personal being over against their
Creator. 126
, Aresponse to Hebblethwaite canbe made fromtwo directions. '
We cim question his assertion that to postulate the existence of
demons would be to hold anincoherent theodicy and we OV' also
question his suggestion that human evil results from man's being
rooted in a.physical organic world. .
Taking the second first, it has been noted
l27
that Mascal1 has
already effectively countered this solution to the problem of evil
in his lectures on The Christian Universe. His reply is clear and
warrants quoting at length.
It is, I think, qUite inadequate to dismiss belief in eVil spirits as
morbid - or even as a helpful - personification of the spirit of unre
deemed collective life, a kind of projection of our own social failures
and frustrations on an imaginary whipping boy. Still less can one be
satisfied t9 substitute for it, as was popular in some circles a decade or
two ago; an impersonal category of 'the demonic', which was sup
tocbaraeterizethe created worlq, a sort of kink or twist
159
which perverted all its functioning. To attribute evil to the s1nful .
decision of beings with free-will no doubt raises many difficult prob- .
. lems, but to invest the created worldas such with a demoniccha:tacter
is to blame this directly upon God the creator. 128 .
If with Hebblethwaite one does invest the created world with a
demonic character, Mascall continues"
It lands us in a form of the Marcionite heresy which troubled the
Church in the second century and which taught that Jesus caine to
rescue us from the situation in which we had been by a poss
ibly well-meaning but certainly incompetent creator. .
So Hebblethwaite's is an unacceptable solution'to"the
problem of some aspects of human evil. Graham Dow is correct
that it is generally. agreed that ultimate responsibility for the
existence ofevil must be piacedwith GOd. 130 The alternative is an
ultimate dualism whichChristianity has rejected. 131 However the
way in which God is held to be responsible is of considerable
importance. To quote Dow 'If man, as created by God, carries
responsibility for evil, then it can be said that God created
responsible menwho might do evil( but not necessarilydo eviI.,132
SiIhilarly we C()uld argue that in creating a realm of higher
s:r.iritual beings (see pp. 161) with moral freedom and responsi
bility their 'fall' to take up the role of evil beings - as God's
antagonists rather than protagonists - makes God indirectly re
sponsible for demons. Importantly, their origin is then seentobe,
not in God's incompetence but, in God's love in creating free
beings. To conclude this point-
H. . only God and man have responsibility for evil in the world, then .
the existence of that horrific evil for which demonic language is Ulled
(at least symbolically), must be laid solely at the feet either of God or
man. With neither option does there lie much basisfOl' hope. But if
there exists a demonic realm over which Satan yet under (;od's
SCIvereignty, .there is scope for a more positive affirmation both of the
goodness of the Creator God and of the continuing dignity of 11\aI!...133
We can return to the other aspect of Hebblethwaite's objection
to the existence of demons - that it would give rise to an inco
herent theodicy. It mustbe admitted that this is a difficult and
perennial probJem
1M
in that one seems to be arguing that.an
all-powerfal God is allowing rebellious aeatures to exist.. Over
160
.g8inst Hebblethwaite we can assert that to argtle for the
existenCe of demons is not necessarily, as we see later, to
argue that God is (actively) sustaining irredeemable spiritual
beings. We shall be suggesting (pp. 161) that these evil Spiritual
beings canbe seen as rebellious beings.
We canalsosuggest here that fadrom positingdemons with an
irredeemable character we could take up the very old notion
adumbrated by Paul and his follOwers that God's intention is to
'rtcondle to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven'
(Col. i: 19; d. Erh. 1: 22).
In these brie comments it is not to be supposed that the
problem of theodicy has been solved! What I hope to have shown
is that to argue for the existence of 4,emons does not necessarily
lead to an incoherent theodicy. Rather it may in fact contribute
tOwCJl'dsa more coherent one. .. . .
. The place. to begin a more positive discussion on the existence
Qf evil spirits is perhaps with John Macquarrie's approach
. through.the notion of 'bein.g'. We can take up MacqU4U'rie's
discuSsion at the point where he begins to consider the character
. . of .aeation or 'nature'.l35 Reflecting on.the meaning of the word
'nature' (Phusis) he says it has to do with being 'born' or 'arising',
SO that nature is the emergem:e of beings 'in terms of primordial
, lJeihg'8 going out through expressive Being into the risk of
creation' (p. 223). And,. still following Macquarrie, it becomes
apparept that the being:; that occur innature forma kind of series,
SOll\e standing closer than to. man -: the paradigm of
being (po 223). Thus there is a heirarchy of.beings. In
support of this suggestion Macquarrie says that thiS has been
recognised by man from the time he from an animistic
conception of the world. The first creation story in Genesis right
through to modem philosophers (c. Uoyd Morgan, samuel
Alexander and Pierre Teilhardde Chardin) support this view of a
, heirardly of beings. In observing creation Macquarrie believes
that it is possible to speak of 'higher' and 10wer' levels of being.
tJe Iinb this With St Thomas' teaching that all things tend to be _
likeCod(p. 225). That is, in dtherwords, says Thomas, '1tis out of
gO,Odness that God bestows being on
.. From one perspective man is the head of the series, certainly of
that canbe observed. But to quote Macquarrie:
. is, however, no reason why we should suppose that the series
lllUsttenninateWith man, and this is recognized both bycontempor.:
.:, --;
.... ..
.
.
--'j{
161
-'
ary philosophies which Visualize levels of beingbeyond man's being
and by ancient mythologies whictt introduced the idea of .
intennedia:tebetween man and God. More than as we
learn more and more of the inconceivable vastness of space and
and of the infinite proliferation of worldli, it becomes a probability .of
the highest order that there are or have been or will be beings that
. man in the heirarchy of beings (pp. 233i).
Macquarrie is well aware of how idle it would be to speculateon
tne constitution and experience of such beings. Even when
turning to the biblical material (e.g. Exad. 3: 2, 4; Matt. 1: 20; 2: 13, .
19, 22; Luke 1: 11,26; 2: 9), in som.e cases it is not clear whether
. some higher order of being or God himself is being represented.
But, Macquarrie is nodoubt that the biblical writels
did believe in a higher order of beings whom they called "angels"
. . .' (p. 235). As to what angels might be Macquarrie is careful in
the choice of his words.. . .
Again, taking a cue from Aquirias (Summa Theologilze la, 53, 3),
he says that angels might be considered purely spiJitual
creatures. Also .
we can form an idea of [them] by eliminating from the concept of
human existence much of what is symbolized. by the 'dust of the
ground,' such' as sensuous desires and whatever else ties us to an.
earthly existence; and correspondingly we might imagine a vast
increase in spiritual and intellectual capacity (po 235).
Macquarrie points to the great advantage of positingtheexistence
of angels in that they direct our minds, to the vastness an<l
richness of creation and concludes his discussion of angels. by
.
The panorama of creation must be far more breathtaking than we can
guess in our comer of the cosmos, for there must be many higher
orders ofbeings whose service is joined withours under God(p. 237).
However, wpen Macquarrie turns to the discussion of'Demons
or Evil Spirits' (pp. 237ft), he says that they 'have been elimin
" .
ated through the secularization of our understanding of natule
.,and the consequent decline of animism. The evils once attributed
to demons - sickness of body ormind, failure of crops, infertility
Of herds, and so on- are now in (p.
238 alsO noted above p. 148). There 18 then some.inconsistencyin
.. _. __ L ,
" .
162
" . Macquarrie's argument and he does admit, reluctantly, it seems,'
that if his speculation on angels - higher beings was reason- ,
able then it would be reasonable to suppose that there were such
things' as 'fallen angels' (p. 238). And he goes on to recall his
repeated that creation involved risk 'and the more
powerful the creatures forth, the greater is the risk and
the greater the vulnerability of God's enterprise in creation' (p.
238). But, as just noted, because of 'the secularization of our
understanding of nature' Macquarrie does not wish to
this line. ' .;
. While we may not be able to pursue thisJine very far there are
.one or two points tobe made fat sOme progress. OnMacquarrie's
. own argument there has opened up the possibility of lower, evil
beirtgs in the heirarchy of beings. H irithe created order we can
that there are beings that participate more fully in God
than does man; if are beings that have a greater sense of the
freedom involved in their creation; if there are beings with a
higher intelligence, aware of their potential, then it is more than a
mere possibilitythat one or even some of themhave -' justas man
has 'fal1en,137 - exercised that freedom to their own ends, there
by, to a large degree no participating in the divine.
. ThUs, if God created higher beings or angels they would be
capable of, and more fully aware of the capability 'of rejecting,
invitation to interior dialogue with him in unveiled
intimacy'. 138 This idea of some kind of supernatural rebellion or
, 'fall' is, as Mascall points out, compelling in that it was not
Originally postulated to ilccount for the existence of evil before
. man. Instead it was believed that evil was to be accounted for as
the consequence of human sin. 139 Thisnotion of evil, and indeed
the origin of Satan or the Devil, as a fallen angel is also attractive
in that it, does not compromise the omnipotence- of God. Ito
Despite C. A. Campbell's protestl
41
we have made some progress.
in the problem of suffering, we have, as we saw when we briefly
discussed theodicy, moved away from making God directly
responsible for evil and the devil. Swinburne supports our case
when he entertains the idea that 'if there is reason . . . for
allowing humanly, free agents to hurt other agents, there then
'. is reason for allowing free agents' other than men to infJid
burt .. :142 . .
. The arguments of provided one fruitful way
oiexplOring the possibility ofthe existem:e of some-form of super, _
or perhaps, better, subnatural evil spiritual beings. There' is
$2. .
.. (
another avenue in the argument from religious 1ft
various ways a nwnber of phQosophers and tbeolofPa:tlsl43 haye
used. the. reported experi_ence ofman as part of the argument
the existence of God. The work of. the philOSDpher
Swinburne is particularly relevant in the present discussion. Ina
paper 'The Evidential Value of Religious Experience' he
experience very broadly as 'one which seems. to the
to be an awareness or perception of God or some other .
supernatural reality' .144 . .
145
to Here he is using the word 'seem' in an epistemic sense
. describe what people are to believe on the basis of their
sensory perception. That is, inthe sense of'a penny seemsrouild'
not 'the penny seems eliptical'. 146 Swinburne begins his argu
ment by saying that when discussing religious experience phil:
osophers have sometimes claimed that it points to nothing
beyond itself, yet when discussing experiences of other. kinds
they would not adopt this attitude. For example, haying the
experience of (apparently) seeing a table is good ev;idencethaf a
table is there (p. 186). He concludes
So generally, contrary to the original philosophical claim, I suggeat
that it is a principle of rationality that (in the absence of special
considerations),ifltseems(epistetnically)toasubjectthatanobjectxis
present, then probably x is present. What one seeins to perceive is
probably there (p. 186). . .
Swinburne calis this. assumption, that things are (probably) as
others claim to have perceived them! the Principle of
which carries with it the Princi&le of Testimony - that experi
ences are as others report them. 7 . .
However, there are several arguments that stand in the way
of applying these principles to religious experience which
Swinburne discusses, and to. which we can contribute in the
light of oUr disCussion of evil spirits. The-first argument is that to
use the Principle of Credulity in relation to religious experience
it would require inductive justification - that is justificatiQn in
terms of past experience. 148 To counter this argument Swinburne
says that the Principle can be modified to deal with cases where,
although a person may not have had past experience of God, he
may have had experiences of properties that can be associated
w;ith God. That is 'God' is defined in terms of properties, like
fatherhOod and goodness, of which we have more everydaY
, ._ I
/
,.i{.
.. CHRiS., 'J'lUUMPHANT
, (p. :187). In terlnS of support for a case for the exist
ence cif evil spirits we can add that although ,a person may not
, have had experience ofa demon, the experience of 'the depth and
mystery of evil; the superhuman dimensions of evil; its
times apparently systematic charCJcter; and the. . . [exferience]
that a spiritual nature is no safeguard against evil'I4 may be
Understood as properties assotiated with demons. FUrther, while
anyone person may not have had past experience of demons or,
suppose, any of the above-mentioned aspects of evil, he may
still have an experience that may cohere, in description, with
what. others have experienced and so verify the truth of that
experience. . ,
. The second argument against applying the Principle ofCred
uIity to religious experience is that it does not hold in less
usual cases. But this, incorrectly, assumes that there is a line tobe
,drawn between an experience and its interpretation (p. 189).
, Having' countered the arguments against using experience to
. verily religiOUS truth claims, Swinburne is in a position td men
tion four kinds of special consideration (see quote p. 163) which
, defeat perceptual claims but which he does ndtthinkcanbe easily
So, a perceptual claim is defeated if (1) the perception
is made under conditions, or by a person, found in the past to be
unreHable; if (2) it is perceived in circumstances where similar
claims have proved false; if (3) it can be shown that very probably
the object was not there but only perceived to be there; and (4) if,
regardless of the existence of something, it can be shown not to
be the cause of the experience (pp. 190-2). Swinburne then
condudes-
The upshot of all this is, with respect to religiOUS eXperienCes pur
.portedly of God, that unless there is demonstration that very probably
God does not exist, those who have religious experiences purportedly
of God ought to them genuine. For others who do not have the
experiences themselves, the great might of testimony to the occur-:
renee of a large number of eXperiences of God must give
: considerable probability to his existence - again unless on other
grounds it is very improbable that there is a God (pp. 194f).
However, Swinburne does not think that it is possible to use
from experience to support a case.for the existence
of'lesser supernatural beings' as he calls them (p. 195). He sees
tworeasons for this. First, because the four special considerations
just mentioned are 'a little more easily deployed against claims to .
,I
have experienced lesser,Supernatural beings' (p. But we can
counter Swinburne and suggest that the four special consider
ations can be met in relation to experience of demons. We do not,
in ,the present case; need to consider the third for
that is what is at stake. The other considerations must, in many
cases, especi411y in the past, be conceded. I would' suggest,
however, that the material evidence collected by, notably"
Koch,lso Richards,151 and the commission convened by' the
Bishop of Exeter
l52
does constitute, or at least contains, evidence
of perceptions made' by reliable persons _under reliable
- circwristances of experiencea purportedly of demons., '
The second reason why Swinburne does not wish to Use the
argument from experience to support a case for the existence of \
demons is because ' ) "
there is very little in the way of arguments other than arguments of
apparent experiences of them, todemonstrate their existence. There is
no ,cosm()logical argument to prove the existence of ThiS
may us to conclude that it is very improbable a priori that they
exist, SO improbable that the evidence of experience is insufficient to
" overcome the improbability (p. 195 n. 12).
Against this statement we can only direct attention to the ' '
points we have already made for the existence of demons. In so'
far as they are deemed to be convincing then Swinbume'1l state
ment is irrelevant and the argument from experience can be used'
to support the existing, albeit slender, case for the existence of,
le$ser supernatural beings. We conclude this whole point by ,
quotingSwinburne - ' '
Initial scepticism about perceptual claims - regarding them as guilty ,
until proved innocent - will give you no knowledge at all. Initial,
credulity is the only attitude a rational man can take; there is no
baH-way house ... ReligiouS perceptual claims deserve to be taken as
seriously as perceptual claims of any other kind (p. 195).
Finally; as a contribution to the case for the existence, of
demonS, we can pursue the last point on 'experience' a little
farther. It is this, that we need to take account of the very
considerable reports from people in positions' of
pastoral responsibility; reports that'make most 'sense if the
existence of demons is assumed. As has been pointed out by
others "
.CImlSl'lfRlUMPHANT

Qught to be prepared to consider the experiences of contemporary
Christians who are in no way particularly credulous and super
. stitious, .but who have .had experiences of supernatural pheno
mena resembling the cases of. demonological possession
recorded in the 153 . . ,
167
have been convinced. As the prayers ended, an amazing tranBfonn
ation took pJac:e. This wild, violent, little figure suddenly b.eaune
tranquil, serent!, normal. It was as though she had sloughed off an
enormous weight or come out of a deep sleep. She herself acknowl
edged the deplon's control.
'Cor - that was a demon, wasn't it?'
. It was a demon, a devil, a supernatural force - call it what you
will - all right. The fact that it had shown a bizarre sense of fun, that it .
IuJd performed a jape, so to speak, at our expense, did not change the
reality of-the case. Once again, I had been witness to the Church's
power of delivery; had seen the application of our Lord's healing
power in exotl:ism effect a deliverance (pp. 26f). .
The next two cases are cited in John Richard's But Deliver Us
From Evil.
On one occasion he [Mt Neil-Smith] received a 'phonecaUat four inthe
morning ... She saia her husband was going berserk, smashing up ..
the house, and the other occupants were in fear of their lives. Mr_
Neil-Smith arrived to find the scene of absolute chaos. 'The-actorwas a
big fell()w ... and had smashed a great deal of furniture. and Was
shouting and contorting himself hideously. As I entered, a china va.Je
shattered on the wall by my head. I immediately felt the presence of
, - demonic eVil and acted accordingly, making the sign of the cross and .,
Praying rapidly for the demon to depart. The actor's eyesg1azed over
and he fell on the sofa in a dead faint. He was never troubled again'
(p.141).
And the final case
The following took place in a service at which MaXWell Whyte was
speaking ... 'He's lying, I tell you!' I heard him [the demoniac] say.
'Everything he says is a lie!' Suddenly helunged to his feet and gave a
shriek which electrified the audience. 'He's lying ..... !' Maxwell
Whyte pointeda finger at himand said evenly, 'Youngman, ifyou can
control yourself, sitdowJl. . . if you cannotthengo to the prayer l'OOQl. .
.and we'll minister to you later/ I was greatly amazed to see that the
incident had in no way shaken the lecturer's composure, eveh though
- . the audience, including me, 'Yas ina state of near
the youth trembled so much his glasses fell off. Mr Whyte, after seems
to it that the boy was taken to the prayer rooin, said to the audience,
'What you have witnessed is not unusual in a meeting where
the deliverance ministry is being. introduced. The truth of
deliverance often causes -evif spirits to react in some such dramatic _
manner:
l54
.-. - ....
CHJlIST T1UUMPHANT
Graham Dow has, I think correctly, suggested that there is a .
rorrespondence between descriptions of present.-day allegedly
demonic phenolllena and the descriptions in the NewTestament.
I summarise the several points of correspondence that he
adduces. ISS First, that as in the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 8: 16;
Mark 1: 25; 5: 8; 9: 25; Acts 16: 18),there is complete release from
this phenomena, oftencalled 'bondage' bya word of command to
the'demon'. (We do know of just a few ancient exorcists who,
like Jesus, used the simple word of command as a method of
exorcism (see p. 50). Thus Dow is miSleading to draw attention to
this aspect of Jesus' ministry as if it set him apart from his
contemporaries). Second, there is a correspondence between the
-'." present and New Testament accounts.. of demonic .
the reported superhuman abilities displayed by the suff
which completely disappear after the healing (d. Mark 5: 3 )
Ads 19: 13-20; and Acts 16: 16-19of divination). Dow mentions
'in the case of a witch known to [him) there was, before.exordsm
the ability to do very rapid knitting, although she had never
Ieamttoknit:
l56
. .
Third; Dow points t6 the corresponding violence of the depar
. ture of the demons in both New Testament (see .p. 67) and in
COfl:temporllry reports.157 FinJllly, in both New Testalllent and
'. Inbdem reports of possession' the sufferers speak with a voice
is different from their normal/own voice, which when
identifies itself as the voice of a demon (d. Matt.
8: 28-32).1 . . ,...
Dow gives a second level of correspondence in that the New
Testament writers, like our contemporaries, 'show the ability to
ascribe similar disorders on some occasions to demonic realities
.and on other occasions nor (p. 200). Dow mentions Matthew 12:
22, and Matthew 9: 32, which are to be contrasted with Mark 7:
32-7 and Matthew 8:22-5.
159
This need not be seen as incon
siStency for as was suggested earlier (pp. 156f) the demonic can
be'tinderstood as chaotic, inconsistent and disorderly. 160
Then, third, Dow offers another level of correspondence not
between 'then and now' but between the phenomena and the
explanation offered - between the diagnosis and the cure so that
in many instances to suggest the activity of a demon is the most
satisfactory model for understanding the reality present (p. 201).
He gives asexamples, the violent reactionin the presence ofJesus
of exorcists who operate in his name or to the sign,of the cross.
Thus he says 'The success of exoitism where other treatments

." .
169.
have fa,iledwould, in any comparable science be good' grounds
for the provisional validity of the interpretative upon which it is.
based' (p.' 201)..
Conclusions
. .
The purpose of this chapter hasbeen to askif the categories of
first century used in relation to sickness and healing are in any.
way viable for twentieth-eentury man. In other words ,is the.
first-eentury world-view so different from ours, and
century people uncritically believe in demons and exorcism be
cause the notions were part of the mental furniture? We saw that
Josephus and Philo were not uncritical in their acceptance of a
report of a Lucian's discussion of exorcism and demons
shows that there was not a uniformity of belief; not everyone
believed in demons lPld exorcism. Also something in the inter-,
pretation oftheir observations led people in the New Testament
world to discriminate between those sicknesses which were and
which were not thought. to be caused by demons. .
We also asked if twentieth-eentury knowledge and
experience of his world is,adequately described ahd interpreted
by the prevailing contemporary scientific and secular conscious"
ness of our society. To this question we gavea clear 'no' for there
are massive manifestations of what might be called superstition
and there are in. our human situation and experience
transcendence not accounted for by scientific and secular ex
planations of our world.
161
Nevertheless, there is a considerable
cultural distance between the twentieth and first centuries whidt
leaves us with the problem of adequately accounting for certain
expressions of. evil while remaining faithful to our Christian
. traditions. Some have sought to appeal to the Bible, but this i$ .
illegitimate for. the Bible was. written by people with a different
and, arguably in many ways, an outmoded and unacceptable
w.,QI'ld-view. Others have. sought to demythologise New Tes
tament categories of evil, sickness and healing but have, for
in the case of Rollo May, not been successful iri
either understanding the demonic in the New Testament or
in demythologising it for the twentieth-century reader. To a large
extent general medicine, psychology and psychiatry have
plained much of what was once called 'demon-possession'.
However.it is generally acknowledged by some quarters of the
--. "- ....
110
medical profession, and by the work of anfhro..
pologists that there is an unexplained residue of human experi
ence so farunaccounted. for sothat the question of the of
:,
evil spirits or demons remains open. '
But even if all sicknesses were to be accounted for "y natural
explanations, the 'demonic' dimension to sicknesses would not
necessarily be elintinated. For example, because a sickness is
labelled, understood and cured in terms of 'epilepsy' it may not
meanthat there is not a demonic aspect to the sickness which also
needs to be discerned. and dealt with. As Cardinal Sumens puts
it - 'The fact that a phenomenon cail. be explained according
to our scientific categories does not allow us to rule out the
possibility of aninterpretationbelonging to another order or level
Ofteality.,l62. ,
Theincopsistent, iftcoherent and chaotic nature of evil besets an
i.nCJUirY intOthe existence of demons with difficu],tieS so that one's
results will have to remain tentative. We_have'tried. to show that
to'pOstuIate the existence of demoris does not necessarily lead
an inCoherent theodity nor that human evil is to be located
.directly in the aeated John Macquarrie'snotion of
proved a fruitful point at which to begin a positive discussion'of
the1!Xistence of demons. To this was added the argument from
Ie.religlous'experience in that, to quote Swinburne (p. 165 above)
'Religious perceptual claims deserve to be taken as seriously as
perceptual-claims of any other kind.' Thus, reports from pastoral
need to be taken seriously as part of the evidence for
the exiStence of demons. The .evidence adduced in this chapter
means, however, that we cannot define 'demon' or"evil spirit'
moreprecisely than to thatitis someformaf evil agency often
manifesting personal characteristics: So, the inability of the pre
vailing contemporary secular world-view to explain adequately
the complex range of man's. experience of evil, sickness and .
.I\e,ling,. along with the positive arguments for the existence of
demons or evil spirits, leads us to conclude that it remains
le&tbnate and meaningful for twentieth-century people to use
sUthcategories as 'demons', 'possession' and 'exorcism' even if
..... :
JeSs frequently and with different content to those who used
them in the first century. .
. .
..
-""'
VI
EXORCISM NOW?
At the.outset of the first chapter a disclaimer was issued to the
effect that this book would not be a discussion of all that might
involvedin suggesting that exorcism should or should not be part
of the ministry of the twentieth-century Church. Not was.this
study intended to offer a thorough examination and critique ,of
exorcism where it is practised in our contemporary Church. Nor
was it, least of all, to be a resource or handbook for exorcists likea
latter-day PGM IV (see pp. 39, esp. 42). Rather"we nave chosen
the more rutrrow task of addressing the question - In what .
does the New Testament contribute to the contemporary ,OIl
,exorcism? This is a important question, and. we c:hqse
it because the New Testament is used tosupport a of often .
opposite views on the appropriateness and form of exorcism, in
today's Christian ministry. Thus, to clarify the possible contd.
bution Of the New Testament to the contemporary de1;>atemaybe
ofservi(:e in clarifying some of the issues that divide the Church
on this question.
Jesus
In so far as Jesus is used as the paradigm of ChrlStjanministry
theIl it is important to understand the place of, and his perspec
tive on, exorcismin his ministry. We noted that, on the one
Kenneth Grayston said that the problems of d.emon-possessI<min
Galilee were margin@! to the wode of
Christians were not muchinterestedinexorcism.' (see p. 87above).
And on the other hand Albrecht Oepke said that the lninjstrfof.
the early Church was' ... continually confirmed by striking ex
perien<:es, . which' the new religion br()ught freedom to"
. whowere enslavedbydemons. . .' (see p.' 87). Ourresearch
hushown that the expulsion of demons,was an important aspect
of the coming of the Kingdom of God in Jesus - and his
We could well echo the words of Harvey Cox - ,
;'.:
.... I
" ,"'-
CHUSTTlUUMPHANT 172
Though it frequently embarrasses us today, Jesus was viewed by his
own age as a great exorciSt. His;power to cast out demons was central
. tohis ministry. It focused all his various roles. As one who announced
the New Age, he commanded the 'evil spirits' to depart ... As healer
. and reconciler, he exorcised them to. restore people to their places in
. the community ... As the personification of the Kingdom he was
and feared by the demons he cast out ...
All this Sounds extremelypeculiar to modemears. Most of us would
prefer to forget that for many of his contemporaries Jesus' exorcism
was no way peripheral, but stood at the heart of his work.
1
(7 .
We have seen that for Jesus exorcism was the first stage of the
defeat of Satan, expecting the final defeat to be at the eschaton.
,4,"'.
Early Ch.urch
Exorcism has also been seen to be an important part of the
ministry of the earliest ChrisJjans -thoughwe cannot agree with
by implication, puts exorcism at the centre of their
lbiSsion. Nevertheless we can conclude that those in the contem
porary Churchwho wish toemulate the ministry <?f Jesus and the
early Church cannot ignore the possibility of exorcism being part
Of the ministry of the modem Church in its proclaiming of the
Coming of the Kingdom of God. And like the early Church the
. 'contemporary Church awaits Christ's final d.efeat of evil (d. 1
Cor. 15: 24-8 and 2Thess. 2: 8). The Church shares in 'something
which has happened, which is happening ,and which will
happen'.2
Our question about the New Testament's contribution to the
cOntemporary debate on exorcism begs a prior question as to
whether or not the New Testament can ever be called to make a
contribution to our theme: We are, after all, citizenS of an ad
vanced technological society nearly two millennia removed. from
the unsophisticated first-eentury society the NewTesta
ment writers and readers. Therefore in Chapter V we ventured
outside the field of New Testament studies to consider if the
of I demons', 'demon-possession' and 'exorcism' might
. in some way still be neressary and apPropriate in deSCribing
andhealiilg without trying to'five simultaneously in the
,first- artd twentieth-eentury societies. We concluded that these
categories were appropriate. .
But it is not simply that, 'we must do and believe as Jesus did
EXORCISM NOW?
173
and believed'. These categories remain viable for three signifiant
reasons. (a) Despite our 'scientific' knowledge of the world, if we
telke seriously the whole range of man's experiences, there persist
, manifestations of evil in our world and our experiences that have
comprehended by the prevailing secular
world-view nor better understood, and labelled than by using
terms suchas'demons', and 'exorcism'. (b) Phenom
ena, which are very similar to the cases of possession treated
by Jesus, respond to treatment in a similar way. (c) Also - noting
-some New Testament writers' understanding and perspective
which broadened the scope of the demonic beyond sickness ,
,individual humart suffering - to maintain these categories and
understanding is to affmn the Christian conviction that sickriess
and suffering has a, dimension beyond sometimes seem
ingly sufficiently coherent and orchest1:ated that it is still best
described as 'demonic' or caused by some evil 'possessing'entity.
At a theoretical level, we have felt it reasonable to corne to the
same conclusion that many ministers and people in pastoral
settings have felt it necessary to come to from a pastoral-:
need perspective. Francis MacNutt describes his own pastoral
experience:
... in spite of my fear of losing a somewhat respectable image, the
past Uuee years have made me realize that there we,re some people I
simply could not help merely byprayiJ:Ig for inner healing. Prayer fur ,
. deliverance sometimes was called for. Some people who came to me
knew this and were quite calm and rational in describing trUly
extraordinary manifestations of apparently demonic attacks (p. 2(9). '
Then farther on he says:
... my initial avoidance of the deliverance minisby came from a fear
of moving into an area that savors of superstition and primitive
religion. Some of my closest friends find it easy to accept healin.g as a
beautiful minisby of God's love, but to them any emphasis on the
demonic seems like a retreat from reason into the realm of superstition ' '!
(p.211).
Thus from a theoretical perspective, having examined the New
Testament and questioned the adequacy of our secular world"
viewto describe the breadth of man's experience, it has been seen
to be reasonable to include exorcismin the ministry of the modem. " '
Church. From the reports of some people involved in the pastoral '
'114
,- :ministrythis is all but transformed into a l'teeess
lwould go so faras to suggest that if labels such as 'dempns',
and consequently 'exorcism' had for some reason
lost .of notbeert devised before our time many, including ,
enlightened in pastoral situations would have found it
necessary and apposite to introduce such' an understanding of
some aspects of sickness and healing. ' '
, How far and with what content it is still appropriate to the
QiJtegories ' of _'demon', 'possession' and 'exoicism' is a more
,difficult' and involved question and one to which we can attempt
to Q18ke some contributions in this final chapter. In this chapter
therefore, lwant, first, to setout brieflythecontributiol\8the New
Testament writers mak,e to a contemporary' discussion on
'demonology'. Then, second, we can set out the New Testament
writel'8' contribution to the contemporary'debate on the under
\ ' - stiinding and form of exordsm.
"
A Towards a ConteDlJ!Orary Demonology
It bears repeating that our task is not to produce a 'twentieth
century demonology' but to note where the New Testament
contri&ut8 to, or intersects with, such a programme. That it is
, 'still propet, indeed'that twentieth-eentuiy man's cosmology still
, needS to cof\tain something like a demonology was one of the
, conclusions of Chapter V. Without a 'demonology' twentieth-:
"-e.imury man is unable to describe adequately his experience of
evil and the subtle facets of human suffering.
1 A most striking point is that in contrast to some of the writers
-in the ancient world the-New Testament writers are remarkably
J:e&trainedin both their interest, and the imagery they use, in
,tReir demonology (see Cl\4p. 11),3 For gIllphic '
cM8criptionof a demon 31, quoted p.) alsoPhilops.
16) and the whole of theTestament of Solomo ote paras 7, 10, ,
13,47,51, 54, 59ft) stand in stark contrast to the New Testament
where little interest is shown in demons and demonology except
where it relates to soteriology.4 Instead the focus of attention on
God'B,'salvation in Jesus attention away-from demol\S
, and speculation on the causesafY'arious illnesses. This is particu
. 'lady evident in the Fourth Gospel where the focus of attentionis
"."the healer not the disease. The idea is spelt out at the
beginning of the story of the man born blind.
,
nORCISM NOW? 175
As he paSsed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his di$:iples
asked him, 'Rabbi; who sinned, this manor his parents, thathe was
born blind?' Jesus answered. 1t was not that this man sinned, or his
_parents, but that the wO!ks of God might be IDade manifest in hiQl'
Gohn 9: 1-3; ct. Luke 13: 1-5).
1hecontemporary Churchwould dowell to follow the example
of the eatlyChurch - not to ignore the demonic, but to focus
attention on Jesus the healer who defeats the demonic. Undue
concern and involvement with the demonic has often beeIi
. as opening oneself up to a potentially dangerous situation. The __
well-known passage of Co S. Lewis from his preface. to The
5crewtape Letters bears repeating here
- There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race canfaU
about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other istp
believe, and to feel an eXcessive and unhealthy interest in them. TheY,
themselves are equally pleased byboth errors and hail a materialist or
a magician with the same delight.
Karl Barth issued a similar warning ..;..

. .. the theologian .. . must not linger or become too deeply en
grossed [in the demonic, as] ... there is the imminent danger thafin
so doing we ourselves might become just a little or more than a Uttle
demoniC (CD III13. 519).
5
.
In other words we should pay as little attention to the demonic as
is pastorally possible. From a pastoral perspective the Bamsley .
Case (see pp. 11) and other similar unfortunate cases show
the potential dangers associated with involvement with: the
_ _
2 This restraint or lack of interest in the details of demonology
much beyond its soteriological connectiohshas probablYQlused
the New Testament writers -to tell us little about hauntings and
possession of places. The parable of the Strong Man's House
(Matt. 12: 29ILuke 11: 21f) and the story of the return of the seven
other spirits to a clean-swept house (Luke 11: are probably
re8ections in the New Testament of ancient views in whk;h
demons were thought to inhabit buildings (see Chap. m. Wifl\
Testament writers showing little interest in possession
-and_exorcism of places and buildings, to the point of not even
indii'ect1yaddressing the question, we may do well to follow their
(
- -- .. - ..... -,...---- .
,"-.
.,
.-..
176
example; ,Some contemporary writers and reports promote the
Otu:rch's involvement in the exorcism of buildings.
6
No doubt
thisariseSout of pastoral experience andconcern; people seeking
.out the minister because they consider their house is haunted or
by poltergeists. While, in taking into account reports
&om pastoral situations, the two passages from the New Testa
ment and the possibility that the demonic strategy might change
emphasis in different periods of history, one may not wish to rule
out the exorcismotplaces, the NewTestament's strong emphasis
.;. on,people and salvation, to the virtual exclusion of this subject,
strongly suggests that the contemporary Church would be wise
todo the same.
3 In thinking towards a contemporary demonology the New,
.Testament has two things to sayabout the 'scope' of oUr thinking:
On the one hand New Testament writers - particularly Paul in
ambiguity of his notion of principalities and powers - have
broadened the identity of the demonic in the world. They have,
widened the scope ofdemonology inrelation to man's experience
of his environment to include an account of a wider range of evil
than the particularly grotesque disorders of personal health.
Thus in Paul's 'principalities and powers' the pagan world order
isincludedintbe,arenainwhich manconfronts the demonic. Yet,
in reflecting on their experience of evil, people in the ancient
world, including the early Christians, discerned that the more
'specific term 'demonic-possession' was sometimes an appropri
ate. way oftalldng about sickness that seemed to have a dimen
sionbeyond'the particular manifestations in the individual. In
other words, the broadening of the range of the demonic which
1lIIic:h and May, for example, undertake does not take into
, acxount and need not exclude, the narrower, more traditional
, categories of sufferingassociated withdemonic activity. InChap
ter Vit was argued that we still need-tobe open and listen to those
intelligent and balanced people who claim that in the contem
porary pastoral setting demon-possession and exorcism remain
the most appropriate description of some forms of illness and
heating.
-4 ' . On the other hand New Testament writers (along with their
'tantemporaries) did not see evil spiritual beings as thecause of all
, sidcness. In the-context of the Jesus storyaUsickness wal!>
, ,CXlIRIIidered evil and over against God and the object of his saving
.\ aetioI\, butit was not necessarily attributed to demons? '
In short, from,what we have seen in this study, it is reasonable
'...
" ..:
.
117
to conclude that all sickness is evil and part of our experience of
living in a 'fallen world' - perhaps one could say even
origin. That is siclcness is part of an evil orchestrated oppo$ition
to God's love and salvation. '
But this does not mean that sickness is necessarily caused by
sin (d. John 9: 3). Also the New Testament does not give the
Christian a warrant to attribute all sickness to demons. Fran<:ia
MacNutt's observations are apposite.
My own impression is that -priests and ministers who have an' a4- .
equateinteJlectual background tend to disbelieve any story of diabolic
activity, while unofficial exorcists with little or no training tend to
believe everything is exactly as told and create all kinds of havoc by
seeing demons when there are none.
8
,. .
Inthenext sectionwe shall returntowhat the NewTestament has
to say on the question of diagnosing the need for the ministry of .

, 5 . Possession and Oppression Today much is made'of a distinc
tiOn between demonic 'possession' and demonic oppression'.
9
the difference being, to follow one writer, that the 'possessed' are
controlled by a demon, while the 'oppressed' are merely distorted
by the demon.
10
In tum this gi rise to two different farms of
healing. On the one hand those w 0 are 'oppressed' by a demon
are prayed for So that they maybe delivered'. On the other hand,
the 'possessed' person needs the .. try of exorcism. 11 So far
as I can see the New Testamen:='ters do not make t:heSe
. distinctions. While, as' we -have. n in the New Testament, ,
all Sidmessis evil and, further, seen to be the din!ct
result of the activity of Satan (note Luke 13: 16), the ,issue in ,
relation to exorcism (the removal of an evi1 spiritual being) is not
whether it person is possessed or oppressed but whether or not a
demon is 'involved in the cause of the illness. If a demon is
involved then exorcism is the appropriate form of healing. In
other words it seems unnecessary to make distinctiOns between
forms of healing other than in the name of Jesus, to
address a demonanddirectit to1eave or toaskGod tobringabout
only di8tinction. that might be made would be
between..the more and the difficultor severe cases as Mark
doe. in 9: 29. But there is no good reason to go on,as for example
Richards does, and augge.st that some (minor) exorcisms are very
.muchpart of ordinatypastoral carewhile other;(major) exorcis1ns
178 CHJUST TRWMPHANT
need episcopal permission (d. pp. 188f). (2 ThUS,. wh8teVer
might be the pastoral advantages of such subtleties, with an
emphasis in the New Testament on salvation-healing(sOzo) there
is little reason to enhance our demonology with such trimmings.
B Exorcism Now?
We have at last reached the point where we can ask the question
. In what way(s) does the New Testament contribute to a contemporary
understanding of exorcism, and the form such a ministry ought to
.
.Already we have discussed the issue and concluded that
although the New Testament can contribute to our thinking
about exorcism it is not poSSible for us to take up the demonology
all the views on healing that we find in the New
In some cases, for e-mple, with various fQllIls of epilepsy labels
susnas'demon.;possession' with the corollary 'exorcism'ois now
known to be inappropriate. In'fact in view of the advances in our
; ,-'
understandingof the world, particularly through medical re
search,many, if not most, of the phenomena and sickness
'1lUly have been attribu.ted to 'demons' by early Christians
'despite their critical attitude to disease - can no longer be so
understOod. .'
At first sight the great anomaly in the New Testament in
ldation to its contribution to our question is John's Gospel,
whose writer has deliberately chosen to exclude from his work
any reference to Jesus' being an exorcist. The perspective of
John's Gospel was one way early Christians chose to interpret the
\, Jesus event. Thus we can at least say that a legitimate Christian
interpretation of Jesus and his ministry is able to leave aside
. reference to this part of Jesus' ministry. But what of the Fourth
Gospel'Scol1tribution to a discussion of exorcism in the present
Church? .
. Johrts Gospel has very few healing stories. In fact, in contrast
to Mark's Gospel, which has about sixteen stories or brief reports,
John's has only four (4: 46-54; 5:1-16; 9: 1-41; 11: 1-44).13In all of
these storiEis the attention is not on the cause of illness - but, in
part oil its spectacul.3r aspects; hence, in part, no mention is made
of the more common-place demon-possession arid exorcism (see
p. 89). And in particular, attention is focused on the healer. Thus
the purpose of the healing stories in the context of the 'signs'is
. .
"
JIXOIlCISM NOW? 1'19
that the reader 'may believe' that Jesus is the Christ; the Son-of
God .. .' (20: 31). This is in contrast to some of the Synoptic
, stories which wereintended to help teach the first readers in their '
healing mission (see Chap. IV). So we should not either-rely on
the Fourth Gospel to help us understand the nature of sickness
nor the appropriate ways of seeking healing (they were not
questions addressed by the Fourth Gospel) - save to note, and
we should not ignore the point, that healing takes place in
bringingChrist into the situation.
1 Exorcism?
An'important question that was raised in the last sectionis that of
diagnosing the need for the ministry of exorcism. It is to that
questiQn that we now tum - When is an exorcism necessary?
Before attending to more specific points two com
ments can be made. (i) If 1he 'FoUrth GQspel
anything tooUl question it is perhaps thatwhateyer the sickness
attention ought to be focused on Jesus the Quist; 'the healer
wh9se ..rove presence brings (ii) Then"if all
is e'1l and of Satanic origin, every act of ministry of healing is a
confrontation with the demonic and therefore some form of a
defeat of evil or 'exorcism'. As J. D. G. Dunn and I have said
elsewhere - -'
... the continuing significance of exorcism should not be bound
'part:icuJar conceptuality of demon-possession. Exorcism can be
tmderstood in a naITOW sense'as the treatment for spiritual bondage
when conceptualized demon-possession, orin a broader sense as
tleatn\ent of disordered humanity on the spiritual' dimen&ion
appropriate to the disorder.14 ,
.Nevertheless, there doremain instances of illness where some
one - the 'healer' or perhaps the person asking for help - thinks
that an evil spiritual being is the cause of the trouble and needs to
be removed. ,
Several, writers have produced helpful comments,and,guide
lines on diagnosing the need for exorcism.
15
All of the ba1aIK:ed
, approaches of which I know strongly and rightly advise the
closest co-operationwith the various branches of the medical
professipn. However it is not our purpose to examine thoroughly
or torepeat they have said.
CHJUSTTRlUMPHANT
We need to note what the New Testament has to contribute to
the discussion: there are four points.
(a)' We saw (p. 71) that physical symptoms - preternatural
strerigthand indifference to pain - were mentioned inMark 5: 3ff
(d. 9: 22). Reports of present-day exorcisms also include mention
of these factors
16
so that their presence probably contributes to
determining the need for the ministry of exorcism. .
(b) In the exorcism stories in the Gospels one of the distinctive
features is the disturbance causedin the patient when confronted
by Jesus. In Mark 1: 24 the demoniac in the Synagogue tries to
drive offJesus with a spell; in 5: 7the Gadarene demoniac tries the
same defence and in 9: 20 Mark says 'when.the spirit saw him,
immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on.the ground and .
rolled about, foaming at the mouth.' Though not Jesus nor even
Christian exorcists, the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19: 11-20 (see
p. 115) are said to find this same disturbarice in the demoniac.
There are parallels in contemporary literature to this disturbance
and consternationwhen a 'demoniac' is confronted byJesus. In a
slaty reported by Michael Harper, which has already been cited
(p. 11) there are the lir\es '. . . the mOment the name ofJesus was
mentioned', he went into another coma, his legs shot from under
him, and he lay spread-eagled and inert 01\ the floor.,17 From a
NewTestament perspective, then, one of the important diagnos
tic signs of the need for exorcism is the disturbance caused in the
sufferer at the name of or confrontation with Jesus. . '
(e) In- many of the stories of possession, both in the New
Testament and outside it (see chaps. mand IV) the sufferer's
voice is reported to be affected so that it is said that the demon is
speaking and not the person. From contemporary reports the
same phenomenon is reported. 18 Thus !:he New Testament sug
gests and contemporary experience confinns that one possible
\ way of diagnosing a person's suffering being caused by an evil .
spirit is a strange or 'second' voice said to be produced by the evil
entity., .
(d) The fourth point from the NewTestament is less obvious. In
1 Corinthians 12: 1-3(d. 12: 10)Paul'is concerned about discern
ing what charismatic phenomena are incited by the Holy Spirit
and those which are not. 19 The writer of 1 John exhorts his
readers to test or discern (dokimazo) what spirit(s) are motivating
the Christian prophets (1 John 4: 1). The, subtle incoherence'and
devious nature of evil 'and the demonic, about Which we have
~ a d y spoken (p. 156f), affirms just how important it is for the
\
EXt)'ilCISM NOW?', 181
. Ghristiai'l-involved in exorcism to be able to discern the particular
spiritual dimension of' an illness; to discover whether or not
,exorcism is the appropriate response to the sickness. Another
.factor reveals the importance of discernment. It is that if
exorcism is performed for a person and their condition is not
improved then, as MacNutt wains 'the persOn may fall under a
pall of condemnation believing that you [the exorcist] haveseen
.demonic in him which has not been driven out and whicll
still remains.'. So not only is discernment important but so also
is an atmosphere of loving care for the person concerned..21
MacNutt sensitively concludes - 'Deliverance should be minilr.
terecl, then, with great caution, and only if in prayer you judge .
that demonic actiVity really is present, and that the Lord wants
you to pray for this person at this time.'22 .
Thus, we come again to the issue of the credentials of the
exorcist - here, the ability to discern if there is or is not an evil
spiritaal entityinvolved inthe cause of the sickness. For Luke this
would come from the Holy Spirit, as the prime credential of a
Christian worker for him is that he is a person of the Spirit; filled
with the Spirit. Paul writes of discernment (dokimRZO) in Romans .
12: 1':"2,23 though of the will of God, not of evil. But his suggested
means of attaining discernment or perceptiveness is worth not
ing.'Do not be conformed to this worldbut be transfotmedby the
renewal of yout mind, that you may prove (or 'discern',
what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable'and perfect"
(Rom. 12: 2). That is, for Paul, spiritUal discernment comes from
being transformed (mdamorphousthe). This passive imperative
means that Paul does not consider it the task of the Christian
to transform himself. It is the work of the Holy Spirit - though
the Christian has the responsibility of permitting this trans
formation.' .
The present imperative may be to indicate that an action already
happening is to continue indefinitely . . . The transfonnation is not
something which is brought about in an instant; it has to be continu
ally repeated, or, rather, it is a process which has to go on all the tiuie
theChriatianis in this life.
24
The transformation takes place through the renewal of the mind, .
wb:kh again, noting Romans 7and 8, is also the-work of the Holy .-:
Spirit with the Christian needingto give himself to the renewing
work of the Spirit.
25
The result or end (tis) of this transformation
182 CHRIST nroYPHANT
by rellewal is spiritual discernment - though, again, we to
mention, not in relation to the demonic but in relation to discern
ing the will of God. Nevertheless the principle of spiritual dis
.cernment being given through the Christian's allowing the Holy
Spirit to transform him by the renewal of his mind can most
probably be transferred to the area of our presel1t concern. is
discernment of the of the demonic and the need for exorcism is a
frlcilitygiven by the Holy Spirit through the renewal of the Christian
mind. .
Tltese results are confinned when we turn to 1 Corinthians 12:
1-:3 and 10 where spiritual discernment ('discernings of spirits',
diRkriseis pneumaton, v. 10) is a gift of the Spirit. In the context of
verses 1-.3 the gift,}>lUred with that of prophecy, is necessary to
distinguish between ecstatic utterances that are induced by the
Holy Spirit those which are, presumably, of demonic origin
(v. 2; d . .lO: 19).26 . .
In ehort, the contribution of the NewTestament to the problem
of. knowing whether or not in a case of sickness exorcism is
. required is that
(a) a sufferer mayexhibit phYSical symptoms like preternatural
strength and indifference to pain; .
(b) .initially the sufferer will probably respond adversely to a
confrontation withJesus;
(c) a change in the sufferer's voice may be involved and
(d) (given 'the essential involvement of the medical pro
fession) spiritual discernment, given by the Holy Spirit, is
to discover the demonic dimension to illness.
2 Confrontation
It was by no means a new idea, but the Testament writers
into sharp focus and developed the conviction that is
- . fundamental to the notiori of exorcism in the New Testament.
That is, exorcism was a confrontation between the divine and the
demonic in which the demonic was defeated.
27
We have seen that
the Synoptic Evangelists believed that it was in Jesus that the
demonic was confronted and defeated by the divine, For them
. this idea had its roots in ]esus'seU-eonsciousness that, in. his
ministry of exorcism, God was especially and uniquely at workso
that in him the demons were being defeated by God (e.g. Matt.
12: 281Luke 11: 20). Perhaps before (d. Matk 9: 38/Luke 9: 49)" but
i
- .' ...,
.. . .
". J
.-.
183
}
certainly after EaSter the. early Church resorted to the pagan
method of exorcising by a. power-authority.. That J'9wer
authority was Jestis whom God had anointed 'with the Holy
Spirit and with power' (Acts 10: 38). But in this way the early
Church was able to maintain the notion that in their exorcisms
Jesus and the demons were being brought into conflict. It bears
repeating that they found this approach a successful method of
combating the unseen spititual enemies. .
'The method the early Church adopted involved the use. of
well-known incantations; e.g. 'I .order you in the name of Jesus
Christ to come. out of her' (Ads 16: 18). Although the words
themselves were not, as we shall see, without their significanceAt
is important to make clear that the early Church did not reSort to
these pagan methods, in which the success of the eviction was
thought to lie entirely in the correct use of a collection of o ~ ;
The early Church rejected the incantational form of exoDm
where the power was u n d ~ t o o d to reside predominantly
orentfrely in the correct wording of the incantation. At the
end of the story of the Sons of Sceva (Acts 19: 11-20) Luke
shows that he saw a significant difference between Christian
.methods of healing and the incantational practices of 1he
pagans in that he represents converts burning their collections
of incantations. .
The difference between pagan and Christian incantational
healing was that for the pagans, either the entiie.power for the
healirtg was located irt the words or it called upOn the aid of a
pagan power--authority, Whereas the incantations used by Chris-.
tians were to call upon Jesus to confront and defeat the demon.
Although the exorcist is important, in that, at least for Luke, he
must be authorised. by the Holy Spirit, a Christian exorcism
is a confrontatiOn between Jesus and the demonic. Thus in
Acts 16i 18 although Paul, the exorcist, issues: the command
he is acting not on his own behalf, but that of Jesus Christ (see
'p.112). . . .
From what we see in the New Testament, if the conternJ'9rary
Church is to carry out exorcisms successfully, in each act of
mini$try, there ought to be no doubt that a confrontation is being
brought about between the divine and the demonic; between
Jesus and the offending spiritual entity. Out of this a nUmber of
important points emerge.. '
(a) Some criticism needs to be offered of the fonn of exorcism'
suggested in the Bishop of Exeter's report. It suggests that
, i
lIN
.cill in ordinary use contain, in the context of
either pr..yer or command, an order to the demon (i) to depart, (ii) to
hann no one and, most importantly, (ill) to depart to its own place,
there to remain for eyer. 28 .
.'
. .We shall comment on some of these suggestions in a moment,
but the crucial factor that is missing hom this suggested form is
the need for the exorcist either to call on Jesus to come into the
situation or to issuethe commandto the demon using the nameof
Jesus, thus acting on his behalf, The Church is not authorised to
act fur itself, in its own name or on its own behalf but only on
behalf of Jesus. It is misleading to think that an exorcism is.better
to be conducted in a Church. It is Jesus not the Church who
heals.
(b):Thus the most important factor is to assure that the demonis
by Jesus, not by words, the exorcist, or even the
Cl\urch. Thus, trom a New Testament perspective, MacNutt,has
,nowarrant for suggesting that a priest's form of exorcism should
, begin - 'ht'the name of Jesus Christ and his Church . , :29 The.
incantation, words or prayer of the exorcist are important, not
because of any 'power' in themselves to evict the demon but .
because they bring about a confrontation between Jesus and.the
" demon.
;. 1'heuse of theJ..ord's Pray.er as a prayer ofexorcismis not onlya
misuse of the prayer"30 but it fails. to bring about a confrontation
between Jesus and the demons. The same'criticism could also be
made of those wbo suggest that the sacraments shouldbe usedin
thedefeat of evil.31 For example Cardinal Suenens says - '. . . the
Eucharist - the centre of convergence of all the Sacraments - is
for us Ouistians the supreme source of healing and liberation',32
This is to misunderstand the locus of authority arid power in the
. defeat ofSatan and his minions. Itis Jesus who, through his Spirit,
c-onfronts the demonic and defeats it, not the sacraments.
33
.
The First Prayer Book of Edward VI has a form of exorcism which
is an address to the demon or Satan. It -contains the words
'Therefore, thou. cursed spirit, remember your sentence and
. your judgement, remember the day to be at hand wherein you
. shaH buminfIre everlasting prepared for you and your
This is reminiscent of the exorcism prayer oiPseudo-Philo's LAB
(quoted p, 38) and involves more of a confrontation between the
demon and. the exorcist rather than between Jesus and the
demon. It also lacks the sense of authority that a Christian
EXORCISM NOW? 185
exordstneeds to have in order to help defeat the devious evil
spirits.. , .
(c) This leads to the. next important point that, in view of the
illusive and evasive character of Satan's angels, the contemporary
Churchneeds to follow the example ofJesus and the early Church
in.two particular aspects.
First, a view that was not unique to early Christianity is that the
demon needs to be confronted .directly and specifically. For thiS .
reason the Gospel stories tell of Jesus' asking aboutthe nature ot
the illness (Mark 9: 21) and for a demon's name (Mark 5:. 9). Th\UI
if a contemporaryexorcist that the offendingevil spirit(s)
hasparticular characteristics then it ought to be addressed specifi
cally in order to ensure the inescapable confrontation with
Jesus.. The all-encompassing Roman Ritual performs the same
. function by addressing 'every evil spirit' - . '
I command you, every unclean spirit, in the Name of God the
Almighty, inthe Name ofJesus Christ his Sonour Lordand ourJudge,
and by the of the Holy Spirit, that you go from this o(
God, N,whom our Lord ofhis goodness has called to become
of the living God, that the Holy Spirit may dwell in him. Through the
same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Second, because of the illusive character of the demonic and the '
need for a confrontation with Jesus a command is necessary- an
is the Roman ritual just quoted. The East Syriac rite, like'
mostJorms of exorcism, begins with a command:
I command you, 0 evil spirit, through.God the Father Almighty, and
through Jesus Christ his Son, and through the Holy Spirit the PaIe
dete, that you through this power, from this vessel, N, whom
you hold captive. "
(d). Again, because of the deceitful and dangerous character- \
istits of the demonic, exorcists in antiquity (see Chap. IT), includ
ing Jesus, took precautions sO that the demons did no further
harm to the sufferer. In Mark 9: 25Jesus is reported as saying
'. .'. come out of him, and never enterhim again.' Thus the form '
of exorcism suggested by Michael Harper is appropriate. '
I cOmmand you to go where the Lord Jesus Christ sends you, and
never to return to I pJace you under the authority-of Him
whois 'far above all' . . .
Harper also points out that some exorcists tell the evil spiritS'to go
to the lake of fire or hell. He is right to mention that (at least in the .
- . . - - - ..... -v--:;,. ... -: ... ---- ----ro-- -----
-:-: ..-,
'.
tIleologies of Jesus and the New Testament writers) this will JlOt
happen until the day of judgment and so we have no mandate
otherthan,tohand the evil spirits over to thesovereign power imd
authority ofthe Lord. 37 , '
'3 Technique?
" I
, lawhat we have said about the concept of exorcism being a
amfrontation, so that the demonic can be defeated by the divine,
some COiltributions have already been made to the question of '
technique. 1batis, the formof exorcismneeds tobesoformulated "
that Jesus isqdIed upon to enter the situation; a command needs
to be issued to the particular demon(s). Then, because o(the
deceitful and dangerous characteristic of the demonic some
words like'... and never enter him again ...' are needed.
, One of the noticeable" thoud\ not unique, aspects of the
, technique ofJesus and theearly Church was that it was extremely
bDef. The form of an exorcism was brief for Jesus and other
. char:Uimatic eXorcists of the time beCause of their sense-of power
authority over the demons; for the eadyChlH'ch becauseof where
they saw the operative power of the exorcism to lie. The effective
neSs'bf an exOrcism for the early Churehwas not thoughfto
depend entUely or.' the words or incantation, although, as we ,
h'aVe'seen, they m:important. Verbosity, a long was
probably thought to 'be an inadvertent admission of a lack of
ilasightas to the identity. and of the demon (Chap. ,II) or a
-een8e of inadequacy or spiritual powerlessness on the part of the
exonist. ot even his authority to call upon the particular power
.I. authority. ,
, In relation to the contemporary Church we can con
dU&!' that verbosity is an indication of a lack of discernment and
powerlessness. If this is then another criticism of
the use of the Lord's Prayer and even the sacraments'is thant
indicates a lack of discernment and powerlessness on the' part of
the exorcists.
- In. Mark 9: 29 there is the direction 'This kind cannot be driven
out by anYthing but prayer.'38 In the context of the story of the
, 'di8dples' inability to cast out a demonfrom a boy, the kind(genos)
of demon in mind is, probably a particularly difficult one to
exorcise. Markhas Jesus say that prayer is to be used in difficult
cases. Presumably Mark means that the exorcist is to pray that
"'} - ,l
".. ;,
, EXORCISM NOW? It1 '
Jesus(1)'.will evict the offending spiritual entity. If in a
incantation the spiritual credibility of the exorcist is involved, i$
this direction in order that, in difficult cases, the profile of the
exorcist is even less significant and that of the divine power
authority Oesus) is greater?
Not all of the fonns of exorcism Jesus is reported to have used
involve a simple command to the demon. In' Mark 1: 25 ,the
demon is 'muzzled' or 'bound' (phimothitt). This incantation is
probably used in view of the saying that the demoniac
approachedJesus crying out and trying to put a spell.on him.
In the lWlt of the New Testament and what has been said so far
we can suggest a possible form of exorcism. '
By the power and authority of Jesus ChristI bind you, evil spirit, and
command you ,to leave this person without harming himIher or
returning and I hand you over to Jesus c;Iuist.
39
, " '
4 " The Exorcist?
AlthoUgh the success of Christian exorcism depends on Jesus'
coming into the situation - which needs healing, and defeatirlg
, the offending spiritual being, as in the paradigmatic incarnatiQn
the human is involved in-divine salvation.
The form of exorcism adopted by,the wly Church, where the
exorcist performed the healingusing the power-authority ofJesuB,
and where his ability to discern the need for exorcism and th.tna
ture of the demonic presence was important, in some wa.y at least,
theecorcist W8Shimselfinvolvedin
The early Church was well aware of the, dangers for tlw
exorcist, the possible violence that could be involved in this
COflrontation and the risk at .which this placed the exOfci&t. '
Mark's Gospel portrays the Church in its ministry as a boat
demonic - yet under the care of God while Jesus is withit
(Mark 4: 35-41). The ministry of exorcism was a grotesque,
dangerous and sometimes violent quelling of that storm. In Acts
19: 13-17 Luke shows how he thought an,exorcism could get out
of hand and become violent.There the demoniac is said to leapon
the Sons of Sceva when, without authority, they tried to perfonn
a Quistian exorcism.
In,relation to exorcism today this eounsels for extreme caution
on the part of the intending exorcist. Reports from contemPQrary
---- I
,,,,,
p.storal settings confirm t:he New Testament picture of the
danger' and potential violence involved in the ministry of exor
dim(seep. 115). '
Therref0te, as Luke wants to make identity or char
ismatic capability of the exorcist is important. From Luke's per7
spedive this importance is in two directions. In one direction the
'\':
needs to be authorised by the Holy Spirit. In another
diJection the exorcist needs to have been given the gift to discern
tM nature of the spiritual enti.ty to be confronted. Knowing, the
identity and nature of the demons means that they can, in the
, wOrds of the incantation, be directly confronted and commanded
to leave. .' .
But we cannot go on to say that the way to safeguard those
in'VOlved in -the ministry of exorcism is to reserve this type of
ministry fot a select or particular group within the Church.
4O
There is in the New no clear consensus as tawho the
exordst shouldbe in the Christian community. Even with James,
where the Elders are probably the exorcists, we have no evidence
to suggest that exorcism was their only function in the com
munity. In Matthew it was probably the itinerant charismatics
attached to andunder the authority of the Church who included
in their ministry. In Paul's understanding the exorcists
would probably have been"arty memJ:iers of the 'body' who had
been 80 gifted by the Holy Spirit to carry out an exorcism. For
Luke the exorcists were those people whom the Spirit had tiDed
aftd authOrised for a healing ministry.
-- , . - Despite this lack of consensus an iInportant point emerges
here. While these qualifications rule out enthusiastic individuals
mcay thinking they can act independently of the community of
feith, so far as we can tell, New Testament writers knew nothing
-ofaclassof professional Christian exorcistsspecialisingincaSting
-out demons. So far as we can tell exorcism was, for Paul (as Luke
portrays it), part of a wider ministry in which individuals might
tieilwolved. Thoseperformiitgexorcismdonot seemtohavebeen
sin&fed out for that ntinistry. This calls into question a.current
tendency'With some denominations to appoint exorcists, though
the idea of 'consultants' who can teach and is probably a
good one. We also cannot agree with the 'Recommendations' of
the Bishop of Exeter's Report where it says - 'It is much to be
desired that every diocesan bishop should appoint a priest as a
diol!esan exorcist: ..'41 Paul, for example, when discussing gifts
'such -as Healing - which was probably understood to have in
189
- . ---.--:-.._._-, J'
,
cluded exorcism - clearly sees the gift being used at the .local
Christian community level. Even Matthew's, wandering char
ismatics are seen as being attached to the local group of Chris
tians. It is an unwarranted restriction to suggest, as does the
Bishop of Exeter's Report that :
. . since it is always advisable to follow every exorcism with a
blessing, on the principle of not leaving the house iUs best tQ.
have a priest 'present, and therefore it is logical that the priest himself
be the chief exorcist where there is not a bishop so acting:43
Rather, to .conclude this particular point, if what
exorcist is not episcopal appointment but the gifting of the Holy
Spirit (Luke), belonging to the local Church family (Matthew) and
being one of the leaders of Games),'
cism is potentially within the capability of a wider range of
Chrisijans than the minister or priest.
5 . After-Care
matter arises out of this section of the. Bisho}? of
, EXeter's Report is the suggestion that on a priesrs directiontI:te
evil spirit.that has left can be replaced by the Good Holy Spirit.
This notion is quite foreign to any of the New Testament writers..
While an eXOl'Ost may call on Jesus to remove the demoJ;?, the
coming of the Holy Spirit into the life of a person does not take
place on command. It is God who gives his Spirit to those who.

Nevertheless, on the matter of after-care, the parable of the
seven other returning evil spirits (Matt. 12: 43lLuke 11: 24-6) is
important for us. The text in Luke runs: .
When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through
waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, '1 willretum
to my house from which1came: And when he comes he finds it swept
andput in ()rder. Then hegoes andbrings sevenother spirits more evil
than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that
. man becomes worse, than the first (Luke.!!: 24-"6).
It is poSSible that the origiJ}al intention of the parable Was to
warn those Jewish exorcists who did not take theside ofJesusand
preach the of God Jhat they may be making matters
190
_ - ..... - ., < .-
,
worse for people.
45
But in the light of the Strange Exorcist whose .
. wk is not condemned but condoned (Mark 9: 381Luke 9: 49f)
thiS understandingof the returning spirits is unlikely.'Inany case
this parable of the returning spirits, like the whole of the Beel
zebul Controversy pericope (Matt. 12: 24-91Mark3: 22-7/Luke 11:
15-22), implies an understanding on the part of Jesus
. andthe Evangelists. That is, the comingof the Kingdomof God
involves two integrated aspects of a whole. The coming of the
Kingcfom involves both the destruction of evil as well as the
coming of theHoly Spirit. Exorcismis in microcosm one aspect of
that coming. Thus exorcism is only part of a whole ministry. On
exorcising an evil spirit from a person there needs to follow such
rounseUing that, if at all possible, the person can respond to the
coming of the Kingdom of God and receive the Holy $pirit. We .
can'readily agree with Trevor Ling who says that
. If t!Xorcism is not the positive work of the Holy Spirit driving out and
replacing the power of the demon, the result will be worse than the
original condition. The only exorcism, therefore, which is likely to be
lasting is that which is the work of the Holy Spirit.47 '. .
From this perspective the 'third view' cited by the Methodist
-statemeat on Exorcism (see pp. 14f)that the correct way to deal
with 'possession' involves assuring people of the presence and
hwe of-Christ is inappropriate, or more. accurate, ineffectual and
insufficient; the person being healed needs to be encouraged to
exdse his free-will and respond to the coming of the Kingdom.
. . . The ministry of deliverance is inadequate and dangerous unless it
..' leadson to a growing relationship withJesus Christ. The person's will
must be t1)ohifized and the right choice made. The following up,
. therefore, is as important as the initial release itself . . .48
6 Christ Triumphant
<a) As long as we await the consummation of the Kingdom of
. God and the final defeat of evil, Christians exemplified by
Paul in Romans 7, live in the tension between the Kingdom of
God that has already broken in on their lives and the evil that still
.J:entains (ct. Rom. 8: 22). This evil not only mars creation but
Potentially and often actually distorts the Christian's life and the
tninisttyof the Church. One facet of that distortion is to direct the
191
attention of theChdrch away from the Good News - Jesus a ~ .
the wholeness he' brings -' to a concentration on evil. In hiS
Gospel Luke portrays the ministry of Jesus in the most positive
tenns. .
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, '._
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
tie has sent me to proclaim release to the captives .
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty thOse who are oppressed, .
to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (Luke 4: IS).
And in Acts the tQne of the ministry of the early Church as
portrayed by Luke does not focus on the evil tobe defeated but on
the One anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power to heal (d.
10:37-43). .
. (b) If the contemporary Church is to bring healing to the whole
person, and be able to confront the great varieties of manifel'
tations of evil in the world, then, in the light of our study, it must
be. prepared to become involved in the ministry of exorcism;
.. exorcism has its rightful place as part of the whole ministry given
to the Church to push back the frontiers of evil. 49
. A Church -individual Christians - are needed, not only to
r e c o ~ the broad and. deceptive scope of the,demonic in the .
world, but also to be able to exercise a full and balanced ministry
that includes exorcism - a bringing of Christ and his wholeness
to the most deceptive and grotesque expression of evil. Thus a
Church - Christians - are needed who are confident in God's
victory in Christ, of his protection and power available to thpse
sharing in his ongoing declaration of the Kingdom of God and
concurrentdefeat of evil. \ .
(c) However, as we have already said, because of the distorting
deceitful nature of evil the contemporary Church ought to pay no
1Jl0re attention to the demonic, nor beinvolved in the ministry of
exorcismany' more than is pastorally absolutely necessary. . .
(d) We have seen that the operative power necessary for Chris
tian exorcism involves a function of the charismatic credibility of
the exorcist, Jesus (the divine power-authority inwked), and the
precise confrontation between' the. divine and' the demonic
brought about by an appropriate incantationbased on the insight
given to. the exorcist by the Holy Spirit. as to the identity of the
. offending spiritUal enemy. While the exorcist, of himself, has not
the power to remove a demon, the credentials of the exorcist are
_: __ _ -_ : ._. __ - __
t t .
. '
192
be a person authorised by the Holy Spirit and to
be ()f good standing. in -the Chlistian community. these .
credentials do not narrow the field of those potentially able to be
exorcists - to, say,' priests or ministers - rather it opens up the
ministry of exorcism to any Christian so appointed and gifted by
the Holy Spirit.
(e) Despite the ChristUms' conviction of the cosmic triumph of
Quist over Satan(d. John 12: 31; 16: 11) andthe principalities and
..',,'
powers (d. Col. 2: 15) we cannot ignore the facfthat not all prayer
seems to be answered nor all ministry for healfug successful:
Various solutions are offered to' this problem.50 In so far as
answers to this problem are possible they may be summed up in
two important principles. First there is much that we can do in
order to co-operate with God so he can answer our prayers
consider e.g. Matthew 6: 7: 7-11; 21: 22; Luke 18: 1-14; John
14: 12-14; Romans 8: 26f;James 1: 5-8; 4: 3; 5:13-18 and 1 John
3: 21-3; The principle here is that our life-perspective, ministry
and prayer need to be God-<entred not self<entred. The second
principle is that as we stilltive in a distorted, fallen world (see (a)
atx>\1e) the ministry of exorcism by the Church will, sometiines,
. Without explanation, be unsuccessful. Even though we may .
believe that our attitudes are right and our techniques such that
Christ is permitted to enter into the situation needing healing,
- still the person'remains 'bound'. We can then reflect Paul:
. ; . -.a thorn was given me inthe-flesh, a messenger ofSatan, to harass
me, to keep me from beingtoo elated. Three times I besought the Lord
about this, that it should leave me; but he saidto me, 'My grtlCt! is
-tficientfor you, for my power is mode perfect in weakness' Cor. 12: 7-9).
(f) . We have mentioned the potential dangers involved in the
battle with the demonic- Mark likens it to a storm - but we must
stress the power and protection that is available to those whose
ministry arises out of being chosen and empowered by the Spirit
. / of Christ. Early Christians turned to Psalm 91 to be reminded of
God's care in the face of the- demonic (see Matt. 4: 1-11lLuke
4:: 1-13 and Luke 10: 19).
, . ~ ~ ',' '
193 EXORCISM NOW?
from the fowIer's snare or raging tempest.
He wiD cover you with his pinions,
and you shall find safetybeneath his wings;
yousluill not fear the hunter's trap by night
or the arrow that flies by day,
the pestilence that stalks in datkness
or the plague raging at noonday ...
For he has charged his angels
to kWUd you wherever you go,
:
,
~
to 6ft you on their hands
;.
for fear you&hould strike YQUl' foot against a stone.
:
.You shall step onupand cobra, . .
you shall tread safely on snake and serpent . . .
(Ps. 91: 1-6, 11-13, NEB).
On the broadest.canvas Paul has expressed this same confidence
in God which all Christians can share
.' .. in spite Of all, overwhelming victory is ours through him who
loved us. For I am convinced that there is nothing in'death or life, in
the realm of spirits or superhuman powers, in the world as it is ortbe
world as it shall be, in the forces of the universe, in heights or
depths - nothing in all creation that can separate us from .the love of
God in ChriSt Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8: 37-9, NEB).
Christ has fought and won Ute first and' decisive victory over
Satan c:md his minions: Christ is triumphant and we, in union
withCluist, share that triumph-as we await the final victory.
NOTES
Cbapterl ,
1 MichaelHarper Spiritwll Warfare (Logos, Plainfield, 1970) 4.
2 Published now in Don Cupitt ExplOl"fltions in Theology 6 (SCM,
London, 1979) 50.
3 Ibid.
4 . Ibid. 51.
5 For a list of 'Reports' from Church committees and commissions, etc.,
see John Richards Exorcism, Delivertmt:e and Healing: Some PllStoral Guide
liMi (Grove Booklet on Ministry and Worship No. 44, Bramcote, 1976).
See also A Methodist Statement on Exorcism (Methodist Division of Social
Responsibility, London, 1976); The.Oult, Archbishop of Sydney's Com
~ . of Enquiry Report (Anglican Information Office, Sydney, 1975).
It is disappointing that the report, The Healing Ministry(Th.e Uniting
.Church iJ1 Australia Synod of South Australia, Adelaide; 1983), contains
Only one page (p. 14) on 'The OCcult and the Demonic'.
. 6 For example Michael Green I Believe iFl-Satan's Downfllli (Hodder and
Stoughton, London, 1982). '. .
QiapterU ". ' . ~
t lnrecent years there have been anumber ofheIpfui publications that
provide an introduction to or collection of texts from the wOrld of the
New Testament writers; e.g. C. K. Barrett The New Testament &dcground:
Select Documents (SPCK, London, 1957); E. Schiirer The Literature of the
Jewish People in the Time ofChrist (Schocken, New York, 1972); and History
of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (T. &: T. Clark, 'Edinburgh,
Vol. '1, 1973, Vol. fi, 1978); E. P. Sanders Paulalfl Palestinian Judaism
(S<;M, London, 1977); George W. E. Nickelsburg Jewish Literature
Between the Bible and the MishnJIh (SCM, London, 1981); George W. E.
Nickelsburg and Michael E. Stone Faith and Piety in FArly Judaism: Texts
tmd Documents (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1983); Helmut Koester Introdau::
tion to the New Testament Vol. I, History, Culture and Religion of the
. Hellenistic Age (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1982); J. H. Charlesworth .
.(ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. I (Doubleday, New York,
1983). .
2' See M. Hengel Judaism and Hellenism (SCM, London, 1974) Vol. I, 1ff;
A. F.l. Klijn 'The Study ofJewish Christianity' New Testament Studies 20
(1973-4) 419.-31. .
,.' ''..
NOTES TO 'PAGES 22-39
195
3 From A. .H. Gardiner Hieratic Pilpyri in the BritisIc Museum 3rd Series,
Vol I (British Museum, London, 1935) SO.
4 See further Graham H. Jesus the OSOT, Sheffield,
forthcoming) Chap. n.
5 Seee:g. C. H. Dodd Aa:ording fo the Script1lres (Nisbet, London, 1952):
B. UndarsNtW TesfQmerdApOlogetic (SCM, London, 1961) and The Place
of the OldTestament in the Formation of NewTestament Theology' Nerv
TestlmJent Studies 23 (1976--7) 59-76; R. T. France and David Wenham
Gosptl Pmptdives: Studies in Mid,asIt and HistorWgrtzphy Vol. ill OSOT,
Sheffield, 1983). , . ,
6 In more detail see M. J. Gruenthaner'The Demonology of Old
Testamenf catholic BibliaJl QuIlrterly 6 (1944) 6--2'1; E. Langton1'.ssentillls
of Dtmonology (Epworth, London, 1949); T. H. Gaster 'Demon' 1.'"M
Interpreter's DictionIIry of the Bible I, 817ft. ..
7 See e.g. B. B. Warfie.Id 'The Spirit of God in the Old T.estament' in
Biblialltmd Theo1ogiaJl Studies (Presbyterian and Reforined, Philadelphia,
1952).127-57. .. ... .
8. On the 'history' of Satan sec G.B. Caird and PtilIJeTJ
(Clarendon, Oxford, 1956) Chap. n and D. S. Ru$SeU 1.'"M Method and.
Messilgt ofJewish Apoc:tdyptic (SCM, London, 1964).Chap. IX. . .
9 As does E.KamJah 'Spirit' Dictimuny of NtW Theology
69U: .
10 O. Langton Demonology 37ft. .
11 See W. E. O. Oesterley 'The Demonology of the Old
Illustrated by Psalm XCI' The Expositor 132-51. Whaieve1tile.
original intentions of the writer(s) of Ps. 91, in later times it was matt
prqbabIy used against evil spirits. See 11 QPsAp and 11 QPs; Matt. 4:
6/Luke4: lOfi d. Ps. 91: 11 and 12iLuke 10: 19; d. Ps. 91: 13. Alsoj. .Erub.
10: 26c; j. Shabo 6: Sh;b. Sheb. 15b; and Josephus Antiquities of the JeWs 6:
168; d. 7: 305. .. .
U ceirtury from after the exile to the second century.Be hits been
suggested for the composition of !sa. 24-7; see O. EissleL;it The OW
TesIIIme1U: An Introduction (Eng. tr., Blackwell, Oxford, 1965) 325ft.
13 See G. R. Driver 'TIuee Technical Tenns in the Pentateuch' JouJ'nlll fI/ .
SeR.aitk Studies 1 (1956) 97f. . ,
14 R. H. Pfeiffer History of New Testament Times (Black, London, 1949)
247.. . , .
15 Further see G. Vermes The DeadSe4 Scrolls: Qumran in
(SCM, London, 1982
2
) Chap. 1. For a Iistof material discOvered see
J. A. FiWnyer The Dttul Sell Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools of Studg
(Scholars, Missoula, 1977) 11ft.. .
16 Note the imagery of God's 'hand', used against the Of
Satan which bears a resemblance to Luke 11: 20 (see p. 79 above). '.'
l7" For a brief iJitroduetion to LAB James H. The . .
Pseudepignzpha and Modma Research (Scl\oIars, Missoula, 1981117Qf. '..
18. Though dated, the most important collection is by Karl Preiseridanz.
NonS TO PAGES 39-63
3 Vols. (Teubner, Leipzig and Berlin, 1928, 1931,
1942) =,PGM hereafter.. see also Selections'fromthe Greek Papyri edited
with translationnnd notes by George Milligan (Cambridge University,
1910). For the abbreviations used here see G. H. R. Horsley New
Documents nlustrating Early. Christianity Vol. 2 (The Ancient History
Documentary Researdt Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, 1981) =
NO hereafter.
19 See 'F., C. Conybeare 'The Testament of Solomon' Jewish QlUlrterly
Rttriew 11 (1898) 11f; C. C. McCown The Testament of Solomott (Hinrich,
Leipzig, 1922)-108f; D. C. Duling 'Testament of Solomon' in Otaiies-.
'worth (ed.) Pseudepigraplur 1,943.
20 See further Twelftree Jesus Chap.n.
21 ' ... Swear to God that you won't torture me!' (Mark 5: 7, NlV) is a
misunderstanding of 1rotIcizO. .'
22'Ihe Loeb edition carries the following footnote: 'A scholiast takes
. this as a reference to Christ, but he is surely in error. 'The Syrian is
Lucian's contemporary,'and probably not a Christian at all. . .' LIlcilm m
(Loeb library, Heinemann, London and Harvard, 1921) 345
&.1. >
' 23 Further see Twelftree JesflS Chap. II.
2t See e.g. LangtonDemonolosY.
On dating rabbinic material see the sUlJ\tt\ary discussion in Graham'
H. Twelftree 1esus in Jewish Traditions' in R. T. France and David
Wenkam (eds) Gospel Perspectives Vol. V (JSOT, Sheffield, 1985). On
ben Zakkai see J. Neusner A Life of Johtman ben Za&i (Brill, Leiden,
1990).
a-.pterDI
lPurtherseeT. A. Burkill 'Mark 3.7-12 andthe Alleged Dualismin the
Evangelist's Miracle Material' Journal ofBibliall UteratJIre87 (1968) 409-17
and' E. ' Best. Folhnuing Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark asOT,
Sheffield, 1981) 36 and n. 55. More generally on 'Redaction Criticism'
the method of research whereby the contribution of the Evangelist to his
tradition is examined - see Norman Perrin W1uzt is Redildion Criticism?
(Fortress, Philadelphia, 1970) and I. H. Marshall (ed.) New Testament
, biterprtttztion (paternoster, Exeter, 1977).
2 ,For a helpful introduction to questions relating to the study of the
'l)istoriCal-Jesus see I. H. Marshall I Believe in the Historiall Jesus (Hodder
and StoUghton, 1977).
3 For a more thorough historical examination of the Synoptic exorcism
. Twelftree Jesus Chap. m.
'4' For example H. Seesemann 'oido' 'Theologiall Dictiol1ilry of the NeuJ
, Testament V,117f.
5 A lead tablet in A. 'Deissmann Bible Studies (Eng. tr., T. &: T. Clark,
, F.dinInlrdl, 19(3) 275-82. '
6 -E.g. Leon Morris The Cross in the New Testament (paternoster, Exeter,
.
.' -. ,.
, .

;.,


{ ';:' . :
V. Tatlor The Gospel According to St MJnt'(Macmillan,
. ',1952) 171.' . ,
, ,R. C. Thompson The Devils and Ernl Spirits of Babylonia 2 VoIs'. (Luzac,
/'" lImdon, 1903 and 4) 11,109. See also 19ft and Vol. I, 103,.119 (and 151).
...: Further see TweHtree Jesus Chap. II. .
, , . See e.g. R. BuItn\ann The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Eng. tr.,.
, : Oxford, 1963) and M. Dibelius Fro"! Traditimi to Gospel (Eng...
:, Clarke, London, 1971).
. "'" Count d'AIvieUa (E. Goblet) Lectures 011 the Origin and Growth of the
Cimaptimi afGod (Eng. tr., Williams &t Norgate, LondonI892) 88f; M. P.
Nilsson A History of Greek Religion (Eng. Tr., Clarendon, Oxford, 1949Z)
- 85. .
11 P. T. O'Brien 'Prayer inLuke-Acts' Tynd4lle Bulletin 24(1973) 111-27.. '
12 On 'Son of God' see Martin Hengel The Son of God (Eng. tr., SCM,
London, 1976)and in Matthewin particular seeJ. D. Kingsbury Mlztt1rew;
Structure, Christology, Kingdom (SPCK, London, 1976) Chap. n and'
J. D. G. Dunn Christologyin the MIlking (SCM, London, 1980)48-50.
13 On 'Son of David' in Matthew see J. M. Gibbs 'Purpose and Pattern
in Matthew's Use of the Title "Son of David'" New TestJlment Studies 10 '
(1963-4) 446-64. .
14 M. Smith Jesus the M/lgician (Gollana, London, 1978).
,15 In more detail on the tradition going back to the historicalJe&Us see
,J. D. Dunn Jesus and the Spirit (SCM, London, 1975)55.
" 16 In more detail see Twelftree Jesus Chaps. mand IV. See also Dunn
Jesus 44., .
17 C. K. Barrett The Holy Spirit lind the Gospel Traditimi (SPCK, London,
1947)52.
18 R. H. Stein An Introduc:timi to the Parllbles of Jesus (Westminster,
1981)143. . ._
19 D. HiD The Gospel ofMlztthew (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, LOndon"
1972) 235;J. Jeremias The Parables ofJesus (Eng. tr., SCM, London, 1m)
, . I
20 J. Jeremias Rtdist:overing the PaTflbles (Eng. tr., SCM, London, 1966)
66,176.
21
r
T. W. MansonThe S4yings ofJesus (SCM, London, 1949) 249; Jeremias
. PaTtlbles J. A. T. Robinson Twelve New Testllment (SCM;
London, 1962) 88.
22 Robinson Twelve 85.
23 F. Hahn Missitm in the New Testament (Eng. tr., SCM, London, 1965)
43f.
24 . F. W. Beare Mission of the Disciples and the Mission <:barBe:
MIIttheW 10 and Parallels' Journal of Bibliall Literature 89 (1970) 12f;
BUJtmann History 145.'
2S ., Manson Sayings 73. , .
26 B. S. Easton The Gospel Acamling to St. LJIke (T. & T. Oark, Edjn
burgh, 1926) 160.
.--
. t'" .:: .
.
. "
"
198 NOTElTO PAGES 84-93
27 ,I. H.MarshaU The Gospel ofL.(Paternoster, Exeter, .
28 W. G. Kummel Promise.nd Fulfilment (Eng. tr., SCM, __
133f and notes. , '1 "of
Chapter IV
.1 'Exorcism in the New Testament' Epworth Review 2 (1975) 94.
2 Ibid. See also E. Best 'Exorcism in the New Testament and Today'
Bibliall Theology 27 (1977) 1-9.
3 'iIIomII' TIuologiad Didiontlryof the New Testament m, 214.
4 .J. H. Crehan in Exorcism (ed.) Dom Robert Petitpierre (SPCK,
London, 1972) 11.
5 Ibid. 17f.
.6 V. Taylor The Gospel According to St. MQrk (Macmillan, London, 1952)
171.
7 H. van der Laos The MiNdes ofJesus (Brill, Leiden, 1965) 601 and 655.
8 . Further see Caird Prinripalities and Puwers and Hendrik BerkhofChrist
and the pO'l&lI!fS (Eng. tr., Herald, 5cottcWe, 1962). Though I do not agree
with all his conclusions see also W. Carr Angels and Principalities (Cam
bridge University, 1981).
9 While Paul considers the Christian's status and security to be this
dear, he does recognise the difficulties of this certaintybeing worked out
in everyday experience. Note Romans 7: 14-25on which see James D. G.
Dunn 'Rom. 7, 14-24 in the Theology,of Paul' Theologische Zeitschrift 31
(1975) 257-73.
10 See Martin Dibelius Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (SCM, Londop,
19!i6) and L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn (eds.) Studies in Luke-Acts (SPCK, .
London, 1968). For a representative list of those who hold the contrary
view seeA J. Mattill 'The Value of Acts as a Source-for the Study of Paul'
in Owles H. Talbert (ed.) Perspecfiues on Luke-Acts (Assocjation of
Baptist Professors of Religion, Danville, T. &t T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1978)
77n.1.
11 Haenchen in Ked and Martyn (eds.) Studies 273.
12 On egeneto see A. Plummer The Gospel According to St. Luke (T. &t T.
Clark, Edinburgh, 1922) 45; Matthew =29 times, Mark =3, Ltike =51,
Acts = 37, Paul =.8 (NT = 1501; Luke prefers the construction echein
pneumIldilimonion, d. Luke4: 33/Mark1: 23except where, theologically, it
is to be avoided e.g. Luke 11: 15; 8: 34; katakoloutheV onlyat Acts 16: 17and
Luke 23: 53 (the latter probably being written in Luke's hand, see V. ,
Taylor The Passion Narrative of St. Luke (Cambridge University, 1972) 103)
.' in the NT; parechO 9/16 of NT occurrences; ergasai 5/6 of NT occurrences;
",."t.eJumuli only here in NT; btangellein 11/18 of NT OCj:W'l'eDCes; t#
only in NT at Ads 4: 2; 16: 18 (d. Mark 14: 4 some MSS);
epistrephein 18/36 of NT occurrences; parangelleia 10/30 of NT OCc:urrente$;
ault It hiJra see J. Jeremias 'En ekeine ti hOra (en) aide hora' Zeitschrift fiir die
Wissen$chaft 42 (1949) On LUke's predeliction for
J compounds, of which there are many in this story (e.g. the words given
:.,;..' f -'.' ;. '.
____
," "'.
I .
NOI1!S TO PAGEs 93-108 199
above in this note) see Jotm C, Hawkins HortIe Syngptiue (CWendon.
Oxford, 1899) 142and H. J. Cadbury The Styleimd UtenIry Method ofL.
(1920, Kraus Reprint, Ne,v York, 1969) 166ft.
.13 See F. F. Bruce The Book of tire Acts (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954)
328 and n. 22 and M. Hengel Acts and tire History of Earliest Christilmity
(Eng. tr.; SCM, 1919)66.
/
14 W. Grundmann 'dulIJurrJlildurrJlmis' Theolo.gical DictioruJry of tire New
Testament fi, 300.
15 This is not to. suggest that Jesus' death was that of a martyr only in
Luke-Acts. See the discussion in G. N. Stanton JesllS of Nazareth in New
Testament Prttlching (Cambridge University, 1974) 33-6.
16 Apart from 1: 1ammtai followed by an infinitive occurs in Acts at 2:
4; 11: 15; 18=-26; 24:2; 27: 35where it has the clear sense of commencement
(note 11: 15). SeeJ. W. Hunkin "'Pleonastic" tITXOmIli in the New
TIl$I'ameI\t' JOflnttll of Thtologiad. Studies 25 (1926) 394 an4
4Olf. Thus 'began' (lrxIIto) here is not-to be dismissed as a pleonasm- the
repetition of somethingalready expressed in the sentence.
17' .Onthe number of disciples see B. M. Metzger 'Seventy or Seventy
two Disciples' New Testament Studies 5 (1958-9) 299-306, and Marshal
LIIl'e41S. .
18 . CE. Marshall Luke 415; Helmut Render St LJlke Theologian of Redemp
tive History (Eng. tl'., SPCK,London, 1967) 22. '
19 Jesus 44ff.
20 Ibid. 46.
21 J. M. Creed in MarshaULJlke 195..
22 H. C. Kee 'The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stones' New
Testmnent Studies 14 (1967-8) 232-46.
23 Marshall Luke195.
24 Twelftre.e Jesus Chap. ill.. .
25 See R. Maddox The Purposeof Luke-Acts (T. &: T. Clark, London} 1982)
115ft, 126. On Luke's individualising of eschatology see l03fl. .
26 A. Oepke 'lIpOkatast4rsis' Theologiall Dictionary of tire New Testament I,
39lf.
Z7 In: Luke 6: 13; 9: 35; 10: 42; 14: 7; note 9: 35 where etiegomoi isused of
Jesus' beingchosen; d. Acts 1: 2, 24; 6: 5; 13:17; 15: 7, 22, 25 where ineach
case those chosen are toassume special leadership roles. See G. Schrenk
'e1r1egorrrJJi' Theologiaal Didioruzry of the New Testament IV, 174.
28 Except in Luke 11: 49 and Acts 14: 14Luke uses IlpOStolos (Luke 6: 13;
9: 10; 11: 49; 17: 5; 22:'14; 24: 10; Acts 1: 2, 26; 2: 37, 42, 43; 4: 33, 35, 36, 37;
5: 2, 12, 18, 29; 5: 4O;b: 6; 8: 1, 14, 18; 9: 27; 11: 1; 14: 4; 14;15: 2, 4, 6, 22, 23;
16: 4) of the Twelve. Cf. D. Miiller 'Apostle' Dictionary of New TtSltmterrt,'
TheoTogy I,!28f;
A13 Ibid.
30 See'Render Luke 2Off.
31 Further 'see K. H. Rengstorf 'hq1ta' Theological Oictionllry of the New
Ti!8hlmbltU, 634. ,
.... ,
)2' This difference between the MI and LXX helps explain the 'textual
difficulty in Luke 10: 1. "
33 ' Further material see H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck Kommenta, zum
Neuen Testament ailS Talmud und Midnzsch (Beck, Milnchen, 1922-61) H,
~ , m ; 4 8 f .
34 Rengstorf Theological DIctionary of the New Testlrment H, 634; Flender
Luke 23; Marshall Luke 415. '
35 On the relation of John 4: 35 to the Synoptic tradition see e.g. C. H.
Dodd Historical TrtUlition in tht fourth Gospel (Cambridge UniversitY,
1963)392ff. ' .
36 F. Hauck 'therismos' Theologiall Dictionary of the New Testament m,
133.For background see Isa. 27: 12; Joel 3: 13 Syr. Bar. 70: 2; d.Isa. 17:' 5;
18: 4f; Jer. 8: 12; 51:33; Hos. 6: 11. "
~ Cf. Tanchuma ToledOt 32b 'Hadrian said to R. Jehoshua [c. 90 AD):
'I1se is something great about the sheep [Israel] that can persist among
?Owolves [the nations). He replied: Great is theShepherdwho delivers it
and watches over it anddestroys them [the wolves] before them [Israel].'
,110m }.Jeremias 'atin' Theologiad Dictionary of the New TestRment 1,340.
Note Luke 10: 19 in which the readers are assured,of protection or care.
."\ 38 Thus companionship mayhave been seen as oneof the reasons why
the diBdples were aentout 'twoby two'. See Lake's pairingat Luke 7: 19;
Acts 13: 2; 15: 27, 39, 40;17: 14; 19: 22;d. Ecdes.4: 9ff(NEB). Thewitness
prindple of Deut. 19: 15 may alSo be involved. _ ,
39 Further see }. Drury T,tldition and Design in Luke's Gospel (Darton,
Longman and Todd,London, 1976) 96ft.
40 SeeMarshall LIIkt 416.
41 Onthe origin of this verse see M. Miyoshi Dtr Anfangdes Reisebtrichts
U 9,51-10,24 (Biblical Institute Rome, 1974) 98f.
42 G. Delling 'hupotllssO' 11reologiClli Dictionary of the New Testament VIlli
46(d. 41).
43 See 2 Chr. 9: 14 (= LXX, 3 Kings 10: 15; Esther 3: 13a (LXX);josephus
Ap 1:119; 2 Mace. 8: 9, 22; 3 Mace. 1: 7.
44 ct. W. F. Arndt Luke (Concordia, StLouis, 1956) 285.
45 Contra F. Spitta Zeitsdlrift til' die neutestllmentlidrt Wissmsduift 9
(1908) 160-3 followed by W. Foerster 'astrapi' 11reologiall DidionIlry of the
New Testmnentl, 50S and W. B8uer,W. F. Arndt, F. W. GingrichandF.
W. Danker A-Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (University of
Chicago, Chicago and London, 1979) 118.
46 See Plummer Luke 280.
41 ct. Marshall Luke 430.
.t8. 'Further see ibid.
49 No distinction need be seen betWeen these; O. Bauemfeilld Die. .
Apostelgesc:hichte (A. Deichert, Leipzig, 1939) BO.
50 ' For more detailed comments see E. Haenchen The Acts of the Apostles
(Sng.tr.;'5lackweH, Oxford, 1971) 242ft, and I. H: Marshall Acts (IVP,
Leicester, 1980) 114ft. . . .
NOTES"O PAGES 111-113
2,01-' '
51 On the difficulty of this word and on other problems in this passage-
see Haenchen Acts 242ft. , ,I.
52 P. W. van der Hort 'Peter's Shadow: the Religia:-Historical Back
ground of Acts 5: 15' New Testament Studia 23 (1976-7) 206.
53 J. von Negelein 'BUd, Spiegel und Shatten im Volkglauben' Archiv
,fUr ReligionswissenscJulft 5 (1902) 17.
54 New Testament Studies 23 (1976-7) 207.
55 See the evidence in ibid. and Edwin M. Yamauchi 'Magic in the
Biblical World' Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983) 179.
56 J{. W. Die Apostelgeschichte (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
GOttigen, 194"') 100. . . .
57 See Haenchen Acts 495 and n. '4.
58 Plutarch de de[ectu ortICUlorum 9: 414e. Further, W. Foerster 'putlum'
Theologictl1 Didiontny of the NewTestamDjt VI, 920. "
59 For manteion (oracle), Num. 22: 7; Prov. 16: 10; Ezek. 21: 22;
manteuomlli(divirtation) in theLXX see Deut. 18: 10; 1Sam. 28:8; 2Kgs 17: '
17; Jer. 34: 7; Ezek. 12: 24; 13: 6, 23; 21: 21, 23, 29; 22: 28; Mic. 3: 11,
mantis (prophet or diviner); JOsh. 13: 22; 1 Sam. 6: 2; Jer. 36: 8; Mic. 3: 7;
Zech.10:L '. '
60 H. G. liddeD and Scott A Greek-English Lexicon revised by H. S.
Jones (Oxford University, 1940, Supplement, 1968) 1O?9f.
61' Contra' Beyer Die Apostelgeschichte cited favourably by
Acts 495.
62 As Wendt suggests, see Haenchen Acts 495,n. 10. .'
63 InNT =Matt. 10: 5; Matt. 15: 351Mark8: 6; 6: 8; Luke 5: 14; 8: 29, 56;9:
21; Acts.J: 4; 4: 18; 5: 28, 40; 10: 42; 15: 5; 16: 18, 23; 17: 30; 23: 22, 30; 1Cor.
,: 10; i1: 17; 1 Thess. 4: 11; 2 Thess. 3: 4, 6,10,12; 1 Tim. 1: 3; 4: 11; 5: 7; 6:
13,17.
M F. Hauck Dictionary ofthe New Testament V,
763,
65 . Ibid. 76lf n.2.
66 See Jeremias in Zeitschrift fUr die neutestamentliche' Wissensc1ulft Go
(1949) 217 n. 6. 0. G.Delling 'hOnl' TheologialllJictionary of the NefJI
Testament IX, 679.
67 Acts 269.
. 68 E.g. F. F. Bruce The Acts of the Apostles (Tyndale, London, 1952)375.
69 F. Blass, A. Debrunner and J{. W. Funk AGreek Gramm4T of the New
Testament and other Early Christilln Literatun: (University of Chicago,
Chicago and London, 1975) 447(9).
70 E. Lohse 'cheir' Theological Dictionaryofthe New Testament IX, 425,430.
71 Contra F. J. Foakes-Jacbonand K. Lake The Beginnings ofChristillnity
IV (Macmillan, London, 1933) 239; Haenchen Acts 561ff. ' .
n E.g. J. Manek The Acts of the Apostles (Eng. tr., Doubleday, New ..
York, 1967) 192 'Of course, O{le may assume that such mimdes cannot
. occur, but it cannot be doubted that they were of decisive importance to
primitive Chri6tianity, We shAll not be able to understand the latter
, ..
NOTIlS TO I'ACBS 113-117
unlesswe take-the accounts of these healing seriously.' Marshall Ads 310
offers a value judgment - 'Perhaps we may suggest that God is capable
-of COhdescending to the level of men who still think in such aude
ways .. ;' See also Haenchen Acts
73 'P0ie6, 'perform', often in relation to miracles Matt. 7: 22; 13: 58;
Mark 6: 5; 9: 39 and of God's creativity see Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and
( Danker Lexicon 680f and H. Braun 'poieO' Theologicfll Dictimuzry of the New
VI, esp. 4Mf and 483. _
14 Luke 1: 17,35; 4: 14; 24: 49; Acts 1: 8; 10: 38. Note that 'power'
(-.....u) was what Luke says the disciples received (Luke 9: 1; Acts 1: 8)
and their work is desaibedas power(s) (Luke 10: 13, 19; Acts 4: 7, 33: 8:
-, 13) just asJesus received power from God (Luke 1: 17,35; 5: 17; Acts 10:
38)and his workwas desaibed in terms ofpower(s) (Luke 4: 36; 6: 19; 19: _
Acts 2: 22). See also F. Preisigke Die Gotteskraft tIerfrUhchfistlidren Zeit
(Papyiusinstitul Heidelberg, Berrin &: Leipzig, 1922) and W. Grund
8IIIIU\ Dit:timunyofthe NewTestlnnmt n, esp. 300f and 3100.
7S See O. lfauemfeind 'hlgc1um6' Theologiall Didionllry of the New 'Festll
,.", VIll, 241f.
16 See' A. Jirkti 'Zur magischen Bedeutung der Kleidung in Israel'
ZIitsehrift filrdiulttestamerrtlidJe Wissmst:htIft 37 (1917-18) 109-25.
. 71 CE. DunnJesus 167--10; P. J. AChtemeierThe Lukan Perspective on
the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch' in C. H. Talbert (ed.)
Pm,taiws on Luke-Acts (Assodation of Baptist Professors of Religion, ,
DanviDeand T. &T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1978} 153-167.
" Imperfect tenae, indicatinga linear or protracted activity inthe past.
", SeeMarshall LWre 399 who isunable to resolve this tension between
Luke 9: 50 and 11:23.
80 Dunn Jesus 167.
aIE.g. J.Schniewind 'Zur Synoptiker-Exegese' Theologische RundscJuw
2 (1930) 153; R. P. Martin MIlrlc: Evangelist and Theologian (paternoster,
Exeter, 1972) Chaps. VI and W; H. C. Kee Community of the New Age.
(SCM, London, 1977) 7ff. .'
82 . 'Note the bibliographyinBest Following, see also his introduction 9ft.
. 83 See also e.g. 4: 10, 13, 38-41; 7: 18; 8: 21; 9: 19, 28; 14: 10, 50; 66-72;
, 16:8.
M. MIn:: Traditions in Ccmflict (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1971) 50. See the
!'!!View of Weedon by C. J. A. Hiclding 'A Problem of Method in Gospel
. ReligiOus Studies 10 (1974) 339-46 and Martin MIlrk l5Off.
85 Best Following. See a list of his work on Mark and the disciples in'
tiiS Bibliography 259f:
86 Ibid. 12.
rf1 See R. Pesch Vas MIlTkuSevangelium (Herder, Freiburg, Basel, Wien,
1960) fi, 316; also H. Anderson The Gospel of MIlTk (MarshaU, Morgan &
Seem; London, 1976) JOI.
c Best Following IntroductiOO.
89 Ibid. 15 and; n. 1; d. H. Riesenfeld 'Tradition und Redaktion im
...
.. '.
NOTES TO PAGES 117-119
203'
Markusevangelium' Neutestament(idre StJulien fUr Rudolf BultmAn,n
(Herausgegeben von Walther Eltester) (Beihefter zur Zeitschrift fiir-die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft no. 21, Berlin, 1954) 163.
90 The materialinMarkmore directly related to exorcismisas follows
1: 12f, 16--28,32; 3: 7-30; 5: 1-20; 6: 7-13; 7: 24-30; 9: 14-29.
91 See Twelftree Jesus Chap. V.
92 That these are Mark's creation see J. Gnilka Vas Evangelium NIICh
Markus I (EKK) (Benzinger, Zurich, 1978) 86 and on the summaries
in Mark K. L. Schmidt Der RDhmen der Geschidzte Jesus (Trowitzsch
& Sohn, Berlin, 1919); C. H. Dodd 'The Framework of the Gospel
Namttive' Expository Times 43 (1932) 396-400.
/.
93 On the textual difficulties relating to the status of 'Son of God' ,
(huiou(tou) theou) here SJee Taylor Mark 152, B. Metzger A TextlUll Commen
ttuy on the Greek NT (United Bible Societies, London, 1971)73 and
Markusevangelium 1,74 n. (a).
94 Ak%uthein, 'to follow' in Markat 1: 18; 2: 14, 15; 3: 7; 5: 24; 6: 1;8: 34,
34; 9: 38; 10: 21, 28, 32, 52; 11: 9; 14: 13, 54; 15: 41; (16: 17), usually a
technical term in Mark for discipleship. . ,
95. On the significance of 'seeing' in the NT see W. Michaelis, 'hcmIO'
TheologiallDictionJlry of the .New Testament V, 346ft; Bauer, Arndt,
Gingrich and Danker Lexicon 360.
96 Twelftree Jesus Chap. ill, see also above.
fl7 Further see ibid.
98E. Schweizer Good News Aa:ording to Mark (Eng.. tr., SPCK, LondOIl,
1971) 'Mark. is prol?ably thinking of the time of the world-wide proclama
tion ofthe gospel (d. v. 32), not the time of God's Kingdomafter the final
judgment' 99.
99 Ibid. 107.
100 The story,maynot have always beenin this context; see L.
Die Wundererziihlllngen des MJzrkusevangeliums (KBW, Stuttgart, .1974)
3--16; Best Following 231; to the contrary' see K. Kertelge Die Wunder]esu
im Markusevang,eliums (Kasel, Munchen, 1970) 91. . . . .
101 Onepitirr/Jln, see p. 103above. Epitimiln occurs inMarkat 1: 25; 3:'12;
4:39;8:30,32,33;9:25;10:13,48.
102 Cf. J. M. Robinson The Problem of History in Mark (SCM, London,
1957) 40ft; W. L.Lane The Gospel of Mark {Marshall, Morgan & XQtt,
London, 1974) 175ft; Anderson MJ:zrk 145; Gnilka Markus 195f.
103 Ploiarion (small ship or boat) 3: 9; Ploion (small fishing vessel) 1: 1.9,
20; 4: I, 36. 37; 5: 2, 18, 21; 6: 32, 45, 47, 51, 54; 8: 10, 14. See E. Hilgert TM
Ship and Related Symbols in the NT (Van G0rcuIIl;' Assen, 1962) and Best
Following 230-4. _
104 See previous note. With e.g. 3: 7, 20; 4: I, 10 in mind have
been expected that others besides the disciples would have been in the
-boat, but they are not. Note the exclusive context in which the boat is
mentioned in 6:30-3. In view of 1: 17, 1: 19 may be foreshadowing.he .
work o,f the dillciples inthe 'new boat'. Cf. 1: 20. ' '
- ' -'r--"'-_" . __
".,,, -.-
. .... oj ..
", '.','
" '.
Nt1rEs TO PAGES 119-124
105 'See n. 103abOve. Matthew (8: 23-:-7) also interprets this story with
the boat representing the Church. See G. Bornkamm 'The Stilling of the
Storm' in G. Bomkamm, G. Barth and H. J. HeldTradition and inttrprrf
IItitm mMtitthew (SCM, London, 1963) esp. 54.
106 Schweizer Marie 125.
107 For details of Mark's redaction see Best Following 66ff; Twelft:ree
/ausChap. m., . .
1M' See P. J. Achtemeier'Miracles and the Historical Jesus in Mark
9: 14-29' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975) 475; Twelftree Jesus
Chap.m. .
109 Best Following 66; Twelftree Jesus m.
110 Some ancient witnesses (e.g. P45 (3rd century have ' ... and
i:: Theological Dictiontzry of the New 1
662. _
7
112 Matthew and Luke, in following Mark, find this. unacceptable and
direct the saying to the crowd (Matt: 17: 17) and to the father (Luke 9:
41b). See T'welftree Jesus Chap. m.
113 Also at 16: 14 the later ending to Mark.
114 So also Schweizer Marie 153.
115 At the end of 9: 29 many ancient witnesses (e.g. P45.
2
, A, C, 0,
L, W, 9)add '. .' . and fasting. . .'. 'In the light of the increasing stress in
the early Church on the necessity of fasting, it is understandable that kili
, ffbteitz is a gloss which found its way into moSt witnesses. Among the
witnesses that resisted such an accretion are important representatives
theAlexandrian, the Western, and Caesarean types of text.' Metzger
Commentary 101. See also O. BOcher Christus Exurcista (Kohlhammer,
, Stuttgart, 1972) 113-7. .
116.. On 'the Church' in Matthew see G. D. Kilpatrick The Origins of the
According to St Matthew (Oarendon, Oxford, 1946); G. Bomkamm
''EftdExpectationand Church inMatthew' in Tradition 15-51; E. Schweiz
er.Church Order in the Ne1D Testament (Eng. tr., SCM, London, 1961) 51-62;
W. G. Thompson Mtztthew's Advice teJ II Divided Community (Biblical
Institute, Rome, 1970); R.E. O. White Matthew lAys it on the Line(St
C.
Andrew's, EdinbUrgh, 1979); E. Schweizer 'Matthew's Church (1974Y
in Graham Stanton (00.) The lnterpretatiqn of Matthew (Fortress,
Philadelphia and Lortdon, 1983)129-55.' . .
117 Ads = 23; Paul == 59; 1TID\ = 3; Heb: =2; Jas. =1; 3 John = 3;
Rev. =i: 20.
. ..
118 ' Bornlcamm 'End Expectation , . .' in Tradition 38.
U9. See further Twelftree Jesus Chap. m.
. 120 CE. E. Schweizer The Good News Arording to Matthew (Eng. tr.,
SfCK,London, 1976) 233.' .
121 Further see Twelftree Jesus Chap. m.
l22 ' See the list of possible OT quotations in Matthew in F. C. Grant
. .'Gospel of Matthew' .The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible ill, 307ff; see
NoTEs TO PAGES 124-128
also R. H. Gundry The Use of the Old Testament in Mtltthew's Gospel {Brill,'
Leiden, 1967) 208ff.
123 Twelftree Jesus Chap. m.
124 See D. C. Duling 'The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in
Matthew's Christologica1 Apologetic'New Testament Studies 24 (1977-'8)
392...410.
125 On 'Son of God' in Matthew see 2: 15; 3: 17; 4: 3, 6; 8: 29; 33; 16:.
16; 17: 5; 26: 63; 27: 40, 43; 54. Further onthe Christological significanceof
Matthew's alteration of Mark 5: 7 see TweHtree Jesus Chap. m. .
126 On the meaning of this word and its use as a euphemism for Satan
see L. Gaston 'Beelzebul' Theologische Zeitsdrrift 18 (1962) 247-55.'
127 O:ne view (e.g. E. Best Temptaticm and Passion (Cambridge UniVel'o'
sity, 1965) 13) is that Satan was defeated at the Temptation. But, not leatt
. because of this perirope, this view is untenable. Further, see Twelftree
Jesus Chap. m. .
128' See further Hill MIItthew 168.
129 Schweizer Mdtthew 286f.. '.
130 See 1 rhess. 2: 16 where the same word is used for something that
has come upon people. Also on this word see the literature cited by
Dunn Jesus 47f and Marshall Luke 476.
131 Dunn}esus 47.
132 See A. Harnack 1m bin gekommen' Zei!schrift fUr Theo. Jmd
Kirche 22.(1912) 1-30; H: Windisch Palliund ChristllS Leipzis.
1934) 156; Kingsbury Structure 86f; andTwelftree Jesus Chap. m. '
133 Cf. J. M. Hull Hellenistic Mllgi and .the Synoptic Trll4ition. (SQ(,
.
134 H. Greeven 'proskuned Theological Dictionary of tire New Test4IIaf
VI, 763 ' ... in Mt. the use of proskunein shows that those who thosfall
involuntarily and unconliciously declare by their attitude
with whom they have to do' 764. In the rest of the NT see Mark 5: 6; 15:
19; Luke 4: 7, 8; 24: 52 and e.g. John 4: 20; 9: 38; Acts 8: 27; 10: 25; 24: H;
1 Cor. 14: 25; Rev. 5: 14; 7: 11; 20: 4.
135 In the New Testament pseudoprophites occurs at Matt. 7: 15; 24; 11;
M!u"k 13: 22/Matt. 24: 24; Luke 6: 26; Acts 13: 6; 2 Pet. 2: 1; 1John4: 1; Rev.
16: 13; 19: 20; 20: 10.
136 More widely on the subject see the stimulating work by M. Hengel
The CharislPUltic Leader and his Followers (Eng. tr., T. &: T. Clark. Edin
burgh, 1981); see also Schweizer MIIHhew 178ff.
137 a. Max Weber 'Those who are the bearers of the charisma - the
master and his disciples - must, if they are to do justice to their.mission,
stand outside the ties of this world, outside the everyday vocations and
also outsiiie the everyday family duties: Quoted in Hengel Lader 34:.
Cf. p;diIdre 11: 4f 'Let every apostle who comes to you be welcomed
as the Lord. But he shall not stay more than one day, and if
necasary, the next day also. But if he stays three days, he is a false
ps:ophet.( .
....
.
.
't' " '
NOTIlS TO pAGES,l2S-131
,138' 'The false prophetS are, thus clearly designated antinomians,'
G. Barth 'Matthew's Understanding of the Law' in Tradititm 75.
139 For this meaning in antiquity see liddeD &t Scott Luicon; Bauer,
Arndt, GingrichandDanker Lexicon; F. Hauck 'kaTpos' TIreoIogU:IdDictilm
tDY ", tile New Testament m, 614. (Here the debate between Origen and
~ comes to mind in that the integrity of a miracle-worker was
t!Yidenced by his behaviour. See further Twelftree Jesus Chap. .) 0.
DidIde 11: 8 'But not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but
Onlyifhe'has the ways Of the Lord. So the false prophet and the prophet
wBlbeknown by their ways.' '
,140 HiD MJJttIuw 184 incorredly caDs this section 'a kind of manual for ,
the activities of leaders and teachers ofthe early Church'. See 10: 41 (0.
DiIkdrt 11: 4 quoted in n. 137above). " "
141 The DiIlIu:Jre singles out theseeking of reward as the markof a false
prophet - ' ... whoever says in the Spirit, "Give me money", or s0me
thing eI8e, you shall not listen to him, but if he tells you to give for others
,who are in want, let no one judge him' (11: 12): See also Acts 8: 1M. '
142 0. H. J. Held 'Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories' in
'J'tadiI1mr 250.
143 Verse 21, found mostly in the Byzantine group-of texts (d. Muk9:
29), ismissinginthe best witnesses (e.g. B, at ,e. 'Since thereis no good ,
'te8SOIl why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have
t.!n omitted, and since copyists frequently inserted malerial derived
, from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscrip\:s have been
,alilimiJAted to the parallel in Mk.9: 29' Metzger CormneritIny43.
144 ' 0. Held in Tradition 181. '
M5 ,onMatthew's'abbreviation of miracle stories see ibid. 169-92.
M6QUotingH. Greeven 'Die Heihmgdes GeWunten nach Matthius',
, w.tufld Dimst (1955)74.
147 Held in TnIdition 189.
148 However in other places Matthew sees the importance of the faith
01 those seemghealing - 8: 10; 9: 2, 22, 29; 15: 28.
149 Probablya sayinr; known by Paul, 1 Cor. 13: 2.
150 0. Held in Tnulilion 191.
151 Some manuscripts (e.g., C, D, L, W) have apistian ('no faith').
152 '... in Matthew's presentation, he (Peter) is.the typical disciple,
Nptesmting both the insight and authority of faith (16: 17, 19; d. 18: 18;
21: 21f) and the weakness of'little faith' discipleship (14: 28-31; d. 17:
, 2l1J;' J. D.C. Dunn 'Models of Christian Community in the New
Testamenf iIi The Churr:h is CIunis".,tic (ed.) A. Bittlinger (WCC, Geneva,
.'
1981) 114. ./'
153 Eis estin 110 theos' ('that God is one'), one of a number of atteAed
teadmgs, is the best supported (e.g.P74,., A) and is in conformitywith
the prevailing formula ofJewishorthodoxy rather tlian beingassimilated
,toOuistian theology. See ,. B. Mayor /1lme5 (MaaniIlan, London; 1913) .
,100; Metzger Commmfllry 681; M. Dibelius and H. Greeven Tllmes ~ . '
NOTEs TOPAGES-131-137,
tr., Formss, Philadelphia, 1976) 158 n. 50; P. Davids The Epistle of James
(Paternoster; Exeter, 1982) 125.
/154 E.g. Acts of Philip 132 (R. A. Lipsius and M. Bonnets AetQ
Apostolorum'Apocrypha 2 (Leipzig) 63). '
155 Prayer of Manasseh 4; Josephus BJ 5: 438.
156 E.g., Justin Dial. 49: 8; Test. Abr. (A) 9, 16.
,157 Cf. e.g. Leiden MagicalPapyrus J384 (v) (= PGM 12): 239f'Lord,
'/ whose t name is ineffable, and at the sound of which the demons
~ are terrified'. Further see Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker lniam;
more widely see Liddell &: Scott Lexicon.
158 E.g. PGM IV: 3023, 3027, 3033-41, etc. Note the mention of it
Pharisee in 3044.
159 Dibelius &: Greeven (James 252) mistakenly call this a procedure for
exorcism. They cite Mark 6: 13 but Mark distinguish.es between exorcism
and anointing the sick with oil.
160 'The very infrequent expansion "the Lord Jesus (Christ)"(toll
kuriou Jisou [Christoul) is worl:liless' Oi6elius and Greeven fames 253
n.67. .
161 See H. Bietenhard 'onuma' Theological Dictiorulryofthe New Testlunelrt
V, 277.
162 .a., e.g. Dibelius &: Greeven James IIff; Davids James 2ff.
163 See (e.g.) Dibelius &: GreevenJames 45-50; J. D. G.. DunnUniiyaM
Diversity (SCM, London, 1977) 251; R. P. Martin 'The Life-Setting of .
Epistle of James in the Light of Jewish History' in Gary A. Tuttle (ed.)
Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1978) 97-103;
Davids James 13-16. .
164 With Iesou-occurring in PGM. IV: 3019 Gust quoted) we have
possible evidence that even pagan Jewish exorcists used the name of
Jesus. ,
. 165 Contrast the probable situation in the Pauline Church (1 Cor. 12: 9,
28, 30), See Dibelius &: Greeven James 252.
Chapter V
1 'Exorcism: A Clinical/pastoral ,practice which raises serious ques
tions' Expositury Times 86 (1974-5) 293. . .
2 From Carl Richardson Exorcism: New Testament Style! (Spire, Old
Tappan, 1974) 107f.
3 Bultmann's Ul\derstanding of myth here is that of C. -G; Heyne's. See
James D. G. Dunn 'Demythologizing - The Problemof Mythmthe New
Testament' in Marshall (ed.) Interpretation esp. 286 and 295.
4 R. BuItmann 'New Testament and Mythology' in Kerygma and Myth
(ed.) H. W. Bartsch (Eng. tr., SPCK, London, 1953) 1.
S Bultmanri in Kerygma 4. .
-.
6 Ibid. (his emphasis). Cf. Frances YOWlg in The Myth of God IrdrMte
(ed.) John Hick ~ ~ London, 1977) 31.
. 7 Cremion andfhe WorM of Science (CIarendon, Oxford, 19'79) 123.
(
NOTIlS TO PAoGBS 137...142
8 TIIe Use IDfdAbuse of the Bibk (SPCK, Lond.on, 1978). The book is, in
substance, the Edward Cadbury Lectures at the University of Birming
Mm,19'71.
Use tmd Abuse 116f; d. Wilson Exposirory Times 86 (1974-5) 292. See
UIo M. F. Wiles The RemII1cing ofChristitm Doctrine (SCM, London, 1914)
and essays in Hick (00.) Myth.
10Use tmd Abuse 1. .
11 . The PItmomenon of Religion (Macmillan, London, 1973) 147.
. 12.. Frazer quotedbyJ. Macquarrie Principlts ofChristian Theology (SCM,
London, 19'1'7) 238. '
13 In krygnul6.
14 Further on Bultmann onmanin the NewTestament see his Primitive
CItristiImity(Eng. tr., CollinslFontana, London, 214ft.
15 . Bultmannin Kerygmil6.
16 Expository Times 86 (1914-5) 292.
17 Letter, Chun:h Times June 6th 1915,12.
lS Apart from Nineham's views which we have mentioned, see also
George Steiner After Babel (Oxford University, 1975). See also n. 9 above.
. I
19 For a fuller discussion see F. G. Downing'Access toother Cultures,
Past,and PNsent (on The Myth of the CultureGap)' Modern Churchmll1l21
(1,977-8) 28-42; John Barton 'Reflectionson Cultural Relativism' Theology
12(1979) 103-9, 191-9. .
2JO . InAWernChurchmlln21 (I
A
28-42. .
21.' Iti(ed.) Myth, 31. '.
22.m.Downingin Modern Churchman 30.
23 Ibid; 31. \l:1JlCf
24, Ibid..
25 Ibid.
26 Quoted more fully, p. 46 above.
'Zl. Cf; Herodotus Hiltory 2: 173; 6: 84 and Hippoaates On the 5tIcretI
DiselIse as examples from antiquity of discernment on the causes of
diseases being, at times, other than by demons.
28 Barton in Theology 82 (1979) 195.
29 InModnn Clnurhmmt 21 (1977-8) 381. .
30 His most important works were The Essence ofChristilmity (1841); The
&renaof Religitm (1845) and Lerhtres on the Essenaof Religion (1851).
31 Note his The Origin of SpeCies (1859) and the Descent ofMtm (1871).
32 See e.g. the collection K. Marx and F. Engels On Religion.(Progress
/ '
Publishers, Moscow, 1957). . .
.'33 See-especially 'Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices' (1901) in
CiDmplete PsydwlogiaU Works (Standard Edition) Vol. IX (Hogarth
London, 1951). .
34' 'Theses on Feuerbach' in On Religion 64.'
3$- Leslie D. Weatherhead Psychology, Religion and HtlIling (Hodder and
Stoudtton, London.1955)96. '. . . .
36 J am not, here, accusing scholars of using
"
':....
,
, .'
NOTES To PAGBS 142-1'5
egories to pass judgment on the first century. See Bartonin ThJIDg!J 82 .
(1979) 103-9, 191-9. Rather, I am questioning the adequacy of the
prevailing twentieth-eentury world-view in describing and understanct:.
ing twentieth-eentury man's experience of his world.
37 On 'secularization' seee.g. B. R. Wilson Religion in Su1Iu Soddy: A
Sociological Comment (Watts, LOndon, 1966) bibliography 237f; D. Martin
'1lte Religious and the Secu1Ilr: Studies in Seculariz4timi (Routledge at Kegart
Paul, London, 1969) and A General Theory of Secu1ilrizlltion (Blackwell,
~ r d , 1m); A. Greeley U7I8tCJllllr MdiI(Schocken BoOks,New York,
1972) arid TIre Persistence of Religion (SCM, London, 1973); R. Fenn A
TIrmry of Secuhuization Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Mono
graphs, No.1, 1978; S. S. Acquaviva TIle Decline of the Sllcred in bublstritll _
Society (BJackwelt Oxford, 1979).
38 Peter Berger A Rumour of Angels (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1970)
~
3IJ Berger Angels 18. On Berser see E. L. MascaU The Openness of Being
(OLT, London, 1971) Appendix Two. '
40 Berger Angels 34. .
41 Ibid. 39. .
42 Ibid. At. this point in a footnote Berger draws attention to Louis
Pauwels and Jacques Bergier The Morning of the Mtlgicitlns (Stein &i Oily> .
New York, 1964).. - . . .
43 Ibid. to from David Martin A SociDlogy of English Religion (SCM,
London, 1967).- Berger's other evidence is from Rose Goldsten (el at)
WhIIt College Students Think (Nostrand, Princeton, 1960) and a poll.
-oonducted for Der Spiegel (21: 52; 18 December, 196?).
44 Berger Angels 40.
45 Ibid. 70.
'46 Ibid.
47 Eric VOegelin Order and Histury (Bartoo Rouge, Louisiana State
. University Press, 1956), Vol. I ('Israel and Revelation'), ix. in Berser
Allgels71.
48 Berger Angels 71.
- 49 BergerAngels 76, citingJohan Huizinga Homo Luthns - A Stwlyoflht
P1Jlij f1eMentjJl CliltJIre (Beacon, BOston, 1955).
- 50 Berger Angels 79.
51 Ibid. 84.
52 Ibid. 90.
53 Ibid. 93. _
54 Alister C. Hardy The Dmine Flame"(CoUins, Glasgow, 1966); 1JR
Biology of GOd Uonathan Cape, London 1975); The SpirihMd NIdure of
Ma (Clarendon :PreM, Oxfotd, 1979). _ _
55 David Hay Erploring Inner Space (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1982).
56 lllki. tW. ' .
57 Reseatdl in tI;\e United States yields results. Ibid. 119.
58 1bMi.C3\ap.9. .
"'!.
NOTES TO PAGES 145--149
116
59 Ibid. 146.
60 'Ibid. 143.
61 Ibi<t,
62 Ibid. 211.
63 Even Downing does not deny this, see Modern Churclmuln 21 (1977
8)28-42.
tit a. Tillich's theological programme in SystematkThiology I (Eng. tr.,
Nisbet, London, 1953) Introduction.
65 M. F\ Unger Demons in the World Today (fyndale, Wheaton, 1971) 8;
d. 9, 13, etc.
66 Green DownfaU 23.
67 Ibid. This book also contains such extraordinary statements as 'I
. 'believt! the Christian doctrines of God, of man and of, salvation are
utterly untenable without the existence of Satan' (p. 20); ' ... if any
subject is taught with clarity and persistence throughout the Bible and
" .
supremely in the New Testament it is the existence of a personalized
source of evil, Satan or the devil' (p. 25f). See the review of Green by
Edward Ball in Theologiall Renewal 19(1981) 356.
68 Believe it or Not (Mowbray, Oxford, 1977) 97, d. viii and 91..
,(JJ See TiUich Systematk I, Introduction.
70 'Qte attempt by Hendrikus Berkhof ('Science and the Biblical World
View' in Ian G. Barbour (00.) Science and Religion: New on the
,Dialogue London, 1968) 43-53) to show 'that the distance between
the biblical and the modem world-vieW is far smaller than is often
supposed' (p. 51) by pointing to such generalisations as !both Israel and
modem science have a radically historicizedconception of creation and
nature' (p. 52) is to miss, almost entirely, the distance between the first
and twentieth centuries as well as the complexity and depth of the
problem. .'
.71, G. Ebeling God and Word (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1967) 3 in A. C.
Thiselton 'The New Hermeneutic' in Marshall (ed.) Interpretation 309.
- .
12 W. Pannenberg BasicQuestions in Theology I (Eng. tr., SCM, London,
'1970)9.
73 G.Ebeling 'Time and Word' in}. M. Robinson (ed.) The Future of our
Religious Past: Essays in Honour ofRwlolf Bultmann (SCM, London, 1971)
265, in Thiselton in Marshall (ed.) Interpretation 309, his emphasis. . .
74 Macquarrie Principles 238.
75 Ibid. 262...,
16 Macquarrie acknowledges his dependence on TOOch for his ter
miriology, Ibid. 319.
'l'l 'Ibid. 319. Cf. 325ff.
78 See the helpful summary of Paul on (principalities and powerS' in
Caird Paw's Lettmfrom Prison 39. . . .
79:' CE. James D. G. Dunn and Graham H. Twelttree 'Demon
Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament' Churchman 94(1980)
2Z2f.
NO'I1lS To PAGES 149-1Si
2U
80 Systematic H, 145.
81 Ibid. 79.
- 82 Ibid. 89.
83 Ibid. 193. .
84 Ibid. 126f.
85 Ibid. 125f.
86 See his biography of Tillich Paulus: Reminiscences of a Friendship
(COllins, London, 1974). .
tr1 Ltme III'Ul Will (Souvenir, London, 1969)' 123n. Subsequent page
- numbers in brackets refer to pages in lmJe rmd Wiu.
88 May is heavily dependent upon E. R. Dodds The Greels lind tItf
IrrtJtionll1 (Cambridge University, 1951). . .
8'J Cf. Jan Ehrenwald 'Possession Delusion ShaJed.and
Compounded' Journal of the American Aaulemy of Psyc:Jwtmtzlysis 3 (19'15)
105-19. .
90 Inthis section Iam indebted to Kurt E. Koch ChristiIm Counselling_
0cr:Idlism (19'72, Eng. tr., Ev. Verlag,. Berghauaen. 1972).. .
91 T. Brugach LehrbNch den innem Medizin (Urbanund Schwarzenbe1lJ,.
Berlin, Vienna, 1941) 1,117. .
92 Ibid. I, 378.
930. an example given in Koch CounselliNg 204.
91 Brugsc:hLehrbuch 1,110..
95 G. Kloos G11lndriss tier Psyc1JiIlhV und Neurologie(MWler und
- Steinicke, MUnich, 1951) 259. . '. '. .
96 Ibid. 401. .
W IkUgsch Lehrb1u:h I. 118.
98 Ibid. 624.
99 Ibid. 523, 557, 574.
-.
100 (Eng.tr., Kegan Trench, Trubner, London, 1930) 378.
101 Koch Counselling 218. Cf. I. M. Lewis F.t:stIItic Religion: Anfln..
.pologiad Study .of Spirit Possession and .SNunImism" (penguin,
Harmondsworth, .971) 25.'
102 'The Culture-bound Reactive Syndromes' in W. Cardin and
Tsung-yi Un(eds.) Mental Heldth ReseJJrch in Asill and the Pacific (East-West
Center, Honolulu, 1969) 33--55. O. G..Obeyesekere 'The Idiom of
PO&lJeJSion' SociJll Scienceflnd Medicine .. (1970) 97-111.
103 Koch Counselling 230f. .
U)4 Ibid. 23U. .
1m K. Schmeing Drzszweite Gesidtt in .NiederdeutschlRnd. Wesm uflfl .
W/Ihrlreitsge1Ul1t (Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, 1937) 117; J. B. Rhine TIw
Reflchof the Mind (penguin, Harmondsworth, 1954) 106; also H. Bendei
PsydtiM:he. AutOlNlUsmen O. A. Barth, Leipzig, 1936) p. V in Koch .COfIll
selling 231.
106 M. and W. Prince DieSptlltung tier PersOnlidtkeit (I<ohI.hammer,.
Stuttprt, 1932) 28. .'. . . . .
10'7 Koch Counselling 232. In a footnote Koch says 'Sadly one is alWay.
- , ..-. ---.- ,-_...
212 NOTES TO PAGES 15'-:159
( coming across Christian workers who get involved in such practices.
When the Psychologist Prof. Bender expressly warns against it ..' . the
theologian should take heed' (p. 232 n. 395).
108 Oesterreich Possession 389.
109 Koch.Counselling 218.
110 Ibid. 202.
111 Ibid.
112 Ergebnisse okkulter Forschung (Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart,
1950) 194; d. 31, 173, 185, 193. .
113 Fanny Moser Spuk: lrrglaube oder Wahrglaube? Eine Frage tIer
Mtnschhtit (Gyr-Verlag, Baden beiZUrich,1950) 342; in Koch Counselling
241 and nn. 449f. ' ,
114 R. Kenneth MeAD 'The Ministry of Deliverance' Erpository Times 86
(1974-5) 297.
115' Ibid.
116 For anthropolOgical studies on possession see J. Middleton (ed.)
Witchcraft tmd CUring (Natural History Press, New York, 1967) see
bibliography; Ari Kiev (ed.) MJJgic, Faith tmdHt4ling: Studies in Primitive
. ' PsychiIItry Todily (MaaniUan, London, 1964). '
'. 117 Varieties ofMystk Experience (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York
t
1964) 7f as summarised by Lewis Ecstlltk 24; d. R. C. Zaehner Mysticism,
511cred lind Proftme (Clarendon, Oxford, 1957).
118 foumtll Roytd Anthropo/ogiall Institute 76 (1946) 25-37,with
plates" '
119 Ibid. 36.
120 S. M. Shirokogoroff, A. F. Anisimov, Jane Murphy, G. Bateson
and M.:Mead, P. M. van Wulfften Palthc, A. Audrey Butt and
S. WaveD and Nina Upton, E. Stanbrook, aU cited by Lewis Ecstatic 1821.
121 EcstIItic 183f. . . ' .
122 L. MaSc:alI The Christian UniTJme (OLT, London, 19(6) Ill, my
emphasis. a. Cardinal Leon-Joseph Suenens Renewrli and the Powers of
'Darlmess (Eng. tr., OLT, London, 1983), 'Ambiguity is a diStinctive
leature of the demonic phenomenon ...' p. xi.
g: from MascaU Universe 123.
125 The term 'theodicy'w:as coined by G. W. LeibnizTModicy: Essays
em the Goodness of God the Freedom of Man and the. Origin of Evil (Eng. tr.,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1952). Also see Alvin Plantinga
, God, Freedom and Eurl (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1975) Chap. 2;
John Ride Evil and the God of Love (Macmillan, London, 197J2).
126 Church Times June 6th, 1975, p: 12.
127 Graham Dow 'The Case for the Existence of DemGns' ChuTdt_n 94
(1980) 205. ,
128 Universe 118.
129 Ibid. 118f.
\ 130 ChurchrtuJn 94 (1940) 205.
......
---;-_._..
.: : ,
NOTES TO PAGES 159-163
213
131 Hick Evil, Chap. n.
132 Churd",um 94(1980) 205.
133 Ibid.
134 C( E. L. Mascall Christian Theology and Natural Science (Longma,ls,
London, 1957) 302. Cf. 125 above. .
135 Macquarrie Principles 222ff.
136 Summa contra Gentiles, ill, 21 in Macquarrie Principles 225. I cannot
resist drawing attention here to the view of creation expressed by Plato:
Let me tell you .then the creafur made this world of generation.
He was good, and the good can never have anyjealousy of anything.
And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as
like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of
creation and of the world: God desired that all things should be good .
and nothingbad, so far as this was attainable (Timaeus, quoted by
J Macquarrie Principles 226). I
137 Idon't want to speculate too much but, d. Mascall Science,who is
suggestive here; .
. . . while, so far as we know, the first human sin marked the first
rebellion against God tIUlt originated within the material world - the
first occasion onwhich a material creaturecontravened the will Of God
by its own choice - it did not mark the first rebeUion against God
.within the who.lecreated order. Angels - pure spirits had sinneci
before mao; and although man was perfectly free not to sin, his own
sin was provoked by suggestions from the faDen spiritual realm. And
the result of angelic sin may weD have been to introduce into the
material realm a disorder which has manifested itself in a distortion of
. the evolutionary plan (p. 301).
In this discussion Mascall draws attention to Dom llityd Trethowan A"
Essay in Christian Philosophy (Longmans, London, 1954). .
138 M. Shmaus God and CrestWn (Sheed and Ward, London, 1981) 218.
139 Mascall Science 302. '
140 . C. A. Campbell On Selflrood and Godhood (GeorgeAlleri and Unwin,
I"ondon, 1957) 291. .
141 Ibid. .
142 R. Swinburne, The ExiStence of God (Clarendon, Oxford, 1979) 202.
e.s. A. E., Taylor 'The Vindication of Religion' in Essays Cat1rol.ic
and Critiall (ed.) E. G. Selwyn (SPCK, London, 1926) 29-81; E. L. Mascal.1
He Who Is (Longmans, London, 1943); H. D. Lewis Our ExperienaofGod
<Georse Allen Ir: Unwin, London, 1959); Macquarrie Principles and - r
. Michael Cou1der and John Hick Why Belieue in God? (SCM,, London,
1983). '.
214
i
,v...
NOTESTOPAGIlsl63-175
144 In A. R. Peacocke (ed.) The Scienas and Theology in the TWCltietb
Century (Oriel, Stockfield, 1981) 182. The paper is a shortened revision of
Chapter 13 in his Existence.
145 SeeR. M. ChisoJmPerception(Ithaca, New York, 1977) Chap. 4.
146 Swinburne in Peacocke (ed.) Sciences 182.
147 Existence 272i d. Swinbt1rne in Peacocke (ed.) Sciences
186. .
148 in Peacocke (ed.) Sciences 186.
149 Macquarrie Principles 238 where he is listing what truths about evil
in a mythological way in antiquity.
150, Koch Counselling.
151 Richards But DeliTJeT.
152 . The results are found in Exorcism (ed.) Dom Robert Peti.tpierre
(SPCK, London, 1972). See also Petitpierre Exorcising DeVils (Hale,
.London, 1976) and R. K. McAll 'Demonosis or the Possession Syn
drome' International Journal of Social Psychiatry 17 (1971) 150-8 and notes.
153 ht Mascall Universe 114.
154 Richards But DeliTJeT 147. For further stories see also R. Mackamess
'Qoi:ultism and Psychiatry' The Prmitioner 212 (No. 1269, 1974) 363-6.
. 155 200.
156 Ibid. For other reports of superhuman abilities' see Richards But
Deliver 140, 149.
157 A present-day example is given in Richards But DeliDer 140.
158 .' For contemporary examples see Richards But Deliver 140, 1'-5. 150.
See also l,labove. . . .
i59' For a discussion of contempOrary 'discernment' as to the cause of
iIIles8 see I'll. 179ft. above, also'McAllin Times 84(1975) 293
and Richards But Deliver Chap.S pp. 124-36..
160 Cf. Dow in ChurcJmuzn 94 (1980) 202.
,161 Cf. 'Maybe the eruption of devil-cu1ts in the West is an indication of
the failuJe of what followed the Erilightenment to come to terms with the .
wbole of man's experience' Bernard H. Sharp, letters to the editor
. TIteolosY 76 (1973) 430f.
162 .Suenens Renewal 95.
Chapter VI .
1- The Secular City (SCM, LoI)don, 1965) 149; d. Suenens Renewal 3. .
2 E. Brunner Man in Revolt (Eng. tr., Lutterworth, London, 1939) 494.
3 W. Foerster 'daimon' in Theological Didionary of the New Testament n,
18. ' ,'. .' .
4 ! ... The realm of principalities anddemonsis of interestto the New
only because they must be resisted and the world protected
from them', SchlierPrincipalities.l4.. . '.'
5. Ci. 'Deliver Us From Evil'; General Audience of Pope Paul VI,
November 15th, 1972. Reported in L'Osservatore Romarw, November 23,
1972. Quoted in MacNutt J:lel'ling 213.
" .-
NbTBS TO PACES 176-181
6 See Richards But DelitJeT; Richards Exorcism; (ed.) ExorciMrr;
Harper . '.
. 7 Cf. Suenens Renewal 33 - 'We too readily imagine that the Devil's ...
action is always of a sensational nature. In fad, his conspicuous
terventions are exceptional. And precisely because his action is invisible
and subtle, it is all the more perverse .
8 MacNuttHealing 217. See also Harper Warfare 119. .
9 The distinction is made by e.g. Richards Exorcism 12; C. Neil-Smith
The Exorcist and the Possessed aames Pike, St Ives, 1974) 47f; Harper
Warfare Chap. 11; Richards But Delim'Chap. 5. goes so far as to
distinguish between demonic influence; demonic oppression; demonic
IlfftIdand demonic mediumship or (Ibid. 911). See also James.
McManus The Ministry Of Delfr1errmce in the CIltholic TTtldititm (National
Service Committee for Catholic CharisQlatic Renewal, London, 1980)
121.
10 NeiJ:.;SmithExorcist 48.
11 Cf. MacNutt Healing 208.
12 Richards Exorcism 12.
13 See the list in R H. Fuller Interpreting the MinJdes (SCM, London,
1963)127. "
14 Glnud"rum 223.
15 See, e.g., Koch Cmmselling 305; Richards But Delioer 156ft; and
MacNutt Httlling 216ft who isparticuJarly helpful In an 1mcritieal and
goener.illy Wlhelpful article William Berends ('The Biblical Criteria for
Demon-Possession' Watminstef' T1ftJologiallJOIlnW 37 (19'75) 312-65)
criticises 1l\00ern authors for mo'Ving outside the New Testament"for .
aiterla for demon-possession. However it is not possible to ignoI'e the /
advances of modern medical science and observations from pastoral
situations.
16 $eeRich8rds But Delim' 156.
17 See also Theodore Bonet Th4t They MJry Have Life; R. K. MeAD
'Demonosis or the Possession Syndrom,e' Internationlll /Durnil' of SociAl
PsychiRtry Vol. 17; John Nevius Demon Possession; Oesterreich PossessioIa;
all cited by Richards But Deliver 156, who makes the same point.
18 See RiChards But Deliver 156.
19' See further Dunn Jesus 233-6.
20 MacNutt Herlling218.
21 Cf. Ibid.
22 Ibid, his emphasis. . .'
23 More fully on this passage see the commentaries by C. K. BarrettTIle
EpiStle to the Romans (Black. London, 1971) 230ft and C. E. B.'Cranfielcl
Romans 2 Vola. (T. &t T. Oark, Edinburgh, 19'75 & 1979) It .595ft; on
do#.imJUiJ and its range of meanings see W. Grundmarm 'dolcimos ...'
JlJroIogiaJl DicI:Umoryof tM New Test.mmt U, 25.5-60.
24 Rom0IsJI, fJf7.
25 Ibid. 608. .
"i,
182-189 216
26 Further C. K. Barrett The First Epistle to.the Corinthians (Black,
Loadon, 1971) 277-86and Dunn Jesus 233-6.
21' Cf. 33.
28 (ed.) Exorcism 20.
29 HetUing 224. , ..,,
30 On the Lord's Prayer'see J. Jeremias The Prayers of Jesus (Eng. tr.,
SCM, London, note 82-5 and 104-7. The Lord's Prayer is used in
uorcismby(e.g.) McAll ErpositoryTimes 86 (1974-5) 296 and Petitpierre
Exorcising 31, 53. .' '
. See PetitpieiTe ExOrcising 15, 29, 72, 81, 87, 92; R. East the Side
& Stoughton, London, 1977) '\
32 Suenetls Renewal 11, d, 26
. 33. ,0. James D. G. Dunn (Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SCM, London,
1970 who says in his conclusion:
1 must confess to being completely unmoved by any appeal to 'the
sacramental principle', or 'iricarnational basis to sacramental teach
ing' (e.g. Wotherspoon, Sacraments 1-30). We have seen dearly
enough that Hebraic thought and NT writers like Luke, Paul and the
author of Hebrews knew well how to distinguish and contrast inward
. and outward., spiritual and physical. Itis true, of course, that God came
to men in and through physical, material, human flesh inJesus, but it
is perilous to draw fiom this a general principle which can applied
fosthwith to the sacraments. Ratiter our study of the relevant NT
'passages shows that for those authors the divine instrument in the
divine-human encounter is the Spirit and,. or through, the Word,
while the corresponding human instrument is faith and, or through,
baptism (p. 228).
The complete prayer can be found iri Petitpierre (ed.) Exorcism 45.
35 Quoted in Ibid. Cf. MacNutt Hetlling 218f.
36 Wtnfrwe 151.
:J1 Ibid. '
38 See Chapter IV note 115 above..
39 Cf. McManus Deliverance 26.
40 E.g. Suenens Renewal 97, '1 believe that it is of the utmost importance
to reserve to the bishop or his mandatary every fann of exorcism that
seeks to identify the Devil or the devils .. .' d. 74. Also McManus
1Je1im'ance 16.
41 (ed.) ExOrcism 26.
42 The Report han note here to Matthew 12: 44-5.
43 Petitpierre (ed.) Exorcism21.
. 44 So also Simon Tugwell Did You Receive the Spirit? (DLT, London,
, 19'15) 111. However Tugwell distinguishes between 'fully-fledged' ex
orcism which,is reserved to the discretion of the bishops and 'unofficial'
exorcism which is withiri the competence of any Christian. Cf. Harper
217
- --_.
"
NOTES TO PAGES 189-193
Warfare, 1t is a great pity that the ministry of exorcism has ever been tied
downby Church authority, for in the New Testament it is undoubtablya
ministry which is potentially available to every Christian' (p. 72). .
45 An alternative put by Marshall Luke 479, following Lagrange and
Schulz.
46 On the authenticity of the parable see Jeremias Parables 197.
47 Trevor Ling TheSignijialnce of Satan (SPCK, London, 1961) 19. '
48 McAD EXpository Times 86 (1974-5) 298.
49 It is, of course, not possibleto say just how much that involvement
will be. However it is interesting to note that MeAD(Ibid. 296) says that of
all the people that come to see him as a psychiatrist, only 4 per cent 'have
had to be involved in the ministry of exorcism' .
50 See e.g. Mettopolitan Anthony (Archbishop Bloom) Living Prtryei
(UbralDLT, London, 1966) Chap. V; MacNutt Healing Chap. 18; Michael
Baughen The Prayer Principle (Mowbray, Oxford, 1981) esp. Chap. 1.
,
.,"f. -'-=-=---.. ~ ~ . _ , . -
, )
"
INDEX OF ,SELECT SUBJECTS'
Aaron, 62"
Ablanath8naIba, 42
Abraham, 32, 43, 52, 68, 69
Abrasax,42
Abyss, 66, 82, 102
Acts of the Apostles, 21
'we' passages, 93
'Adjure', 43, 60, 61, 65, 70,104,
126.
AeshtrJll-dileve, 28
After-eare, 189
Agrath, Queen of demons, 50
Amulet, 40, 42,53,65,68,114,
131
Angels, 161, 162
Apocrypha, 22
Apollo, 112
Apollonius of Tyana, 47-9, 52,
68,69,70
Asmodeus,28, 29, 66
Azazel, 22, 26, 27, 28, 75, 82
Baptist, John the, 77f, 95, 97, 98,
100,120 '"
Bamsley Case, 11f, 13, 16,158,
175
Beelzebul, 72f, 74, 76, 125
controversy, 56, 57, 79, 82, 95,
98, 104, 118f, 190 '
'Being', 160
Bible, use of, 147f, 169
Capernaum, Synagogue
demoniac, 57,58; 60, 95, 180 '
Celsus, 72, 206n.139
Christology, 84, 98
Church
authority of, 184
as a boat, 119
of England, 12
Methodist, 12, 14f
Roman Catholic, 143
of Scotland, 15f
uniting, in Australia, 1940.5
Church Tirrres (London), 13, 158
Oothing,97, 113, 114
Correspondence, Principle of, 168
Credulity, Principle of, 1631
Cross, 91, 133
Cultural GaplRelativism, 136-46
Cyprian, 76
Daniel, 28
David, 24, 36, 38, 52
Death, defeat of, 91
Deliverance, 177
Demonic, 104, 119, 149, 173
scope of, 176
Demonology
01 New Testament, 53
of Old Testament, 22-5
twentieth-century, 174-8
Demons (see also Evil Spirits)
adjure/binding, 61, 66, 68,70
defeat/control, 23ff, 31, 65, 66,
105
existence, 37, 44, 53, 147, ,
157-69
confrontation with exorcist,
49, 59, 60, 63. 117f, 1.22, 180
and foreign gods, 23, 91
.habitat, 49, 65, 66, 67, 68, 102, .
105
homeless, 65
messianic confession, 6O-J
multiform, 65 .;......
Demons - cont.
.-tore and work. IS, 26,34,
36, 37, 44, 45, 48, 53, 71, 156f,
168, 170, 186, 188
oript, IS, 34, 44, 45, 53
r;ad leniency, 28, 30t 66, 70,
prophesying, 112 '
protection from, 49, 65,110
put spell on Jesus, 102, lot
return of, 34, 48, 65, 82, 117
seIf-defence,60-'3, lot
66, 86, 117f.
vioJenCeof, 58, 59, 67, 70, 71,
,86, 101, 168
vocaJising distress, 47, 59, 64,
70, 71,101
voices of, 49, 168, 180
words of, 60-3
worshipping Jesus, 59
Demyt:holOgisin 149, 169
Deplcssion, 154
Diupora,21
Did8Che,206I\.141
DiOnysus, 89f
DiKemment, 18Off, 186
pit 188 '
, DItdpIes
- OOIIUIUssion, SO, 83, 84, 86, 119
as exon:ists, 99, 107, 109, 118,
119 '
failure as exorcists, 120, 121,
130
method of exotdsm, 109 '
miIlIion of, 82-5, 95, 99, 107
as paradigms, 116
power-authority of; 119
' '.
Divination, 112
Cola, Hanina ben, 50,.52. 69
, Dudsm, 23, 32, 53, 151
Dudael. 26, 27
East 5yriac Rite, 185
&desiasticus, 28
ECl'.. 17
1bIasy,150
Egypt, 21, 23, 29,33,66, 111
Eleazar, 34, 56, 65, 67, 68
Endor, witch of, 112
Epilepsy, 155, 156, 170 .
Epileptic boy, 57,'85, 95, 101,
127, 129, 180
Eschatology, 99
and defeat of demons, 66, 81
and exorcism, 86,99,102,126,
134 ' ,
Eschatological events, 78, 108,
124, 125, 129
EscIuiton, 108

Esther, 28, 32
Ethiopic Enoch, 25-8, 30, 53
EvangeHsm, 92
Evil
defeat of, 53
and evil spirits, 156
moral, 157
natural, 156
origin, 26, 158f, 170 ,
problem of, 146, 158
Exorcism,
.. confrontation with the
divine, 182-6, 191
dangerous, 187f "
as defeat of Satan, 119, 121,
125, 129, 133, 134
defined, 11, 182-6, 191'
at a distance, 48, .49, 118
and eschatolOgy, 102
and hea1ing, 104
minorlmaj(Jr, 177
and mission, 87f
need' for, 179-82
of places, 175f .
proof of, 34, 35, 47f, 67, -68, i'D,
86
technique, 77, 182-7
Exorcism cases, lot, 46, 136, J66f '
Exorcist, 29, 31, 39, 41, 43, 46,52,
53,54 .
charismatic, 46, 52, 69 .
credentials, 181, 187ff, 19lf.
221
\
INDEXOJl SllUlC'l' SU'i}i!cTs
'tedtnique,51,53,54
wandering, 11l-16, 128f, 131
words of, 6l-6
Experience
of conversion, 145
of evil powers, 145f, 173
of God, 145
of a presence, 145
of the presence of the dead,
145
Faith, 106, 120, 121, 122, 130, 131,
134
Fear and amazement, 72f, 86
Fever, 101, 102, 133
Fish, 28
Fortune-teller, 143
Gadarene demoniac, 51,59, 60,
11, 95, 102, 105, 120, 124, 126,
180
Genesis Apocryphon, see
Qumran
Ghosts, 143
, Gifts, 92
Goat idols, 23
God
as power-authority for
exorcism, 131
finger of, 69, 70, 79, 100, 104
band of, 195n.16
Hands, laying-on-of, 33, 113, 120
Hasidim; 62
Hauntings, 115f '
Healing, l1Of, 112, 120
at a distance, 89
Hellenism, 20
Hermeneutics, 9
'History' of power-authority, 31,
38
Holy individual, 30, 31, 35,36,
, 52, 60, 61, 62, 69, i'9
Hope, 144
Hyrcanus, John, 21
Hysteria-epi1epsy,28
I, emphatic, 70, 11, 19, 86
Incantations, 30, 31, 34,35, 36,
40, 43,45, 46, 52, 53, 64, 66,
68, 69, 70, 11, 131, 183, 186,187
Incense, 28, '29, 53, 68
Jesus
as exorcist, 55, 86
Holy One of God, 62
. Holy Servant of God, 110, .
incantations, use of, 70, 86 '
Lord, 96, 100, 121
mad and demon-possessed,
73,16,86
magician, 63', 66, 70, 71., 15-1,
86
Messiah, 62, 14, 86, 96; W, 123,
124
name, 56, 51, 69,131
of Nazareth, 62, 98, 100
as pattern, 961, 100, 103, 106,
109,122, 133
power-authority, 73, 77, 79,86,
Wf, 185, 191 " ,',
prophet, 96
a Samaritan, 16
Saviour, 96
Son of David, 14, 124, 126, 121
, Son of God, 59, 63, 14, 96, W,
111, 125, 126, 121
techniques as exorcist, 51-71.,
86, 103, 104, 111, 118, 127
Jews as exorcists, 34f '
. Johannine literature, 20
John, Gospel of, 88-90, 118
John, First letter, 180
Jonah, 28
J o ~ u S , 24,34-1, 38, 52, 53, 65,
114,169 . '
Jubilees, 30, 52, 53
Judgment, final, 85, 81, 102, 1M,
185f
Kingdom of God, 19, 82, 84, 85;
86, 87, 90, 92, W, 98, 100, 104,
101, 116, 111, 12Of, 125, 126,;

./
. I
.' .. ' ..
Kingtlom of God -Coni.

129 (of heaven), 131, 134, 189, . 101, 115, 117,128, 131, 132, 185
190 Noah, 26, 30, 31, 52, 53
Legion, 65 Obsession, demonic, 53
g, 109 Occult, 137, 153, 154 Liabtnin.
Lilith, 23 Oil, 42, 53, 132 .
Lord's Prayer, 216n.30 Old Testament, 22-5
use in exorcism, 19, 184, 186 hopes for new age, 124
Lucian of Samosata, 43-6, 53, . Oppression, demonic, 177
68, 169, Origen, 206n.139
Luke, 21, 95-116 Ouija board, 154
. Madness, 37 Palindromes, 42
MagicIMagidan, 20, 39, SOf, 54, Papryi, 21, 43, 207n.157 (see also
. 64, 65, 66, 70, 75-7, 109, 175 Magical Papyri) . .
MitP:a1 Papyri, 31, 35, 3'J-43, 52, Parables, 119 '
53, 51, 61, '62, 63, 64, 68, 69, 70, of the Net, 80, 81, 106
103, 1961\.18 of Ute Returning Spirits, 82,
Mark, 37, 55, 116-22 175, 189f.. .
cIiIciples in, 1161 of the Sheep and Goats, SO, 81
di8dpleship; 59, 118-22 of the Strong Man, 79, 82, 10l,
,. eliding, 119, 175
Yutema, 30 of the Ten Maidens, 124
Mechanical aids, 35, 42, 53, 68, of the Wheat and the Weeds.
fiJ, 70, 71 SO, 81, 106, 125
Medicine, 11, 15, 17, 152, 169 Parallelism in Luke, 107
ancient, 68 ' Panrpsycholegy, 154
. 'and deinon-pOsseseion, Parousia, 106
Messiah. 52, 54, 64, 79 Pan:Jxysmal cOnditions, 152
as exorcist, 72, 74f Pastoral experience of exoidsm,
Michael, Xl 165-70, 173, 175, 176
Miracles, 77,89, 100, 1U, 114, Pastorals, The, 20
115, 120, 124, 141, 169 Paul, 21, 90-4

Miracle-worker, life-style, 77 thorn in the flesh, 91
41, 108 Perceptual claims, 164, 170
Mission, motivation for, 118 Persia, 28, 32
Most High God, 33, 63, 94 Peter, Epistles of, 20
J::::i. son of, 60, 63; 7.4, 126 PhiIoofAleJcandria, 22, 34,3'1,
, 24. ,36, 38, 53 . 38, 53, 141, 169 .
trumpets, 68 . . PhiJoebatus, FJiwJw
Mystical experience testing, 155 (see Apollonius ofTyana)
t.tythImythoJogy, 136, 150 - PhyladOry, 40, 131 '
Pigs, 66, 67, 68, 73, 86,
Name, use of, 35, 52, 58; 61, 62, Plato, -151
"
INDEX OF 'S!LSC1' SUBJECTS
11, 15, 19,
34, 46, 53, 114, 132, 146f,
172,176
symptoms of, 46, 49, 71, 136,
168, 1'79-82
Power-authority for exorcism,
69, 70, 94, 109, 118, 119, 131,
186
for disciples, 120
Prayer, 96, 110, 132, 184, 186,
192
in exorcism, 29, 31, 33, 69, 70,
86,121
Prayer Book of Edward VI, First,
184
Powers"91,
133, 149, 176, 192, 2Hfu.78
Prophecy, gift of, 182
Prophet
false, 76, 115, 128, 131, 134
Christian, 180
. Psalms, 36, 38,39
. Pseudepigrapha, 22, 25, 30
(LAB), 24, 38, 41,
52, 53, 195n.17
Psychology, 14, 143, 169
Psychic research, 15
Psychiatry, 17
Psychotherapy, 151
Pythonianspirit, 112
0, 56, 74, 78, 83, 100, 118
Quadratus, 51
Qumran and Documents, 22, 26,
31-4,53,69, 103, 152
Rabbinic material,49f, 52,
196n.25
Rabbis,49f, 57, 64, 68; 69, 70
Raphael, 26, 28, 29,82
Reformation, 13
Religious experience, 142, 145,
162-70
, (su also Experience)
Ring (finger), 34, 35,46, 53, 68 '
Roman Ritual, The, 185
Roots, 26, 34, 35, 53 '
Rue, 35
Ruth, 28
Sacraments, 15, 19, 184, 216n.33
1 Samuel, 152
Sarah, 28, 32, 33
Satan, 23, 76, 104, 119, 125, 137,
159, 192, 195n.16
cross and defeat,. 90, 92
defeat of, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33,
34, 38, 54, 75, 76, 19,. SOi, 82, .
85, 86, 87, 90, 104, 105, 106,
110, 119, 125, 131, 184, 190, 192,
193
existence, 147
falling, 85, 109
origin, 162
two--stage defeat, 82, 105, 106,
125
Satyr, 23
SauI,23, 24,36, 37,38
Sceva, Sons of, 57, 69, 113; 183,
187
Schizophrenia, 17
Science, 142
Scripture, 9, 18
(su Bible, use of)'
Secularisation, 148, 170, 173
Se'irim,23
Semyaza,26
Septuagint, 23, 104, 112
Seraphim, 23
Seventy (Two) Disciples
mission of, 95, 99, 107-10, 133 .
return of, 85, l09f
Shadow, Peter's, 97, 111
Shamanism, 155
Shb', 70
Signals of transcendence, 144
Signs, 89, 111
and wonders, 76, 92, 110
Simon's Mother-in-Law, 57, 95,
101, 103, 104
Simon the Sorcerer, 115
Siria.iticus, Codex, 80
I CHIUST 'I'UUMP'HANT
Slave Girl, 95, 112f, 133 ,
Sociology, 15
Solomon, 34,35, 36, 39,40, 52, .
54,56,69
Sonot Man. 125
Son of Peace, 84
Soothsaying, 112
SoIeriology and demonology,
174
Sounds in inc:lntations, 42, 43, .
46,68
Spirit, Holy, 22, 79, 82,92,96,
W, 98, 100, 101, 111, 114, 115,
181, 182, 189, 190, 192
88 p>Wer-..uthority, 116, 188
-eschatological, 69, 86, Wf, 125,
190,191
... J ~ ' power-authority, 69, 97,
:100, 101, 117, 119, 125, 185
Spirits of the dead, 15, 23, 34, 53
Spittle, 89
Strabo,21
saange Exorcist, 69, 85, 95,114,
115,190 .
Stones, 53 .
. Supernatural, 144
Supernaturalism, 143
Superstition, 173
'Sytophoenician Woman and
Daughter, 57, 58, 59, 122, 124,
127
..
Talmud, 49
Babylonian, 68
Targums,27
Teriulli.an, 76
Testament of Solomon,' 35, 39,
45,52,53, 196n.19
Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs, 75
Testimony, Principle of, 163
Theodicy, 23, 53, 158, 170,
212n.125
Thomas, Gospel of, 80
Times, The (London), 11f, 16f
Tobit, 28-30, 45, 53, 66
Vaticanus, Codex, 80
Ventriloquist, 112
Vowels in incantations, 42
Watchers, 26, 30
Water, 34
Witchcraft, 14
Words of exorcism,. 63-6
Yase, Rabbi Eleazar, SO, '52, 69
Yohai, Rabbi Simeon-ben, SO, 52,
69
Zakkai, Johanan ben, 49, 196n.2S
Zeus, 63
. ,.
,.,.
,... .
, .,,;;JI'

INDEX'OF BIBLICAL AND OTHER
, REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
(Denotes reference to the Septuagint)
Genals Numbers
2:18 29
11:16 108
10 99,108 20:25 ; 114
12-15 32 21:6 : 23, 2.
14:18 : 63 21:8 ; 23 .
14:18-22 63
22:7 20ln.59
15:18 '108 24:16 :63
25:2 114
"72 Delilft1momy
6:4 : 131
.... 8:15 :..23
1:5 108 18:10 201n.S9
3:2 161 18:10................................23
3:2O 100 18:11 : 112
7:4f .100 32:5 121
8:19 100 32:8 63,91
9:3 100 32:17 22,23,91
9:15 100 33:27 ,.105
23:30 105
32:32 : 110
Q;) -.
eriliCIU 13:22. 201n.59
10:26...................................22 22:24 : 61
16 27
16:5 , 27 Judges
16:6-,-10 27 16:17(8) 62
16:8 22
16:21 27 1 Samuel
.17:7 22,23 6:2 201n.59
, 19:13 112 16 24,36, 38, 53
- .19:31 1U 16:14 23, 24
..6 , 112 16:14 24
-:zO:27 112
23 .
226
...
1Samuel- cont.
16:16 ' 24
16:23 24
18:4 114
18:10 :24
19:9, 24
28:7 112
--:z8:8 ..........................20ln.59
28:8ff 23
2SuJael
22:14 63
1KiJI&s
17 ; : 60
17:18 60, 61
19:19 ; 114
, 61
22:21ff 23
2KJngs .
2:8: 114
2OIn.59
23:8 22
I CIJrolfides
10:13 112
., lCJnBs
10:15 2000.43
22:16 61
2 CIuonides
9:14 .. ,' 2000.43 1
11:15 ; 22,23
18:15 61
"33:6 112
"35:19 112

1:2 73
e.ther.
2000.43
Psalms
94
51:11 23
68:29 110
'. ..,.,:49 37
90:6 23
91 23, 195n.ll
110
91:1-,6 193
91:11 195n.l1
91:11-13 193 .
. 91:12 195n.ll
91:13 195il..11
95:5 :
91
96:5 91
104:29 :..23
105:37 23
105:37 , 91
106(105):16 62
106:37 22,91
Prove"'.
16:10 1 201ri.59
Elesiastn
4:9ff ; 2OOo.38.'
Iaiab
6:2 23
6:6 : 23
8:19 112
13:21 23
14:29 23
17:5 2000.36
18:4 2000.36
19:3 112
195n.12
24:21.. 24, 27, 53, 53
24:21ff ;91
24:22 81
27:12 : 99,108,200ri.36
29:18 124
30:6 23 .
32:3 124
34:14 23
35:5
35:5

42:5' "
42:7
41:16

43:8
"=25
53:7 :
61:1
61:1,
62:12
. 65-.3
6!Siil
65:25.
]emWJ
&12

-a6:8
51:33

12:24

-t3:23
-n:21..
2}:22
-:21:23
-:zt:29
22:27
/lb.1tbew
1;1
1:17
1.0:20
1:21
2:8.. ;
2:13
2:15

2:22 ..,
124
U4 44:19
129
: 23
DmJe}
124

124
10;6
124
10:13
124
10:20
112
12:1
108
79, 100
Hose.
124
6:11
;62
23
Joel
; 23
3:13
: 108
Amos
7:14 ;
200n.36
201n.59
Miw.
201n.59
"3:7
200n.36
-J:ll
: Win.59
ZephanUh
3:3
/" 201n.59
2Obi.59
201n.59
HasP
201n.59
2:12f
201n.59
201n.59 Zeduriah
128 10:2
NEW TESTAMENT
2;23
124 3:8
U4 3:17
: 124, 161 4:1-11
124 4:3
; 127 4:6
161 4:17
124, 205n.l25 4:24
161 4:33
: 161 6;5 :15
ZQln.59
114 .
.62
110
91
91
110
2OOn.36
99, 200n.36.
; 9
\ 201n.59

.'
128
.
114
201n.59
12.
128
205n.12S
192
205n.12S
195n.ll,2OSn.12S
129
71, 123
171
192
Matthew - cant.
6:10 126
6:12 133
7:7-11 192
7:14--21 57
7:15 128,205n.135
7:15-23 127
7:16-19 128
7:21 ~ 128
7:22 123,128, 202n.73
7:23' : 128
7:25 127
. 7'29 129
8 129
8:2 127
8:9 ; 129
8:10 206n.148
8:14 57
8:16 168
8:17 124
8:22-25 168
8:23-27 204n.105
8:28 ~ 58
8:28-32 168
8:28-34 57,123,124
8:29 ~ 58, 60, 66,
74, 125, 126,
127, 205n.125
8:31 28,66
8:33 72
8;34 ; 58, 124'
. 9: : 83, 129
9:2 206n.148
9:6 129
918 129
9:18 127
9:22 206n.148
9:27 74
9:21-34 ~ 124
9:29':: 206n.148
9';32.. 124, 168
9:32-34 55, 57, 74, 79, 123
. 9:34 74, 125
9:35 83,95
9s35ff 123
~ 1 0 : 1 6 83
9:37 108, 129
9:37 95
9:37-38 83,99'
9:37-11:1 128 .
10 , 83
10:1 83, 129'
10:lff 128
10:1-4 .................................83
10:5 201n.63
10:7 84, 129
10:7-11 83'
10:7-16 83,95,99
10:8 84, 129
10:9 129
10:11 129
10:14 83, 84, 129
10:16-23 129
10:22 : 129
10:23 129..
10:26-31 129
10:32 129
10:34--39 129
10:40 129
10:41.. 128,206n.140
10:42 129
11:2-6 71, 78, 95, 111
11:4 127
12:18.. : 125, 127
12:22 57,124
12:22 168
12:22-24 74, 124
12:22-30 55, 79, 95, 123
12:22-45 92
12:23 72,74, 124, 127
12:24 72, 74, 125
12:24-26 56
12:24-29 90,190'
12:25 82
12:28 55,56,77,79,
82, 84, 85, 90,
100 118, 125, 182
12:29 56, '79,82,125,175
12:31 125
12:31-2 56
12:33 128:
12:39 121
INDEX OF BIBUCAL AND 0THEIl IUmlltENCBS
229
.12:-43 ....... 82, 189'
12:43-45 65, 95
13:24-30 BO, 106
13:241>-26 80
13:25 110
13:30 82, 108
13:3Ob .80
. 13:36 133
13:36-43 BO, 125
13:39 108
U:4Off 125
13:47-50 BO, 106
13:58 2020.73
14:28-31 , 2060.152
205n.l25
15:21-28 57, 124
15:22 74, 124, 127
15:25 59, 127.
15:28 206n.l48
15:31 72
15:35 201n.63
16:16 205n.l25
16:17 206n.152
16:18 123
206n.lS2
16:28 : : 126
17:5 205n.I25.
17:14 127
. 17:14-21 129
127 .
17:16.; 130
b:.' 11:17.. ; ; 129, 130,2Ofn.112
\S .. ' 11:11 60,127,130
IJ,. 11:18 72, 123,'127
\. 17:19 136
17:20 ;.; 130,
18:17.. ; 123
18:18 : 206n.152
18:27 133
20-.20 127
20:29-34 124
20'.30.. ;; 74
20:31 74
2J.cl-17 124
2t:9 ;63
21:2U 206n.152
21:22 ,......... 192 .
21:23 129
21:24 129.
21:27 129
22:41--46 124
23:24 128
24:11 .. 128,205n.135
76, 115, 205n.l35
24:27 :.110
25 81
25:1 124
25:1--46 80
25:31--46 125
25:35-40 81
25:41 .81
25:42-45 J"
.25:46 81
26:63 43,61, 70, 205n.125
27:4O 205n.-I25
27:43 205n.125
27:50 133
27:54 2050.125
27:63 76
28:3 119
28:8 127
28:10 127
28:11. 121
28;18 129
28:18-20 83

1:1.. 63, 117
1:4 120
1:10 117
1:11 ; ; 63,117
1:12 117
1:12f : 2030.90
1:14 ; 117, 118,.120
1:15 84, 111 .
1:16 118 .
1:16-28 203n.90
1:17 ; 59, 116, 203ft. lOt
1:18 203n.94
1:19 20300.103,104
1:20 133, 203nn.l03,.1Gt:
1:21 116
CIIlUST TIlIUMPHANT
Mark-cont.
1:21-28 55, 57, 58, Cfl, 101,
117,123
1:22 120
1:23 59, 60, 198n.12
1:23-28 95,103
1:24 60, 61, 62, 63, 71, 117, 180
1:24 71
1:25 64,66,68,117,119,
168, 187,203n.101
1:26 67, 101, 117
1:27 ;.59, 72,73,117,118,120
1:29ff 57, 95
1:29-31..; 55,103
1:30 101
1:31 103, 113
1:32ff 117, 123, 203n.9O
1:32-34; 55, 56, Cfl
1:32-39 95
1:34 74, 117
"
1:39 55, 56.
1:40 121, 127
55
1:45 121
2:1-12 55
2:4 , 121
2:5 .l21
2:1 121
2:10 120
2:14 203n.94
2:15 203n.94
2:17 121
2:19 121
: ..55
3:7 59, 118, 203nn.94, 104
3:7-12 55, 56, 73, 95, Cfl, 118
3:1-30 203n.9O
3:8 ; 118
3:9 203n.103
3:10 : 71
3:10-12 55, 58
3:11 : 59,60, 63,74,
117, 118, 123, 127
3:11 117
3:12 ;.: 117, 119, 203n;101
3:13ff : 83, 117,118
83
3:13-6:6 120, 122
. 3:14 59, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122
3:14 119, 122
3:15 : 120
3:19 120
59, 203n.104
3:20-27 : 92, 117, 118
3:20-30 119
3:20-4:41 : 120
3:21 72, 73, 124
3:21 120
3:22 72,118,125
3:22-26 65
3:22-27 79,90,95,123,190
3:23 ; 76
3:23ff 82, 119, 121
3:23-27 117
3:27 37, 56, 79, 82, 119
3:28 : 56
3:28ff, 117, 118
3:30 72, 73, 120, 121
3:31-35 116,119, 120
4:1.. 203nn.103, 104
4:1ff ; 119
4:1-20 119
4:1-5:43 9'7
4:10 120, 202n.83, 203n.l04
4:1Q-.34 116
4:11 ; .116
4:13 202n.83
4:21-25 119
4:26--29 , 119
4:29 108
4:30-32 119
4:32 203nn.98,98
4:33 120
4:33 119
4:34 116
4;3>41.. 119, 120, 187
4:36 119,203n.103 .
4:37 ' 2030.103
4:38 120
4:38-41 : 2020,83
4:39 : 103, 117,
4:40 120,'"}21
. '.l
-
/'
. INDEX OF BIBuCAt OTHnREFERENCES 231
.\
4:41 : ; 117
5 i 35, 65, 66, 67'
5:1-20 55,57,58,95,
102; 103, 117, 120, 203n.90
119,20311.103
5:3 71, 102
5:3ff ; 180
5:9--4:;.,.; 168
5:4 58,121
5:5:.; 71
.5:?"-10 .126
5:6 :; 205n.134
5:6f 59, 60
5:7 43,60,61,
62, 63, 66, ro, 71, 74,
102, 104, 117, 124, 126,
127: 180, 196n.21, 205n.125
5:8 ; 58, 64, 112, 117, 119, 168
5:8 71
5:9.; 64,66,71,117,185
5:10 65, 102, 105
5:1Ob : 28
5:10 66
5:11 68
5:12 118
5:13 67; 73, 117
5:14 .. 72,73
5:t5 67, 73, 124
: 73
5:18 59, 118, 119,
. ,,120, 122,203n.103
5:18 58
5h9 123
5:21 119, 203n.103
5:21-43 ; : 55
5:22 : 127
5:24 203n.94
.5:26 120
5:30 120
5:31 120
S:33 ; 60,127
5:34 121
5:36 120
: ;.83
120, 203n.94
; 120
6:5 202JtJ'3
6:5 :. 120,121
6:6 121
6:6b 95
6:6bff ..................................83
6:6b-13 : 83
6:7 83,120
. 6:7-13 95, 116, 117, 119,
203n.90
6:8 ; 201n.63
6:12 71, 120
6:12 ; 84,129'
6:13 83, 121, 20'ln.159
6:30-33....................... 203n.1(M
6:32 119, 203n.l03 .
6:45 203n.100
6:45-52 ; 120
6:45-8:26 : los.
6:46 122
6:47 ; 203n.103 .
6:51 120, 122, 127, 203n.ltn
6:53 , ; 119
6:54 203n.100:
7 59,60
7:17 122
7:17-23 116
7:18 202n.83
7:24 ; ; 122
7:24-29 US
7:24-30 55, 57, 58, 64,
117, 121, 122, 2030:90
7:25 59,. 59, 127
7:25 124
7:26 127
7:28 121
7:29 117
7:30 ; ; 73, 117
7:31 122
7:31-37; 55
7:32-37 168
7:33 68
7:37 : ;:72
8:1.; 122
8:6 201n.63
8:10 119, 203n.too
8:14.: 203n.103
....,
"
232
Mark.:..cmd..
8:14if 119
8:21 ,.: , ,202n.63
8:22-26 55,64
8:23 68
8:27-10:45 117
8:27-10:52 121
8:29 66
8:30 203n.l0l
8:32 2Q3n.l0l
.8:33 117, 119, 203n.101
8:34 203nn.94,94
:8:M-9:1 ..,116
8;38 116
9 60.67
63,'117
9:14 71
9:14-29 55,57,85,95,
101, 102, 116, 117, 122,
129, 130, 203n.9O
9:15 .. 127, 130
9:16 102
9:17 127
9:18 121, 130
9:18 121
9:19 121, 130, 20211.83
9'.20 59, 60, 102
, 130
9'.20-27 127
9'.zt 102, 185
9:2U..: 65
9:22 71, 180
9:22 121
9'.23 72
9:23 130
9'.24 180
9:2:5 .. : 31,35,64,65,
. 66, 70, 103, 117,
119, 168, 185, 203n.l01
9:26 35,67, 117
9:26 , 127
9:27 113
9:28 73, 20211.83
.9:28.. 116,121
9:29 : 117,130,177,
186,204n.115
. 9:34 115
9:38 56,114, 183, 190, 203n.94
9:38 85; 97 "
9:38 .. : 69
9:38-41 ......................... ; t9S
9:39 202n.73
10:13 203n.101
10:21 203n.94.
10:28 203n.94 .
10:32 203n.94
10:35 : 127 .
10:46-52 55
10:48 203n.l01
121, 203n.94
11:9 203n.94
11:17 122
11:22 121
11:24 122
11:27-12:34 97
11:28 120
11:29 120,.122
11:33 120
13:3 116
13:22 115, 205n.135
13:24-27 106
"13:37 116
: 198n.12
14:10 202n.83 .
14:13 :.121,203n.94
14:50 202p..83
14:54 203n.94
14:66-72 20211.83
lS:19 205n.134
15:37 63
15:39 : 117
15:41 203n.94
16:8 202n.83
16:9 95
16:9-20 80
16:14 204n.113
16:15-18 83
16:17 SO, 83, 203n.94
Luh
1:11 166
1:17 96, 202nn.74,74.
,.
.:IJ":-
INDEX OF BIBLICAL AND UFElU!NCES 233
1;26 161
1:32 , 96
1:33 : 97
1:35 : 62,96,97,98
99, 202nn.74, 74
1:43 96
1:76 96
1:77 96
2..9 161
2:11 96
2:26 96
2:51 108
3:1-20 97
3:15 96
3:16 97, 126
3:21 96
3:21 115
3:22 96,97,98
4:1. 96,97, 101, 115
4:1 13 192
4:3 , 96,98
4:7 : 205n.134
. 4:8..:.. ; 205n.134
4:9 96,98
4:1Of .; 195n.11
4:14 96, 97, 99, 101, 115,
202n;74
4:}4.;.3()'. : 97
4:18 79,96,97,98, 100,
101,115
4:1Bf 191
4:31 : 60
4:31ff 98
4:31-'37 57, 97, 101
. 4:31-41 97
4:32 99
4:33 198n.12
4:33-37 95, 103
4:34 62
4:35 101,103
4..36 72, 99, 110, 202n.74
4:38 101
4:38 57,95,97,101
. i 103,104
4:39 r : 55,103,113.
. 4:4Of 96,97
; 95, 97,99
4:41. 74,96, 97, 100, .
102, 103, 113 .
4:43 97, 98, 99
5:14 201n.63
5:17 ,.. 99, 202n.74
5:17-26 96 .
5:24 : ,110
6:12 ....................................96
6:12-16 , 83
6:13 : .. 107, 199nn.27, 28
6:13-7:50 107
6:17 107 .
6:17 71
6:17ff 95,98
6:17-19................................96
6:17-26 99 .
6:17-49 107 .
6:18 , 97
6:19 97, 99, 202n.74
6:20 ; 107
6:26 205n.135
6:40 107
7:1-10 99
7:8.. ; 110
7:11 107
7:11-17 101
7:16 96, lOt.
7:18-23.; 71,78,95,99, III
7:18-50 107.
7:19
7:20 98
7:20 7'8
7:21 55, 56, 78, 97, 98, Iii
7:36-50 96
7:39 96
8:1 99,107
8:1-3 95, 96, 97, 99, 106
8:10 107
8:12 : 107
8:24 103
8:26-39 57,95,97,102,103,107
8:27 ; 102
8:28 60,63,96.
8:29 58,102,112, 201n.63
8:31 66
''''r";..

8:31 .. :
8:32

8:35
8:37-39
8:39 ;



"',
8:46
8:49-56
11':56
9
9:1..
9:1
9:11

9:2. :
9:6
9:10
9:17
9:18
..9$l
9".21
9'.28f
, 9'.35


9'.31-43cJ.
9:39
9:39
9:41 :
9:41b
9:42 .:
9:43
9:438 ;
.9'.46 '
.9:49
9'A9f
9:5Ob
10 :.,
10:1
10:1-12
1(J;2'

. :.6'
: 28
; 66, 105
72, 198n.12
106
: ; 101
107
I07
107
f17, 114
99
107
201n.63
: 83,108
98, 107, 110, 202n.74
10'7, 129
99
83, 95, 96, 108
84, 107
107, 129
95, 108, 199n.28
108
96, 101
96
201n.63
96
f17, 199n.27
;- f17
95, f17, 101, 102, 129
57, 102, 103
101
190
106
,. 204n.112
60, 102, 103, 113
: 100
72, 73
115
56,114,183
69, 85, 95, 114
114
83,84, 108
200n.32
83, 95, 99, 107, 108
108
l08
10:2ff 85
10:3 108 <
10:6 84
10:8 , : 99
10:9 :.. 84,99,102,108,129
10:11 84, 108 '
10:12 108
10:13 202n.74
10:16 108
10:17 57,84,103, 108
10:17 80
10:17ff 85'
10:17-20 .. 83, 85, 98, 99, 102, 107,
108, 109
10:1{t 85
10:18 109
10:19 109, 111, 192, 195n.ll,
200n.37,202n.74
10:20 110
10:21 ;.101
10:22 96
10:37-43 191
10:42 199n.27
11:12 110
. 11:14 56, 57, 72, 74, 124, 127
11:14 55, 74
11:14-15 123 ( I
11':14-23 19, 92, 1M
11:14-26 : : 95
11:14-28 98
11:15 ; 72, 74, 125, 198n.12
: 56
90, 190
11:17 : 82
li:17-23 55, 123
11:20 55, 56, 69, 77, 79,
82, 84, 85, 90, 100, 101,
104, 109, 118, 183, 195n.16;
' 11:21 56,19,104,175
11:21-23 ,.82
11:23 115
11:24-26 29,65,82,
175,189
11:28....... 99
11:36 : :.110
11:42 :3,5
INDEX OF BIBUCAl.- OTIlBR REFERENCES ,235
11:49 199n.28
12:10 56
'13:1-5 175
13:2 55,56
; 95,98, 103, 104
13:11 100
13:11. 105
13:13........................... 100, 103
13:16 82, 101, 105, 177
13:23 110
13:32 95, 98
13:33 96
14:7 ; 199n.27.
16:16 99
-17:5 ; 199n.28
17:6 : 130
17:24.. 110
18:1-14 192
18:11. :.: 128
19:9 ..96
19:31 96
19:34 96
19:37 202n.74
19:38 63
99, 110
21:5-36 : 106
; 106
22:3 : 105
22:14 199n.2$
22:31 80, 105
22:32 96
22:42 96
'22:67 ; ;..96
22:70 96
23:2 96
23:34 96
'23:35 96
23:39 96
23:46 96
23:53 198n.12
24:10 199n.28
24:19 96
l':26 96
24:34...................................96
24:46 96
.2&:46f.. : 96
24:46-49 83
24:49 111,202n.74 .
24:52 205n.134
John
2:6 89
2:11 89
2:23 89
3:2 89
4:20 205n.134
4:25 126
4:34 89
4:35 ; 108, 200it.35
4:46-54 89,178
4:48 115
4:52 89
5:1-16 178- "
5:5 89
5:27ff 90
5:36 : 89
6:1-14 89
6:2......................................89
6:69
7:20 : 72,74,132
7:21 89, 89.
7:25 126
: 126
8:48 72, 74, 76,
8:48--53...............................7.6
8:49 .. ;'0 : 76,132
8:52 74,132
9:1 -....89
9:1-3 175
9:1-7
9:1-41 133, 178
9:3 ; 11'..
9:4......................................89
9:6 ; .
9:38 205n.134
10:20 ! 72, 74, 76, 132
.......;
.10:21, 132
10:25-38 :.89
11:1-44 : 89, 178
12:13 12'
12:31.. 133, 1?2
12:32 133
,
236
I
.7-:<-- '. .-.--:---
JOhn-cont. 3:18 96
12:37 89 3:20 : 96
14:10 89 3:20 106
14:12-14 192 3:21 62, 106
14:30 90, 133 . 3:22 96
16:11 90, 133, 192 4:2 198n.12
18:26 90 4:7 202n.74 ,
.,
lif.30 76 4:10 132
83 4:18 ,. 201n.63
2O-.3Of........ :.....89 4:24 96
20;31. 1:19 4:27 62 .
2115-023 4:30 62, 110, 132
4:31 96, 110
Acts 4:32-37 110 ..
1:1 96, 199n.16 4:33 199n.28, 202n.74
1:2 199nn.27, 28 .4:35 : 199n.28
1:3. ; 108 4:36 199n.28
1:4 112, 201n.63 4:37 199n.28
1:8 , 83,96, 107,108,111, 5:2 199n.28 .
. 202n.74 5:3 lOS
1:14 96 5:12 .. : 111, 113, 199n.28
1:15-026 99 5:12 115
1:15:-2:1 96 5:12-16 95, 96, 110
. 1:21 : 107 5:13 111
1:24 _ 199n.. 27 5:15 : W, 111
1:26 .. : 107, 199n.28 5:16 97, 105, 110, 111
2:1-4 96 5:18 19911.28
. 2:..... : 111, 199rr.16 5:28 201n.63
2:5:-12 : : 21 5:29 1990.28.
2:14 ....................... 96, 99, 107 5:31 96
2:21 96 5:40 199n.28, 201n.63
2:22 202n.74 5:42 : ::96
2:28 94 6:3 112
2:31 96 6:4 96
2:33 79 6:5 199n.27
2:36 96 6:6 ; 96, 199n.28
2-.37 96, 199n.28 7:37 ....................................96
2:3tt :96 7:59 %.
: 121 &.1. :. 199n.28
2:42. . 199n.28 8:4 : : 91
2:42-47 : 110 .8:4ff i1S
2:f3 1991\.28 8:4-8 95,96,100,106,111
2:47 96 8:5 : 96
3:1; 96 8:6 111
3:5: :: 132 8:7 W, 105, III
3:i4. 62 8:12 84, 92, 108 .
.'
INDEX OF BIBLICAL AND' OTHEIIREFBRENCES 237 .
8:13 : 115,202n.74 . 14:4 1990.28
8:13ff 115 14:14 : 1990.28 .
8:14 199n.28 14:22" 84
8:13 113, 1990.28 15:2 1990.28
8:18ff ...... ; 112, 206n.141 15:4 199n.28
8:25 110 15:5 112, 201n.63
8:27 205n.l34 15:6 : 1990.28.
8:29 96 15:7 : : 1990.27
. 8:32 108 15:22 19900.27,28,
8:35 92, 108 15:23 1990.28
8:39 , 96 15:25 1990;27.
8:40 92 15:27 2000.38
9:2 21,94 15:28 96
9:17 115 15:39 ; 2000.38
9:20 21,96 15:40 2000.38
9:22 96 16:4 1990.28
9:27 : 1990.28 16:6 96
9:40 96 16:8 57
10:2ff 96 16:9ff 113'
10:9ff :.. , 96 16:10 96
10:19.: 96 . 16:10-17 93
10-.25 205n.l34 16:13 ~ 96
10:3Off : 96 16:16 93, 96, 112
lo-.3f)..39 100 16:16ff ..94
10:37-43 56,95 1 6 : 1 ~ 1 8 93, 95, 97, 102, 105,
10:38 88, 98, 183, 20200.74, 74 , 112,133
10:38-42 96 . 1 6 : 1 ~ 1 9 168
10:39 96 16:17 63, 94, 198n.12 '.
10:42 : :112, 201n.63 16:18.; ~ 94, 109, 132, 168,
10:43 96 183, 198n.12, 201n.63
11:1 1990.28 16:20 : 93
11:12 96
16:23 201n.63.
11:15 , 19900.16, 16
16:25 96
11:19 110
17:3 96
12:12 96
17:14 200n.38
13:2 96, :zoon.38 17:30 201n.63
1 ~ : 3 :.96 .
18:2 : 93
13:4 96
18:4 21
13:6 205n.l35 . 18:5 96
13:10 54 18:12-17 93 .
13:17 1990.27
18:21 ; 96
13:23 : 96 18:25 94
13:33 96
18:26 94, 1990.16
13:38 96
18:28 : 96
13:46 110
19 .: 115
14:'1 110
19:8 21,84,108
, . .
'.
.\
Ads-cont.
........................: 94
9:11 13,114, lIst
19:11f.. 113
i9:11-20 95, 97, 102,
. . 105, 113, 180, 183
19:12 97
19:13.;;.. 43,57,61,69, 70, 94, 132
19:13--17 187
19:13.-20 114, 115, 168
19'.21 ; 96
19'.22.: 200ri.38
19'.23 94
.s:-15 93
2fk2S 84,108'
20:28 :96
21:1-18......................_ 93
21:8 92
;94
22:"17 96
22:19..................................21
23".22 201n.63
2300 201n.63
24:2 199n.16'
2!&:o11.:..- 205n.134
24:14.: ; 94
24:22 94
26:11 21
26tt8 96, 105
16:23 96
%1:1-28:16 93
27:35 199n.16
28:8 ; 96,101
. 218:23 84,108
28-.31 ; 84, 108
........
1:1-4 84
4 22
5 22
7 181,190
1:14-25 : 198n.9
8 181
8:22f 190
&26f .. 192
193
8:38f
10:7 ..
10:15
12:1-2
12:2
12:4-8
12:5
13:12
15:18f
16:20
:
.
,
:
91, 91:.
66
92
181
181
92
92
9.2..
93
110
.
1 CorintlUms
2:6-8
5:5
5:10
5:11
6:10
7:5
7:10
7:11f
7:14
10:19f
10:200
11:17
12:1-3
12:2
12:3
12:7
12:7-11
12:10
12:28-30
13:2
14:1-4
14:5
14:12
14:17
14:25
14:26
15:jf
15:24
15:24t

;
91
91,92_
128 .
128
128
91 .
201n.63
133.
...;:61
182
90,91
201n.68
180, 182
182
128
92.
92
180, 182
92
206n.149
: 92
92
92
: 92
205n.l34
92
: -.84
91
91
172
2 Corinthians
2:10
4:6
91
...............92.
239
.j
.....t ...
J' . , .
.'
;
INDEX OF BDLICAL AND onmlt. REFERENCES
6:14
6:15
8:18 :
11:3
11:14
11:24-27
12:7
12:7-9
12:12
GahfWts
5:16-26
Epllesians
1:22 ~
3:5
3:10
4:11
6:12 .. ,
PIJilippiMIs
2:15
Colosshns
1:13
1:19
2:8-15
2:14 ,
2:15
1 TlaeBM10zUlUIB
2:16
2:18
4:11
5.27
2 TlaessalonWJs
2:8
2:9
3:4.:
3:6
3:10
3:12
'1 T ~ y 6
1:3; 201n.63 7
92 4:1 90
92
92 .
110
91
91
91
192
115
92
; 16O
62
: 91
: 92
91
;: : 121
92
160
: 91
91
: 192
205n.l30
91
201n.6.1
70
172
91,115
201n.63
201n.63
201n.63
201n.63
4:11
5:7
6:13
6:17
2 Timothy
4:5
Hebrews
3:1
7:1
James
1:1
1:5-8
2:8
2:19
2:21
2:25
4:3
5:10 :
5:13-18
5:14
5:17
1 Peter
1:16
4:15
5:8 ;
2pe.r
2:4
2:4-10
.3:2
1 John
2:20
3:21-23
4:1
Jude
201n.63
201n.63..
201n:63
201n.63
92
62
_.63
132
; 192
132
t 131, 132
132
132
192
132
192
131
132
62
76
110
102, 125
80
62
62 .
192
180
26, 80, 102, 125
108
IInelafion
2:4.. 133
3:7 62
4:5 110
5:14 205n.134
. 7:n .. .". : 205n.134
8 : 5 . ~ 110
9 102
9:1 , 66,105
9:2 66, 105
9'3 110
9'.5 110
9:10 110
. 9:11 66, 105
9'.20 90
11:7 66,105
11:19 110
12:9 l10
12:14 110
13:13f 115
14:15 99,108
16:13 205n.135
. 16:18 , 110
17:8 66,105
19:20 205n.135
20:1
20:1-3 ;
66, 105
80, 125
20:2 110
20:3 66, 105
20:4 ........................... 205n.134
2O:10.. ; 205n.135
I
I
.J' . . ; .
.

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
- .
\ Z'1IiuudJ (Symc) 37-71 26
10:2 99, . 55:4 15
. 89:59 91, 108
BlIUDpic Enoch 89:59 :.99
6-11 26 90:22 91
6-16 26 9O:23ff.. _.........53
6:1-7:6 26
6:7 23,26 4 Ezra
8 26 4:28 99
8:1 26 9:17 99
8:2 26
8:3 26 Jubilees
9 26 1:11 91
9:7 : 26 2:19 30
9:16 23 4:5 : ; 30
10 : 26 4:22 ....' ;.30
10:4.. 75 5:1-9 30
10:4ff 105 5:5 ;; 31
100U 53,. 81 5:5-10 53,. 81
10:8 26 5:6 102,105
,10:11 105 10 30
10:11-13.: 82 10:1-3 30
10:11-14 27 10:3 :31
10:12..................................53 10:3-6 :..30
10:17-11:2 : 'Z7 10:5-9 53, .
10:18 102 10:6 ' 31
23 10:10 : 31,68
12 : : 28 10:12 68
13 28 10:17 31
.14:1ff 28 ib:36 53
.15:8f : 30 19:21...................................30
15:8 26 32:1 , 30
15:11f 26
18:11 ; , 105 1 MM:CJIbfts
18:14-19:2 53 15:15 21
\' 19:1 82,91
I 21 : 81 2MaCGlbees
; : 21:6,..: : : 53 8:9.: ; 2000.43
'----__c.
.' ."
CHJlIST 'I'IlWMPHANT 242
2 Maccabees-cant.
8:22
3 Mllcabees
1:7
Prayer of
4
Moses, Assumption or

10:1 ;
10:3
10:7
.SlbylJJne Oracles
3;271
Siradl (Ecdeshsticas)
38:9 :
45:6
SaIoIlJOlt, Palms of
:
.$ploJnon, Testament of
1:10
2:2-4
3:4
4;4 :
7:5
10:1 ;:
11:1
12:1
12:1-3
13:5-14:5
15:4
15:14
11:4
.
200n.43
2OOn.43
207n.155
75
75
75
21
132
62
108
174
174
174
40
40
174
174
174
39
174
40
39
39
. 18:5 " 40
18:6 : 40
18:16 40
20:11-17 40
20:13 40
. 22:20 39
Solomon, Wisdom of
11:1 62
Test.unent of Abralwn
(A),9:16 207n.156
Test.unent of Dan
5:101 54, 75
Test.unent ofJudah
25:3 : 54, 75
Test.unent of Levi
12:11 75.
18:11 54
Test.unent of Reuben
6:1Q-12 : 75
Test.mIent of ZebulWl
: 54, 75
Tobit
3:8 28
6:8 49
6:13 .28
6:14 28
6:17 29
8:3 29,66,68, 102
8:7 29
8:48 ,29
14:11 28
\ -.
21S
. ' .. ,
....
OTHER SOURCES
, Aesd\ylus
(a) EUJDeIIi4es
28 63
'. '(b) 7IIe PemiMu ISO
BInub.u
14:6 62
Ja.ent
8:3 62
Di4Mbe
l1:tf 205n.137, 20611.140
11:8 206n.139
.11:12 ; 206n.141
Eusebius History of the Church
4:3:2 .51
'. HerodotusHistory
2:113 : 208n;27
6:84 2080.27

DiseIIse,208n.27 .
.' .
, .
Josephus
(a) Agfrinst Apion (Ag.Ap.)
1:119 200n.43
(b)A.ntiquitits of the Tews (AntJ
6:1-15 141
.. 6:166 24,36
6:168 36, 195n.l1
6:209-:-14 36
1:305 37, 195n.ll
Se43 35
8:46-49 29, 34, 65
&41 26
8:49 35, 36, 67
8:3531 ; 114
.13:249 , : 21
1M15 34.
21
16:76 34
16:210 34
(c) Tewish WilT (8T) . .
1:82 , 34
1:556 34
1:599 34
1:607 34 .
1:628 34 .
3:341 34 .
3:485 34
5:438 ; 207n.155 .
6:47 ; 34 .
7:120 :..34
7:1SOff 26, 35
7:389., : 34
Justin Martyr DiIIlogue With
Trypho
49:8 207n.l56
(I} 51
Lucian of SamOsata
PhiIopse&uks, 44 . .
8 ;141
11 ;.6'
15f. 141
16 44, 46, 64, 141, 174
17 44,46
29 :.44
31 ;: 441, 114
4O 4S.
Origen Contrll Celsum SOf
1:6 50
P.pyri
(a) B.G.U.
596 39
905 .................................39
975 ..............................;39
1052 ; 39
1079 39
1103 : 39
2221-8 39
CRIUSTTRlVMPHANT .
Papyti....;. cont.
2304-25 39
mJr..7 39
(b) BM. Pap.
t0685C 2lf
(c) P. Cairo Zen.
59092 39
(d) CPR
20 : 39
(e) P. Eleph. .
1 ;39
(f) PGM
m:420 68
IV 43,171
IV:74S, I03 .
IV:10t7ff 65
IV:l068 : 63
1V:1227......................... ; 39
1V:1227-48 43
1V:1229 103
1V:1243ff 64
IV:1248 41 .
1V:1254 65
1V:27UOff ; 40
IV:2735 103
IV:3007H 42
IV:3007-86 40
IV:3014ff 4O
. IV:3019; 57,,61, 70,79
IV:3023 207n.158
65
W:3027 207n.158
W:3028ff 42
IV:3033 41,41
: 1V:3033-41 207n.158
1Y:3037ff 39
lV:3044 - 207n.I58.
. IV:3080 109
1V:3087 40
46
V:46 63
V:81........ : 42
42
V:99ff 4Of
40
V:l00ff .41
V:132 :..41'
V:I36ff 41
V:I43 ;..42
V:161 42
V:I64-6 109
V:171 39
V:2S8 64.
V:2S8ff ; 40
VIll 39
VIll:6 61
VIll:13 61,62
VIll:242ff 41
XXXVI ; 42
(g) Leiden Magical Papyrus
J384(v)(=PGM 12):239f.. . 207n. 157
(h) P.Land. 1912 ; 39
(i) NO3 : 39
(j) P. Oslo 1:161 64
(k) P. Oxy.
37 ; 39
38 39
275 , 39
886 39
1148 ; 39
1211 39
1439....................................39
. 1478 : 39
.3208 .39
(I) 5B 10799 39
(m)5EG _
821 39
1356:1 , 39
1717 (lead tablet) 39
1717:5 43
1717:11 43
(n) P. Stras. 637 39
(0) P. Tebt.
33 39
35 :....39
40 39
276 39
294 39
(P) P. Warren
2-14 41
25f. 41
52 42
\ .
, '
INDEX OP .u'IlOCRYPHA PSBUDEPRIGRAPHIA ' 245
'104ft 42
'JWiIcIIu,RalJbathi
, 36 75
........................,., 49
PIUlip, Ads of
132 207n.l54
Philo of Alexandria
(a) De Abrahamo 96 33
(b) In F1Ila:um
_ 6:8 21
(c) De Gigtmtibus .
6-31. 37
10 37
(d)' Quod Deus ImmlltllbiUs sit
138 , ;61
(e) Legum Allegorille
3:30 I4Of
(f) De LegMione ad Gzium
36 21
(g) De Somniis
1:14Of '.37
Qumran Documents
(a) 1QapGen ;32
20 32, 68, (8
20:16 : ,33
20;28 ; 33
(b) lQM
1:15 33
13:14-14:1 33
15:12 : : , 31
, (c) lQS
- 3:9 32
3:20 32
3:25 ' 32,
4:12 32
(d) 4QTob ; .. ; 28
(e) 4QTob hebr- .. : ; 28
(f) llQPsAp 195n.1l
1950.11 '
. 5ipJue on Leviticus ,
26:6 ;75
Sophocles
Philoctetes 1289 63
Talmud (Babylonian)
Abodah zarah 27 $1
BerIlkoth 34b ;.(8 ,
Me'iltll7b 50, 64, (/J ,
Pesaliim 112b :;50
Shebi'ith ISh 1951\.11 I
Ta'anith 24b , ;
Talmud Oerusalem)
Abodah zarah ii:2:4Od--41a 57
'Erubin 10:26c 1950.11
Shabbath 6:8b ; 195n.11
xiv:4:14d / $1 '
TtIlIduuna Toledot
32b 99, 200n$:
1'ho1ttllS, Gospel of57 :.8Ol,
Tosephta
Hullin ii:22f 57,
-----,-- .- ..
...
'-... ..: .t
.
"
INDEX OF G:REEK WORDS AND PHRASES
Uussos, 66, lOS
IIkolouthein, 2030.94
1I1UIStIIs4, 102
tlplmgellO, 127
aphilmi, 133
trpistia,121
tIpistitm, 2060.151
qoladastllSis, 106
1JfIOSIOloi, 107
- , tIpOIIOIos, 1990.28
41%Om1li, 1990.16
. . lUlU ti h6nz, 1980.12
tndous, 111
botIO, 102
dtDrrIs, lOS
diIimonion, 150
.,113
tIeom4i, 102, 104
.,110 .
ditIkriseis pneumatDn, 182
tlitIponeisthai, 1980.12
dDIdmaztj, 180, 181
dUJUlmis, 2020.74
dunmneis, 114, 128
dtmQSt1i4i, 121
tdtein,75
echein pneuma daimonion, 1980.12
hlte pistin, 130
.tdt6, 101
hrisen,98
eprdIJ, 1980.12
ns, 181
eis estin ho thtos, 2060.153
.etbtzlJouSil, 39
" .. /
e1cblz11O, 104
ekeithen de an4Stas Ilptlthen, 122
123
elclegomai, 107, 1990.27
aion,63
empipton, 37
en, 110
en autois, 115 .
engastrimuthous, 112, 112
en to onomati, 132
ep' auton, 132
ephthasen, 125 .
fP-istrephein, 1980.12
epitiman, 103, lOS, 117, 119,
2030.101
erchomai, 126
erchontai pros humas, 128
ergaSlli, 1980.12
ergon,89
. irDto,199o.16
et1rem'OIln, 109, 118
exercJromai, 117
43
exorkizO, 43
exousill, 129
genos,l86
gonupeteo, 127
harpax,l28
hina,118
hina met' autou, 118
horkize, 131
. horki%O, 43,-102,126,131,
1960.21
horkizein,61
horkous, 46
horkizen, 61
paTflChlmtl, 102
INDEX OF AND PHRASES 247
ltiJste,113
htiti cndc lkolouthei hlmin, 114. parangelleill, 1980.12
".
bios, 102 parangellO, 112
1alioIl lou theo1l, 203)1.93 paredW, 198n.12 .
,1ulptmtlsis, 124, 120
luIptmtassiJ, 108 pesontll, 109
.-;.,:.
phimOthlti, 64, 187
:,

idoIl, 126 phimOO, 64, 117, 119
:
,.
.
phri1cton,131
""i,113
phrissO, 131
,>}.
hIkrm paiOn, 76 phusis,l60
..
bIrpos, 128 pipta,59

kirltlbtrinon, 37 . -pistis, 121 it
j!
1aIItulein, 64
plilnesai, 76
IaItUolouthe6,198n.12 plilnoS,76
1980.12 . ploirion, 203n.103
kurios.,110,132 ploion,203n.103
. pneum4, 112 .
1tmtbanommos, 34..
pneum4 alillon, 122
'1tImbtmOn,37
pneum4 put1Wna, 112
poieiJ, 2020.73
1itIIleJiCus, 76 praris,39
mtmteion,201n.59 presbuteroi, 132
mtmfellomtli, pro 1alirou, 126
mimteuomenl, 112
prospiptO, 127
mega, J01 '. proseuchomai, 69
meta, 115 pros1cunein, 205n.134
meth' hlmtm, 114 pros1cuneO; 127
.metamor:p1loust1le, 181 pseudoprophitts, 205n.135
mdfmoet},l20
pumos; 101
mdtmoia,120 puthOna, 112
, monogenes, 102
'. ,
slmeion,89
oligop;ste, 130 .
smikros, 101
oligopistUm, 130 sOzo,l78 ,
0IIden adunatlsti. 130 sunechomeni, 101
ouk 130
out i8dtustm, 121 theos,l50
011 tas tuchousas, 114 therisrnos, 108
011 hIdr6n, 113 .
touto to gerios, 122, 130
... "
... r
1
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Acquaviva, S., 209n.37
, Achtemeier, P. J., 2ff1.n.77,
2Mn.108
Alexander, S., 160
Anderson, H., 2020.87, 203n.102
Anisin)ov, A. F., 212n.120
Aquinas, Thomas, 160, 161,
, 213n.136 ,
Arndt, W. F., 200n.44, 45,
202il.73, 203n.95, 206n.139,
2O'7n.157
BaDi E., 21On.67
Bamour, I. G., 21On.70
, Barrett,c. K., 1941\.1 (of Chap.
, ll), 197n.17, 215n.23, 2100.26
Barth, G., 204n.l05, 206n.138
Barth, K., 175
Barton, J., 14i,2fmn.19, n.28,
'209n.36 '
Butsch, H. W., 207n.4-,
Bateson, G., 212n.120
8euer, W ~ , 200n.45, 202n.73,
203n.95, 206n.139, 2O'7n.157
Bauernfeind; 0., 200n.49,
202n.75
Baughen, M., 217n.50 ,
, Deue, F.' W;, 84, 191n.24
Bender" H., 2,12n,.107
4
,.'
Berends, W., 215n.15 is
Berger, P., 143-5, 2 , 40,
41-, 42, #-S3 '
'Bergier, G., 209nn.42, 43 '
Berkhof, H., 198n.8, 21On.70
Best, E., 116, 196n.1, 198n.2,
202nn;82, 85, 86, 88, 89,
, 203nn.100, 104, 204nn.107, ,
, 109,20511.127
Beyer, H. W., 201nn.56, 61
Bietenhard, H., 207n.161
Billerbeck, P., 200n.33
Bittlinger, A., 206n.152
Blass, F., 201n.69
Bloom"A., 217n.50
Bacher, 0., 204n.115 '
Bonet, T., 215n.17
Bonnets, M., 207n.154 ,
Bomkamm, G., 204nn.105, 116,
118
Braun, H., 202n.73
Bruce, F. F., 199n.13, 201n.68
Brugsch, T., 211nn.91, 92, 94, 97,
98,99
Brurmer, E., 214n.2
Biichsel, F., 204n.111 '
Bultmann, R., 84, 136, 137, 139,
197nn.9, 24, 203n.89,
207nn.3-6, 208nn.13-15
Burkill, T. A., 196n.1
Butt, A., 212n.120
Cadbury, H. J., 199n.12
Caird, G. B., 195nn.8, 8, 21On.78
Campbell, C. A., 162, 213nn.140, ,
141 ' '
Cardill, W., 211n.102
Carr, W., 198n.8
Charlesworth, J. H., 1941\.1 (of'
Chap. ll), 195n.17
Chisolm, R; M., 2140.145
Conybeare, F. G., 196n.19
Cox, H., 171,2140.1
Cranfield, C. .E. B., 215nn.23-25
Creed, J. M.; 199n.21
Crehan, J. H., 198nn.4, 5
, Cupitt, D., 12,17, 194nn.2-4
.. ..
INDEX OP MODERN AUTIIOItS
d'Alviella, Count (E. Flender, H., 19900.18,30,
197n.l0 .
- 2000.34
Danker, F. W., 2000.45, 2020;73, Foakes-Jackson, F., 201n.71
203n.95: 206n.139, 207n.157 Foerster, W., 2000.45, 201n.58,
Dante, 157 2140.3
Darwin, c., 142, 208n.31 France, R. T., 195n.5, 196n.25
Davids, P., 20700.153, 163 Frazer, J. G., 156, 208n.12
Debi'unner, A., 201n.69 Freud, S., 142, 208n.33
de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard, 160 Fuller, R. H., 215n.13
t.
'
Deissmann, A" 196n.5 Funk, R. W., 201n.69
Delling, G., 2000.42, 201n.66
DibeJius, M., 197n.9, 198n.10, Gardiner, A. H., 1950.3
206fn.153, 207oot!59, 160, 162, . Gaster, T. H., 195n.6
f
163,165 . Gaston, L., 205n.l26
,. l ..". .
Dodd, C. H., 1950.5, 2000.35, Gibbs, J. M., 197n.13
203n.92 Gingrich, F. W., 2000.45, '
Dodds, E. R., 211n.88 2020.73, 203n.95, 2061\.139,
Dow, G., 159, 168,21200.127, . 207n.157
130,21300.132,133, Gnilka, J., 20300.92,102
21400.155, 156, 160,2150.14 Goldsten, R., 2090.43
Downing, F. G., 140, 141, 142, Goulder, M., 213n.l43
20800.19, 20, 22-5, 29, 2100,63
Grant, F. c., 2otn,122 ,
Driver, G. R., 195n.13 Grayston, K; 87,170; 198nn.l,2
Drury, J., 2000.39 ' Greeley, A.; 209n.37
Duling,D. c., 1960.19, 205n.124 Green, M., 147, 194n.6,
Dunn, D. G., 100, 125f, 179, 21Onn.66, 67 ' ..
19700. 12, 15, 16, 198ri.9, Greeven, Ho, 205n.134; 2061\.146,
19900. 19, 20, 202nn.77, SO, 206f n.I53, 20700.159, 16O,1.6Z,
205oo.13O,131,206n. 152, 163,165
20'700.163, 3,2100.79, Gruenthaner, M. J., 195n.6
215n.19, 216rtn.26, 33 Grundmann, W., 1990.14,
2020.74, 215n.23
Gundrylr R. H., 205n.I22
, East, R., 216n.31
Baston, B. S., 197n.26
Haenchen, E., 93, 1980.11,
EbieJihI, G., 148, 21Onn.71, 73
200n.50, 2011in.51, 57, 61, 62
EhrenWafd, I., 2111),$9 ,
71,202n.:n
0., 1950.12
Hahn, F., 197n.23
E1tester, W. von, 203n.89
Hardy, A., 145, 2090.54
Engels, F, 2080.32
Harnack, A., 205n.132
Exeter, Bishop of, 87, 165, 183f,
Harper, M., ISO, 185, 1940.1, .
188f, 2140.152, 216n.42
215N\.8, 9, 21600.36, 31,
217n.44 '
Fenn, R., 209n.37 Hauck, F., 200n.36, 201nn.6t 65;
Feuerbech, L., 142,208n.3O
2060.139 .
Fitzmyer, J. A., 195ri.15 HawkU:ts, J. C:, 198In.12
. ' .....
",

CHRIST 1'RIUMPBANT '
Hay; D., 1-'5, 146,209im;55-8,
, 2lOnn.59-62
Hebblethwaite, D., 13, 140,
, 1S8ff; 208n.17, 212n.126
Held, H. J., 130, 2Om.1OS,
206nn.142, 144, 145, 147, ISO
- Hengel, M., (ofChap. H),
197n.12, 199n.13, 205nn.136,
137
Heyne, C. G., 207n.3
Hick, J.,,207n.6, 208nn.9, 21,
212n.125,-213nn.13l,143
, 1:fidcIing,c. J. A., 202n.84
HiIpd, E., 203n.l03' ,

, Hill.rfl" 205n.128,
" , ' G. H,' R., 1961\.18 .
- ,. W., van der, 111,
nn.52, 54, 55
. " J., 209n.49 '
, :' J. M., 205n.133
" Iiunpn,J. W., 199n.16
I' '
, J",l97M,.11).:.21, ,"
1 .12, 200n:.37, 201n.66,
, 21 .30, 217n.46
" " A:, 2021\.76 '
,,' , H. S., 201n.60' .
E., 195n.9 ,
Ke L. E., 198nn.IO, 11
,Kee, !H. C;, 199n.22, 202ft.81
, KerhtlKe, K., 203n.l00
, A., 212n.116
G. D., 2041\.116
. " J. D., 197n.12,'

.132'
A. F. J., 194n.2(of Chap.,
II) '.
G., 21lnn.95, 96
'I'
,
K., 211nn.90,93,
, , 103-5, 211f n; 10'7, "
2 , .109-111,1,13,2,14n.lSO,
2t ,IS' /,'
" , , H., 194n.l (of Chap. H)
W. G., 198n.28,. ,
Lagrange, M.-J., 217n.45 ,
Lake, J(., 201n.71
Lampe, G., 12, 17
Lane, W. L., 203n.102
Langton, E., 195nn.6, 10; 1961l.24
Leibniz, G. W., 212n.125
:.,1
Lewis, C. S., 157, 175
Lewis, H. D., 2131\.143
Lewis, I. M., 155f, 211n.lOl,
212nn.117, 120, 121
Liddell, H. G., 201n.60,
206n.139, 207n.157
Lin, T., 211n.l02
Lindars, D., 195n.5
Ling,T., 190, 217n.47
Lipsius, R. A., 207n.l54
L6hse, E.,
L008, H. vander, 198n.7
MeAn, R. K., 154f,212nn.114, ,
115, 214nn.152, 159, 215ft.17,
216n.30, 217nn.48, 49
Mct:own, C. c., 1961\.19
Mackarness, R., 214n.154
McManus, J., 215n.9, 216M.39,
40
MacNutt, F., 173, 177, 181, 1M,
214n.5,215nn.8, 11, 15,20-2"
216nn.29, 35, 217n.50
Macquarrie, J., 9, 148f, 160ft;: 170,
208n.12, 21Onn. .
213nn.I35, 136, 143, 214n.l49
Maddox, R., 106, 1991\.25
Manson, T. W., 84, 197nn.21, 25
Marshall, I. H., 113,196Qn, 1, .
198n.27,199nn. 17, '
200nn.34, 40; 47, 48, SO,
201n.67, 202nn.72, 79, .
. i
205n.130, 207n.3, 21Onn.71, J
73, 217n.45 ' ,
,)
Martin, D., 209nn.37, 43
Martin, R. P., 202nn.81,84;'
207n.163
Martyn, J. L., 198nn.l0, 11
Marx, K., 142, 208nn.32, 34' '
Mascall, E. L,; 13, 156-62, ,
..
I
251
,.
.
INDBX or MODJIl,N AUTIIORS
209n.39, 212M. 122-4, 128,
129, 213nn.134, 137, 139, 143,
214n.153
Mattill, A. J., 198n.10
May, R., 15Off, 169, 176,

Mayor, J. B., 206n.153
. Mead, M., 2120.120
M&aux, A., 2120.120
-Metzger, B. M., 199il.17,
203n.93, 206nn. 143, 153
MichaeliS, W., 203n.95
Middleton, J., 212D..1l6
MiDigan, G., 1960.18
Miyoshi, M., 200n.41
Monad, J., 141.
Moore, E. G., 147, 2100.68
Morgan, C L., 160
Morris, L., 147, 196n.6
Moser, F., 2120.113 .
MiiUer; D., 199nn.28, 29
Munck, J.,2Olf n.72
Murphy,J.,212o.12O
. Nadel, S., 155, 21200.118, 119
Negelein, J. von, 201n.53
Neusner, J., 196n.25
Nevius, J., 215n.17
Nicldesburg, G. W. E., 1940.1 (of
Chap.ll) .
Nilsson, M. P., 197n.l0
Nineham, D., 137, 138, 139, 140,
141, 142, 152, 208nn.8-10, 18
Obeyesekere, G., 211n.102
O'Brien, E., 155, 2120.117
O'Brien,P. T., 197n.11
Oepke, A., 87, 171, 172, 198n.3,
199n.26
Oc!sterley, W. E. 0., 195n.11
Oesterreich, T. K., 153, 211n.1oo,
215n.17
Palthc, P, M. van Wulfften,
2l2n.l2O
Pannenberg, W., 148,. 2100.72 .
Pauwels, L., 209nn,42,43 . /'
Peacocke, A. R., 137, 2CTln.7, .
214nn.144,146-8
Pearce-Higgins, J., 15
Pearson, P., 16 .
Perrin, N., 196n.l .
Pesch, R., 2020.87, n.93 ..
Petitpierre, Dam R., 66,
198nn.4, 5, 214n.152, 215n.6,
216nn.28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 41, 43
Pfeiffer, R. H., 195n.14
Plantinga, A., 2120.125.. .
Plummer, A., 198n.12,
Preisendanz, K., 195n,18 .
Preisigke, F., 2020.74
Prince, M. & W., 154, 211n.106
Rengstorf, K. H., 199n.31,
200n.34 .
Rhine, J. B., 154, 211n.105
Richards, J., 165, 167, 117,
1940.5,21400.151, 154,
156-9, 215nn.6, 9, 12,15-18
Richardson, c., 207n.2
Riesenfeld, H., 20Zf n.89
Robinson, J. M., 2100.73 .
Robinson, J. A. T., 197nn.21, 22,
203n.l02
Russell, D. S., 195n.8
sanders, Ii. P., 194n.1 (of Chap.
ll)
Sargent, W., 17
Schmeing, 1<.,154, 211n.105
L., 203n.loo .
Schlier, H., 157,2120.124,2140.4
Schmaus, M., 213n.138
Schmidt, I<. L., 203n.92
Schniewind, J.,
Schrenk, G., 199n.27 .
Schiirer, E., 1940.1 (of Chap. II)
Schulz, S., 217n.45 .
Schweizer, E., 203nn.98, 99,
204nn.106, 114, 1.16, 120,
205nn.129, 136
. ~ , ..
.
"
Scott, R.; 200n.60, 206n.139,
2Wn.l57
Seesemann, H., 196n.4
,
Selwyn, E. G., 213n.143
'
;
),'"
.: Sharp, B. H.,'214n.161
ShirokogoroH, S. M., 21211.120
Smart, N., 139, 208n.i1
Smith, C. Neil-, 17, 167, 215nn.9, .
10, 216n;27
Smith, MortOn, 75, 76, 197n.14
j.
spitta, F., ,2OOn.45
Stanbrook, E., 21211.120
Stanton, C. N., 199n.15,
2lMn.116
SIein, R. H., 197n.18
'Steiner, G., 208n.18
su,fte, M.E., 1941\.1 (of Chap.ll)
Skack, H. L., 200n..33
Suenens, L-J., 170, 184,21211.122,
214nn.162, 1, 215n.7, 216im.32,
40
Swinbutne, R., 162-5, 170,
21311)'42, 214nn. 146-8
Tahrt, C. H., 'l98n.10; 2020.77
Taylor. A. E., 21211.143
Taylor, V., 88, 197n.6, 198nn;6,
12. 203n.93
..Thompson, R. C., 197n.7
Thompson, W. G., 204n.116
ThiseIton, A. c., 148, 21Onn. 71,
13
1lIIich, P., 149, 176, 21Onn.64,
69, 76, 211n.80-6
; -. TISChner, R., 154,21211.112
Tmhowan, Dam I., 213n.137
TugweII,S.,216n.44
...
L ~ .__ __
Tuttle, G. A,,207n.l63
Twelftree, G. H., 9,18, 195n.4,
196nn.20, 23, 25, 3, 197nn.8, i6,
199n.24, 203nn. 91,96,97,
204nn. 107-9, 112, 205nn.123,
125, 127, 132,206n.134,
2100.79
Unger, M. F., 147, 2100.65
Upton, N., 21211.120
Vermes, G., 195n.15
Voegelin, E., 143, 209n.47
Wakefield, Bishop of, 12
Warfield,. B. B., 195n.7
WaveD, 5., 21211.120
Weatherhead, L. D., 142, Dn.35
Weber, M., 205n.137
Weedon,T. J., 116, 202n.84
Wendt. H. H., 201n.62
Wenham, D., 195n.5, 196n.25
White, R. E. 0., 204n.116
Whyte, M., 167
Wiles, M. F., 208n.9
Wilson, B. R., 209n.37
Wilson, M., 135, 140, 207n.l,
208nn.9,16
Windisch, H., 205n.132
Wotherspoon, H. J., 216n.33
Yamauchi, E. M., 200n.55 .
Yap, P. M., 153; 211n.102
Young; F., 140, 207n.6
Zaehner, R. C., 21211.117
THE TRUTH IN THE SON
David Winter
Communication by electronic means has now reached unpre
cedented levels of ease and sophistication. But is it possible that
the most fundamental communicationcfall has
that between Cod and man? .
'There is only one question,' writes David Winter, 'that really
matters in the end: is there any purpose in our existence? Hthere
. is, who cantell us what it is except the intelligence that planned it?
Hwe cannot find it out, because it is literally beyond us, then we
are thrown back on the oMy other reasonable proposition: it must
be revealed to us.' ,
David Winter counters recent and weD-publicised attacks on the
ChriStian view of God with a sharply' argued statement' ofthe
classicbiblical position: God exists, GOd has spoken. What hehaS .
said and how it can be heard are the central .themes of this .
provocative new book from one of Britain's leading religious
broadcasters. .
-. -,
.:f ':,
.... '.
JESUS AND DIVORCE
. William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham
,!
!
( .
For centuries, the Church has been the foremost on the
Wy subject of marriage. However, divergent views among
ChrisJiansare passionately held. William Heth and Gordon
.'
Wenham believe that a new look at Christ's words is now essen
. , tial to enable an.honest reassessment of their interpretation and
application. I
I
Meticulously researched and lucidly presented, JESUS AND DI
. i
i
VORCEanalyseseachviewinfull, enabling the reader to evaluate
1
f;hek strengths and weaknesses. Detailed attention is
l
i
. given to the near consensus...< among evangelicals in 7"
. that remarriage. after divorce is allowable on the grounds of
iHUnorality. The authorS, however, conclude that the view of the
t;ady church, which, allowed but denied the right to
has the most to commend it. A radical shift in evangeli
I
c:al Uftderstanding is therefore needed.
t
. )FSUS ANDDIVORCEis a major and far-reaching contributionto
dte divorcedebate, offering a positive way forward for all those
who seek a serious understanding of this sensitive issue.
, "'; ....
}
..'
, ..
. { . .
.... .
. .:' .
..

'. ',:
THE-COUNSELLING OF1ESUS


T'
Duncan Buchanan
. 1HE COUNSELLING OF JESUS analyses the various schools of
r
.,
'\
.rounselling: from the directive to the nouthetic to non-directive,
to the insights of Ruth Carter Stapleton, Kenneth McAll, Frank
Lake, Rollo May.and :manY others.
,Allof them are valuable,' Writes Duncan Buchanan, 'because, as-I .
look atJesus, I see Him using them too. He is not tied to one style
of counselling - only to an absolute commitment to bring people "
into the wholeness of the Kingdom of God.' Th:is compassionate
way of practical help provides the key to truly Christian counseJ1.o
ing. .
1t is my prayer that in counSelling we. may help many to keep
theireyes onJesus - and so find abimdantlife.' . . .
", ..
DUNCAN BUCHANAN is :principle of St Paul's
Grahamstown, South Africa.
--... -...-->.: - _."--1 ....... .....
I ' '
. j
(
.
THE HUMAN CONNECfION
":to Martin Bolt and David G. Myers

"
,
.. .
, Christians wcmt the kingdoro to come in, and
inside to grow. B,ut hQW does this happen? The young
,diadpline of social psychology can help us find out., "
,1n this book we hope to communicate some of the fascination of
the, seardt, to pre$ent some of the more findings and
It
"
tqOQJlSid.er,the,implications of, these fincliIw for beUef

..
,and everyday life. These issues are for all christians who wrestle
task of liviJtg obediently and want to influence others to
, make}esus Lord of their lives.' ,
How and what people believe is explored in Part I; part II looks at
the nat1ue ADd of social influence; and part ill considers in
detail how people dQ and should concluding with some of
the'key principles of Christian peacemaking. , ,

I
l
,
, MARTIN BOLT and'DAVIP M\'ERS areboth of
VID MYERS is the author of The Infltlted self and
(
.
." ..
','
1