Deliver Us From Our Own Evil:
What Spiritual Warfare is Really About

Shandon L. Guthrie

            The eerie tale that weighed heavy on one woman’s shoulders was soon published in a book recounting the events that she claimed changed her life.  She wrote:

“My wondering soon became terror.  Spirits were conjured up to curse certain people whom the members wanted harmed.  Other spirits were called on to give the coven members more power.  Several of the members allowed their wrists to be cut, and the blood was drained into the silver bowl.  Then they urinated into it.  Finally, wine was mixed in and they each drank from the bowl.

Now these robed men began to get unruly.  Gone was the initial sense of hushed decorum.  I wasn’t sure if they were drunk or high on drugs, or if they actually were receiving some kind of supernatural power from the demon spirits they had summoned.  They began to indulge in what looked to me like a sexual orgy.  I was surprised to see two or three women.  I wasn’t sure whether they were coven members, or if they had been brought in just for the orgy.  Whatever the case, I had seen enough, but as I turned to try and go back up the stairs, I felt Victor’s grip tighten around my arm.

‘You can’t leave!’ he hissed.  ‘I’m giving you to Satan tonight.’”[1]

The woman who told this story conveyed to her readers that her life consisted of some very occultic and depraved incidences.  Creepy.  Disturbing.  There was only one problem:  none of it really happened.

            The book is entitled Satan’s Underground and its author is Lauren Stratford.  Some of you may recall her from the late 1980’s as being a victim of Satanism (she would later claim to be a Jewish holocaust survivor as well).  A couple of years later (1990), the late Bob Passantino, Gretchen Passantino (Bob’s widow), and Jon Trott, an investigative reporter, all exposed Stratford’s account by noting in several ways how it “conflicts with known history” and that her book in general “is not true.”[2]

            Embellishments of this kind are not uncommon (unfortunately).[3]  And the Christian “market” seems to magnetize to the sensationalistic literature on occultic phenomena and related supernatural adventures.  I hate to mention the fictional author Frank Peretti in the same paragraph as Stratford, but I am only interested in pointing out the fascination with supernatural adventures.  Peretti is the author of the highly acclaimed novel This Present Darkness and its sequel Piercing the Darkness.[4]  For years after the books were written, especially the first one, there was a dramatic buzz circulating in the Christian bookstores.  It seemed that even the nonfiction books started to follow suit by the sudden presence of books on spiritual warfare.  It seemed as though there was an effort to take advantage of the “spiritual warfare craze” (to distinguish this from honest scholarly investigations, I have personally dubbed it “spiritual fanfare”).  The stage was now set for some dramatic stories to be told about confronting the demonic.

            Perhaps no one has single-handedly taken advantage of the popularity of spiritual fanfare more than author, commentator, and talk show host Bob Larson.[5]  Bob Larson can be heard across the nation exorcising demons out of people over the phone or exorcising demons out of large crowds from seminars conducted nationwide.  He is particularly gifted in using curse words over the air when reading secular band lyrics.  And he is well known for taking his show on the road and begging for money (usually in the tens of thousands and up).  As far as style is concerned, if you’re a Stephen King fan, then Bob Larson would be the closest thing to a Christian horror novelist you can get.  But unlike Bob Larson, Stephen King has never claimed to raise people from the dead by holding up a Bible and “shining” it on them.[6]

            The subject of spiritual warfare is a controversial one and is typically one that crosses denominational lines.  I choose to broach this subject in this article because I believe that most views have something Scriptural and good to offer.  But I also believe that abuses of it are being used as hindrances to a rich intellectual faith that properly embraces how one is to engage the enemy.  Without a proper response to the wiles of the devil, we will not be appropriately ready when Satan “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8; NIV).  It’s just one more symptom of bad reasoning that requires a balanced remedy.  So, here it is!

The Deliverance Ministries

            As a result of all of the confusing testimonies that enshroud our theological investigations, we have to contend with the charlatans, deceivers, and the ill-informed.  Our contemporary culture has witnessed the widespread births of multiple so-called “deliverance” ministries devoted to personal healing, awareness of the Holy Spirit’s power, and a calling to the newness of life in Jesus Christ.  As noble as these general purposes are, deliverance ministries are unfortunately wrapped up in the ideology of people being “overrun by demons” as one book suggests.[7]

            Part of the healing process in these various ministries is to focus in on the area of sin you are struggling with and then to cast out the demon(s) responsible.  One prominent deliverance ministry on their web site describes their second “core value” in the following:

“Demonic activity is possible and is frequently present in the lives of born-again Christians, and when it occurs, it should be dealt with in a responsible way. The highest priority should be given to dealing with demonic influence in our Christian community with a common goal of deliverance for both individual believers and local churches. The ministry of deliverance fails without effective discipleship.”[8]

            On the surface, there is not too much controversial about this statement (unless you do not believe in real demonic beings).  But this ministry’s third “core value” emphasizes that they seek “to set free those who . . . have become captives to demonic forces.”[9]  Kurt Koch, the famous German pastor and deliverance practitioner, says that “even believers can be controlled or ruled by demons.”[10]  What this means for deliverance practitioners is that exorcisms are to be conducted on Christian believers who are struggling with seemingly unbreakable sins.

            At this point a little clarification with respect to “demon possession” and the Greek derivative daimonizomai needs to be emphasized.  Advocates of deliverance and spiritual fanfare suggest that daimonizomai need not be translated “demon possessed” when it appears in the New Testament.  Instead, say the advocates, the term merely implies “demon-caused passivity” or the act of being inhabited by a demon.[11]  The reason for the semantic distinction is that “demon possession” connotes the complete ownership of the person, which deliverance proponents admittedly say cannot happen to Christians since God owns them (cf. Ephesians 1:14).

Now, every deliverance ministry always includes the following gratuitous caveat emptor: Not every sin is caused by demonic activity.[12]  That’s not too reassuring given that they still maintain that the “highest priority should be given to dealing with demonic influence in our Christian community.”  The sort of cautioning about the possibility that demonic activity may not be suspect is followed about as much as the labels on herbal remedies that say, “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease” – and we all know that most people who rely on herbal remedies do expect it to treat, cure, or prevent something.  Similarly, many potential participants in a deliverance ministry are seeking to be rid of demonic activity.[13]  Most people who willingly sign up for such ministries are people typically frustrated with the fact that they cannot deal with certain sins in their lives.  It’s like the overweight person who desperately wants a magic pill to have the weight melt off of their bodies without compromising their eating habits.[14]  In short, it’s a pipe dream.

Typical prayers in deliverance ministries include the “rebuking” of demonic spirits and the breaking of generational curses that keep them bound to their sin.  While generational sin is typically understood as repetitive behavior that is learned from one generation to the next, advocates of spiritual fanfare (that I believe are truly revising traditional definitions of biblical phenomena) maintain that a generational curse is very much like the old Egyptian curses placed on burial sites.[15]  The popular 1990’s supporter of deliverance techniques, Neil T. Anderson, propounds this sort of erroneous thinking in his own analyses of the matter.[16]  One web site lists a prayer characteristic of many in the deliverance ministry venue:

“In the Name of Yah'shua/Jesus I rebuke any and all of the lying and deceitful spirits of ... ___(list such things as occultism, satanism, spiritualism, familiar spirits, astrology, tarot, etc.___ ...) which may think that they still have a claim on me or my family.”[17]

            Controversies of this sort have raised a great deal of interesting questions.  What is spiritual warfare really about?  Can Christians be demon-possessed (or, in a weaker declaration, Can Christians be inhabited by demons?)?  Should Christians “rebuke” or “bind” evil spirits?  Is Jesus the model for deliverance or is He an exception?  I’ll address these questions in two phases: (1) we shall explore the feasibility of demonic cohabitation within believers, and (2) we shall consider the biblical teaching on spiritual warfare.

            Remember, every deliverance ministry begins with the assumption that Christians can possibly have a demon (or demons) cohabit within a Christian believer.[18]  Deliverance proponents suggest that demonic activity can be an internal struggle as the Christian victim becomes powerless over certain areas of his or her life (or perhaps even powerless over certain bodily limbs and functions, too).  Each deliverance ministry offers their own ideas about the specifics of deliverance from such invasions, but they are all in agreement that Christians can in fact have a demon indwelling them.  Some biblical examples that deliverance proponents cite include 1 Samuel 18:10-11, 1 Samuel 19:9-10, Luke 13:10-17, 2 Corinthians 12:7, and 2 Timothy 2:24-26, just to name a few.  Each case supposedly entails an elect person in the Lord having a demon inhabited him or her.

There are also supplemental arguments for exorcisms of demons in Christians that champion this idea on the basis of the large number of first-hand experiences witnessed by both skeptics and believers.[19]  They note that myriads of Christians who have confessed Jesus as Lord have also been exorcised of certain vice demons and have had their lives completely changed for the better.[20]

            Christian traditionalists hold to a different interpretation.  They say that demons cannot inhabit a believer since God is the owner and the sole resident of our bodies or “temples” (1 Cor. 3:16).  And since contraries like “light and darkness” and “God and Baal” do not have any fellowship in common, then the internal residence of a demon is said to be “as impossible as a ‘round square’” and that they are “mutually exclusive.”[21]  Other objections include the fact that Christians are “sealed” and “possessed by God” (Ephesians 1:13-14).  And if this is so, then “possession of God sets definite limits as to what the powers of darkness can do.”[22]  Finally, they stress that God is “greater” than Satan “who is in the world” (1 John 4:4) and so any attempt at demonic invasion would be perturbed by God who already has His residence there.

            I will begin by addressing the traditionalist understanding of demonization and then we will look at a full analysis of the tenets of the deliverance view that Christians can have a demon inhabit them.  We will then explore some biblical principles of spiritual warfare and consider what the Bible actually tells us.[23]

            First, I want to assess this controversy by admonishing the traditionalists.  I think that even though their overall analysis about demon-possession is correct, many of them refuse to acknowledge the reality that demons do exist and regularly engage the Christian.[24]  This has led to a larger skepticism about anything supernatural in the lives of believers.  It is possible that this anti-supernaturalism has become almost a defense mechanism in avoiding the “embarrassment” of preaching the Gospel in a world where demonic activity is considered myth.  You might say that some Christians have the problem of over intellectualizing their faith at the demise of religious knowledge.  We have to remember that the Apostle Paul himself told us that spiritual warfare is ultimately against “the spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12).  We cannot underestimate the influence of demonic activity.  And whether we like it or not, such spiritual entities are genuinely real and seek to deprive the Christian of his or her saltiness.[25]

            Secondly, I do think that the deliverance model of spiritual warfare is misguided and highly questionable.  The idea that Christians can “have a demon” or be demonized in a sense other than possession is dubious at best.  Let’s walk through the passages in the following and see why Christians probably cannot be demonized (whatever it actually means).

1. Passages that seemingly endorse the demonization of Christians.  In this section, we will explore the passages noted by the advocates of the demonization of Christians mentioned above.  I shall provide an assessment of each of these passages and then we shall explore passages that seem to confute this idea.

1 Samuel 18:10-11; 1 Samuel 19:9-10

“The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the harp, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand and he hurled it, saying to himself, ‘I'll pin David to the wall.’ But David eluded him twice.”

                It is tempting to surmise that Saul was demonized “forcefully” and was made to hurl a spear at David.  However, not much can be made from the passage about the demonization of believers since it is not entirely clear that Saul was a believer.  There is evidence to suggest that Saul was in the business of transgression (1 Sam. 13:1-14), disobeying and being rejected by God (1 Sam. 15), attempting the murder of David (1 Sam. 18-22), and dabbling in necromancy (1 Sam. 28:7-25).  These are hardly fruits of the Spirit.

            It is also interesting to note in what manner the demon “came forcibly upon Saul.”  The Hebrew ‘el can be simply construed as “near,” “among,” or “upon.”  The attack by Saul was probably paroxysmal and entailed the influence this evil spirit had with respect to enticing Saul to act on his emotion.  If we are only supposed to gather demonic influence from the passage, the verses make good sense.  But not much about demonization can be made here.  If the author wanted to convey the inhabiting of a demon in Saul, the author may have preferred using bow’ (“into”) or some form of tavek or peniymah (“inside”) in order to convey entering into something or someone.

Luke 13:10-17

“On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, ‘Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.’ Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, ‘There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.’

The Lord answered him, ‘You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?’

When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.”

            Proponents of the demonization of Christians first point out that this passage exemplifies a situation where a woman was freed from Satan who bound her for several years.  This is not terribly controversial; however, those same proponents argue that the woman who was delivered from Satan was a believer since she was “in one of the synagogues,” “praised God” after her healing, and was called a “daughter of Abraham” by Jesus.  In this case it is said that the demonization of a believer is biblically demonstrable.

            There are some serious flaws with this explanation.  First, it is not true that being “in one of the synagogues” is a sufficient condition for being a believer.  We know of many examples that abound today where some professing Christians appear in churches every Sunday who do not embrace a genuine faith in Jesus.  Secondly, the fact that the woman praised God subsequent to her healing in no way suggests that the woman was historically and consistently a believer.  Her confession could be as the man who was healed of his blindness and confessed Jesus as his savior as a result of the miracle (John 9).  Thirdly, the peculiar phrase “daughter of Abraham” carries a connotation other than a woman being declared part of the elect.

            Early Jewish beliefs about the status of women suggested that women were not socially equal with men.  The Jewish community during the Second Temple period was particularly not too flattering with respect to women’s status.  The esteemed scholar Bruce Metzger points out that women “had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves.”[26]  Since the phrase “daughter of Abraham” is never used as a common expression,[27] it is more likely used to parallel “son of Abraham” which is (clearly) used exclusively for men.

Jesus is no doubt using the phrase to demonstrate the equality of the healed woman in the midst of her fellow Jewish believers.  The point of its inclusion in Jesus’ discourse here is to explain that someone who is one of Judaism’s own, a kinsman of every Jew worthy of God’s affection, deserves to be healed even on the Sabbath.  Thus, it probably does not suggest that the woman was being declared an elect person whose salvation would be secured on the basis of her Jewish heritage – a feature that even Luke disarms ten chapters earlier.[28]

            Finally, Luke 13 may not be a reference to demon possession (or demonization) at all since the affliction appears to be external.  The Greek phrase gune pneuma echousa astheneias is translated variably as “a woman had a spirit of infirmity” or “a woman had a crippling spirit,” depending on the translation.  But in any case only a Western, 21^st century reading through the lens of a deliverance presupposition would extract “a woman demonized by the spirit of infirmity” as the meaning of the phrase.  This phrase only suggests that a spirit afflicted the woman.  Nothing more is to be presumed by the passage.  And given that Jesus does not exorcise any demons from the woman supposes that the demonic encounter was a completed act and that the affliction was the residual or net effect.

            Therefore, I find that Luke 13 in no way disseminates the sort of deliverance beliefs and practices espoused by those imbued in spiritual fanfare.

2 Corinthians 12:7

“To keep me [the Apostle Paul] from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.”

            The identification of the “thorn in my flesh” is said to be “a messenger of Satan.”  And there is no doubt that the Greek construction, whether literal or figurative, intends “in my flesh” to be in one’s “flesh” (te sarki) due to the declension of the phrase (keeping in mind that even though the language might be literal, the phrase can still be perceived figuratively as “under my skin”).  Now, the precise interpretation of this passage has been the subject of much dispute.  Some suggest that the “thorn in my flesh” was a spiritual malady.  Others contend, such as the noted commentators Merrill F. Unger and A. R. Fausset, that the passage evokes a physical malady, such as Paul’s eye problem as documented in Galatians 4:13-15.  Whatever the context, it is clear that demonization is not the issue here.  The spiritual interpretation sees the thorn as a demonic hindrance assigned to Paul to keep him in check.  For him, it would have been a humbling experience as he goes on to say.  If the physical status of the thorn is true, then tales of demonization are way off track.

            The fact of the matter is, the “thorn in my flesh” should be best understood in the context of the previous chapter.  In chapter 11 of 2 Corinthians, we see that Paul spends a great deal discussing this issue of the boastings of the false teachers (v. 12) versus Paul’s own righteous boasting (vv. 18 and 10).  Paul admonishes the Corinthians for their own sake and addresses his own abasement so that they know that the love of Christ is exemplified in him (cf. 2 Cor. 12:15).  Now, Paul continues to address this idea of self-boasting in Chapter 12 where we find the “thorn in my flesh” that is attributed to “a messenger of Satan.”  As the commentator Craig S. Keener writes, “this ‘messenger of Satan’ might be an ironic insult against his opponents.”[29]  This makes sense since Chapter 11 deals specifically with his opponents, and Paul already makes it clear that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” and that “his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness” (vv. 14-15).   If Paul were attempting to insult the false teachers by noting that they were emissaries of Satan, Paul might by declaring in 2 Cor. 12:7 that those false teachers are being a pain in his side and that their true origins are exposed as being from the devil himself.[30]

            Whatever one makes of the Paul’s “thorn in my flesh,” one thing is for sure: it is not the inhabiting of a demonic being.  Concerning this and other passages, lecturer and author of 99 Answers to Questions about Angels, Demons and Spiritual Warfare B. J. Oropeza writes:

“God is able to change a negative situation into a positive one.  He can bring good results out of the most evil intentions of humans or Satan.”[31]

In the end, Paul says of his “thorn” that he “will boast all the more gladly about [his] weakness” (v. 9).  This is hardly the championing of demonization in Paul’s life.  And if Paul could be demonized, we are in a precarious situation today since anyone would be a potential victim and would be fair game for the demonic!

2. Passages that seemingly refute the demonization of Christians.  Now we shall consider the passages that appear to deny the idea that Christians can be demonized.

            1 Corinthians 3:16

“Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?”

            Traditionalists use this passage to counter argue that demons cannot inhabit the same area(s) as God (see 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 where Paul tells the Corinthians that God does not have fellowship with wickedness and darkness).  Since God is present in the believer and the demonic and the divine “can never exist in the same place . . . [and] cannot exist in the same heart,”[32] then the demonization of Christians is impossible.  These counterarguments used against deliverance proponents seem to center around this anthropomorphic idea that God’s Spirit literally permeates the physical body.  It’s as if every Christian has God living ubiquitously inside them much like blood.  But God is neither a physical mass nor a spatial being.  His presence in every believer is best understood in the traditional way: that God is immediately present and experienced within every believer.  It no more signifies the literal spatial inhabiting of a physical presence than the references to the kingdom of God dwelling inside us (cf. Luke 17:21).  The primal significance is that God’s Spirit has a unique relationship with each Christian believer.

            Traditionalists typically assert that because God literally and physically permeates the physical bodies of Christians, then there is essentially no room for a demonic presence.  I think this is naïve.  Now, I’m not insinuating that there is permission for demonic cohabitation.  What I am suggesting is that this passage may not be the evidence the traditionalist can appropriate.  Put simply: the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

            The significance of being God’s temple is that God “indwells” and subsequently “fills” believers in the sense that He communes with each of us and grants us direct spiritual awakening, encouragement, and power.[33]  Clearly the usages of “dwelling” and “filling” are meant to signify a metaphor with a literal truth at heart.

            So, the problem must be addressed in terms of the following question, Can a demon conceivably exist in the proximity of God?  I think we have some precedent for thinking so.  In the book of Job, we are told quite vividly of Satan “[coming] before the LORD” when he accompanies the angels (1:6).  The first dialogue that ensues concerns one of the greatest tests of faith a man of God could possibly receive (the conversation continues in Chapter 2).  And then we are told that he “went out from the presence of the LORD” (v. 12).  If God’s presence were of a literal attendance or inhabitance of every literal square inch of heaven, then I find it quite difficult to imagine how Satan could inhabit the literal presence of God.  However, if God’s presence is His propinquity or proximity, as traditionally understood, then the self-contradiction does not occur.

            Regarding the analogy to our bodies being the “temple” of the Spirit, even the physical temples of Jewish antiquity from which 1 Cor. 3:16 is the antitype could also be in the “presence” of a non-elect.  Since the Ark of the Covenant was said to house the “presence” of God, then it should have been impossible for the non-believing Philistines to steal the ark and place it into Dagon’s temple (not to mention that it raises another problem with anthropomorphism: How does one actually steal the presence of God?).[34]  The solution must be that the “presence” of God in the temple (whether the temple refers to a physical structure or the Christian body) is a reflection of God’s proximity, not His inhabitance.[35]

            Now, if being demonized entails having a demon take ownership over the Christian believer, then this passage and others like it would be relevant and would preclude the idea that Christians can be demonized.  However, the slight-of-hand revisionist wants daimonizomai to mean merely “to have a demon.”  And neither 1 Corinthians 3 nor 2 Corinthians 6 will settle the demonization of Christians purely on that assumption.

            Therefore, I find that the traditionalist who utilizes 1 Corinthians 3:16 to establish that demons cannot be in the presence of God are relying upon an unfortunate anthropomorphizing of God’s indwelling of believers.  If the traditionalist first accomplishes a univocal definition of daimonizomai that entails the actual possession of a person by a demon, then 1 Corinthians 3:16 poses some relevance.

            Ephesians 1:13-14

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory.”

            Traditionalists want to stress that all Christian believers are “God’s possession” and that we are “marked in him with a seal . . . guaranteeing our inheritance.”  This should upset the deliverance proponent but only if daimonizomai is not to be rendered as “to have a demon.”  This reference will fall prey to similar objections I made about 1 Corinthians 3:16.  However, we have secured evidence here that if a Christian is God’s possession (and she is) then it is inconceivable that demonic beings could usurp that authority and forge the new deed, as it were.

            1 John 4:4

“You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.”

                Equally uncontroversial is the idea that God resides in the believer and the devil resides in the world.  Traditionalists do want to emphasize that since God occupies the inner man of every believer, then it is impossible for a demonic presence to share that space.  However, the traditionalist has once again succumbed to the temptation of anthropomorphizing the relationship God has with every believer.  Since God does not literally inhabit the Christian but instead simply has a proximate relationship with her than neither is it impossible or incredible for a demonic presence to inhabit the believer in a similar way (refer to the objections noted in my analysis of 1 Corinthians 3:16 above).

            It also appears that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If it is true that given the mutual exclusivity of God’s inhabitance versus the devil’s, then it must equally be impossible for God to inhabit the world.  The Bible is amply clear that Jesus Himself (at one time) as well as God in general reside in the world.[36]

            Finally, and most obviously, is the intended meaning of the passage.  1 John 4:4 is surely intending to render to the audience that God is greater in status and being than the devil.  And given that God is the superior source for overcoming; consequently, human beings will overcome with God’s presence.  Not much can be gleaned from this passage about the impossibility of “having a demon.”

3. Problems with daimonizomai as merely “having a demon.”  The actual translation of the Greek term daimonizomai will ultimately depend on the context in which it is written.  It can conceivably be translated “be demon-possessed,” “be demonized,” “be demon oppressed,” or “be tormented/vexed by [a demon].”[37]  However, the consensus of scholarship in published lexicons and dictionaries typically portrays daimonizomai exclusively in terms of demon-possession.[38]  This is significant.  If deliverance proponents insist on speaking about demonization in terms of the anthropomorphic inhabiting of a spirit, whether partially or fully, then it is unlikely that the etymological evidence will be convincing (see the above discussion on 1 Corinthians 3:16).  However, once a more accurate understanding of spiritual proximity or propinquity is understood, then the idea of a partial inhabiting or a cohabiting demon seems untenable.  But if a literal inhabiting in part of the victim cannot be intended, then we are left with perceiving daimonizomai in other terms.

            It may return us to this idea of what it really means to be “demonized” to begin with.  Again, such common vernacular in other contexts precludes this idea that to be demonized means to be under partial control.  Indeed, it typically exudes the idea of full control.  Consider terms like “to be Christianized,” “to be immunized,” or, ironically, even “to be exorcized.”  These terms mean, respectively, “to fully become a Christian,” “to fully become immune,” “to fully become freed from demonic control.”  In no case is the connotation partial.  So, even if “demonized” is one proper translation, it still suggests complete and utter control of the victim by the demon(s).

Whatever one makes of the etymological and contextual evidence concerning whether or not demons can partially inhabit believers, the fact that a spatio-physical inhabiting relates more to Greek mythology than biblical pneumatology suggests that the assumption behind deliverance proponents of spiritual fanfare over the term daimonizomai is false.

Demons, Curses, and the Mishandling of the X-Factors

            The biblical and lexical arguments in favor of the idea that Christians can be demonized lack veridicality.  We have looked at some common texts used to prove how Christians can be inhabited by demons, but closer analyses indicate that either the victim was not a Christian or that demonization was not in view.  Similarly, we looked at biblical texts allegedly disproving the idea that Christians can “have a demon.”  Again, the passages commonly used by the traditionalists were unconvincing to me.  They are correct to invoke those passages if demon-possession is the controversy, but the deliverance revisionist thinks that daimonizomai can be understood simply and anthropomorphically as “to have a demon.”  Since a case cannot be made to prefer “to have a demon” for daimonizomai, then Christians having demons is not only lacking in proof but is meaningless.

            I believe there is a better passage one can point to in order to disprove the revisionist’s scheme (despite contentions over their anthropomorphisms).  In the New Testament, Paul tells the Corinthians the following:

“No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

If a Christian can have a demon inhabit her to the extent that certain sins become uncontrollable under the invading influence, then it would be false that “you can stand up under it.”  Instead, an external authority is required to exorcise the problem so that the victim is once again freed from the invasion.  Yet Paul clearly says that you can stand up under it!  Moreover, to have a demon would be a situation where someone is being tempted “beyond what [one] can bear.”  Presumably, one is bound by the invading force to commit certain vices and requires deliverance in order to be freed from that bondage.  Our insurance that such invasions will not take place in believers can be seen in the confiding fact that “God is faithful” and “he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear.”

            Of course this entire enterprise is more academic than anything else since it is not clear that an anthropomorphic understanding is to be preferred.  If an anthropomorphic understanding is not to be preferred, then so much for biblical reasons for the inhabiting of demons in Christians.

            In the second place, a great deal of emphasis exists in the minds of advocates of deliverance ministries that Christians can be victims of generational curses.[39]  Keep in mind that the revisionist wants to define a generational curse in the same vein as the ancient Egyptian spiritualists did in the Ancient Near East.  Such curses are perceived, with a Christian spin on the Egyptian lingo, as the attachment of a demon (or demons) to one’s lineage.  This curse keeps one bound to a certain sin prominent in one’s family ancestry until – voilá – the deliverance magician makes the culpable demon(s) disappear.

            The biblical understanding, as noted previously, is about generational sin in that one’s sins can revisit descendants because parental influence can impress upon offspring the same sorts of behavioral deviations.  In the beginning of the movie, The Patriot starring Mel Gibson, the 18^th century protagonist fears that his sins will come back to visit him.  In the movie’s context, the reference is to killing.  The reluctant hero was apparently involved in a massacre of potentially innocent people in a previous engagement involving the French.  And as the movie progresses, the protagonist witnesses the deaths of two of his sons due to his involvement in the American Revolution as part of a local militia.  This movie serves as an analogy to the biblical understanding of a generational curse.  It is simply the pattern of behavior that remains in one’s family so long as the children are exposed to it.  Alcoholic fathers who are somewhat unrepentant of their behavior will more than likely foster alcoholism in their children.  At the very least, the child will suffer emotionally due to the unintended consequences that result from such behavior.  The curse literally is visiting the damaged child and will continue so long as the child takes up equally deviant behavior (even alcoholism as his father before him).

            The passages utilized in defense of the revisionist’s version of a “generational sin” are not impressive.  Some of those biblical references used in support of the revisionist’s scheme include Exodus 20:5-6; Leviticus 26:39-42; Deuteronomy 11:26-28; Ezekiel 34:6-7.  In every case, the revisiting of sins is never revealed to be in the sense of a supernatural Egyptian-type curse.  Although it makes for great movie plots, the concept is horribly misunderstood.  After all, Stephen King didn’t write the Old Testament!  The Bible shows clear instances where punishments were aborted because offspring, as in the case of Ahab, “broke” the curse by changing behavior.[40]  Moreover, there is a vivid emphasis placed on true culpability – “the soul who sins is the one who will die” (Ezekiel 18:20)!

            Now, we have concentrated a great deal on the biblical source material for the inhabiting of demons in Christians and this idea of generational curses.  But we have not looked at the wealth of experiences that deliverance experts tell us confirm that this phenomenon is authentic.  We have been told time and time again that one cannot contest the plethora of experiences that confirm firsthand accounts of Christian demonization.

            The main problem with this argument is that it fails to account for any other X-factors.  X-factors are those missing elements in causal reasoning that have not been accounted for by the original argument(s).  For example, if I say that my experience of students in my classes proves that bad behavior is the cause of failing grades then I might be guilty of failing to consider other possibilities involved in this reasoning.  In this case, there is perhaps a third, underlying cause that contributes to both bad behavior and failing grades such as emotional instability, despair, or even laziness.  In this case, there are three X-factors that I might not have considered before that end up weakening the conclusion – the conclusion that bad behavior causes failing grades.

The presence of these X-factors do not negate the experiences I’ve had – those experiences are real to me! – they simply lead me to change my interpretation of them.  You see, the data remain the same but the hypothesis or theory that might explain them is in question.  I believe this is the case with the revisionist’s portrait of predicating the hypothesis that Christians can be demonized on experience.  The deliverance advocate simply mishandles the X-factors associated with this experience.  It is possible that there are other hypotheses that better account for the broad majority of available experience.  For one, it is possible that the psychodynamics of the human person account for a great deal of such experiences.  In other words, there are psychological reasons why Christians may feel led to “play along” with the pomp and circumstance of a deliverance episode since it is (i) already part of the “victim’s” theological beliefs, and (ii) there is a desperate desire to rid oneself of ongoing deviant behavior.  Two psychologists, Colleen Ward and Michael Beaubrun, wrote the following with respect to possible X-factors associated with studies in demon-possession (in the interest of full disclosure, the authors are not particularly convinced that demon-possession is a reality in any instance):

“[P]ossession, unlike any other psychological defense, is ideally suited to coping with their conflicts.  Possession affords two possible advantages: escape from unpleasant reality, and diminution of guilt by projecting blame onto an intruding agent.”[41]

Ward and Beaubrun explain that someone seeking to escape from the problems of reality and someone desiring to feel less guilty is likely to “project” these feelings into a demon-possession episode.  Though I feel that there are legitimate instances of demon-possession[42] (having been involved in two exorcisms to date), the authors pose a warning that needs to be heeded by revisionists everywhere – not everything is at it seems!  But my response here is not an indictment of the experiences that are had by deliverance practitioners; instead, I believe that there are better explanations of those same experiences, one of which is the contribution of human psychodynamics.

The other possible X-factor that could equally explain the same data is that the victim may not authentically be a Christian.  The New Testament admonishes its readers that deceivers and practitioners of pious religiosity can appear to look quite Christian.  Again, the experience that the person is a Christian is not challenged.  Rather, there might exist a better interpretation of that experience, namely, that the person has a Christian vocabulary but does not entrust herself in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  The Bible reminds us that some men are “false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13), that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light” (verse 14), and that “[e]ven the demons believe that [God exists] -- and shudder” (James 3:1).  Moreover, the X-factor that the victim is not genuinely a Christian also better explains the fact that the demonization of Christians is inconsistent with biblical demonology.  The lack of biblical evidence for Christian demonization further undermines the deliverance proponent’s bad interpretation.  Just because an experience may be consistent with one’s theological outlook does not entail that it is decisive evidence in favor of one’s theological outlook.

Spiritual Warfare: A Biblical Portrait

            It is not my intention to convey an exhaustive study on the subjects of spiritual warfare and demonology.  Since I am reacting to the mishandling of Scripture on this subject, I will only be suggesting some affirmative strategies for dealing with spiritual warfare in the context of the New Testament.  My hope is that a clarified biblical portrait will better equip the reader to appropriately handle adversity and temptation.  As my guide, I will utilize the information and analogous spiritual armor discussed by Paul in Ephesians 6:11-17.

            1. The armor of God.  Paul intentionally equates spiritual warfare with a description of a Roman soldier.  Often, the New Testament makes references to handling evil and temptation as though one were fighting a war.[43]  The analogy is appropriate for the struggles every Christian endures.  We are literally battling forces that have set out to make each of us powerless in our Christian walk.  Once a Christian loses her saltiness, she is no longer effective.  Therefore, Satan has a vested interest in seeing to it that Christians are disarmed and fallen.[44]  Roman soldiers obviously dawned the appropriate armor they needed in order to shield themselves from enemy attacks.  Since Paul was a Roman citizen and well-versed in Roman customs, he naturally imports this concept into the life of the believer.  The message is simple: Christians are to protect themselves from the devil and his minions.

            2. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood.  The expression “flesh and blood” typically represents a human being.[45]  What Paul emphasizes in verse 12 is that our struggle is actually “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the spiritual realms.”[46]  Paul is interested in pointing out that our primary active enemy is Satan and that Christians are under constant assault.  We could look back to the Garden of Eden in Genesis and see similar elements where Satan attacks through deception and temptation.  While the present circumstances may be different, the battle wages on.

            3.  When the day of evil comes, stand your ground.  Another feature that the New Testament imposes on followers of Christ with respect to spiritual warfare is that the believer herself is personally responsible for maintaining purity and steadfastness against the devil’s attacks.  Verse 14 explicitly notes that we must endure and stand against those attacks.  Other New Testament passages make it clear that we are to be quite proactive in our aversion of sin and temptation.  For example, on numerous occasions Paul tells people to “flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18), “flee from idolatry” (10:14), “flee from all [kinds of evil]” (1 Timothy 6:11), and “flee the evil desires of youth” (2 Timothy 2:22).  In a similar vein, Paul further says to “avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22), “avoid godless chatter” (2 Timothy 2:16), and “avoid foolish controversies” (Titus 3:9).  As far as the human mind is concerned, one is to focus only on those things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8) so that hearts and minds are carefully guarded in Christ (v. 7).  Indeed, the Christian is not to be a bullet sponge for the enemy.  We are to be proactive in our stance against the wiles of the devil so that when evil comes, we will be ready to persevere.

            4. The belt of truth.  There is no better way to be equipped to confront false teachings and demonic doctrines (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4) than to have truth on your side.  Since we Christians know that God is a living, personal reality in our lives and that Jesus died for our sins, then nothing can attack the credibility of the Christian message.  But, we must put on the belt of truth.  If we fail to “wear it,” that is, if we fail to acquire the truth than we are left vulnerable in that area.  Paul may very well have Isaiah 11:5 in mind here where it says that “[r]ighteousness will be his belt and faithfulness[47] the sash around his waist.”

            5. The breastplate of righteousness.  Some pastors I have heard in the past are fond of pointing out that the breastplate (as well as all of the armor listed here) only protects the person’s front side.  The significance is that a Christian should never turn her back on the enemy.  These are wise words and they are no doubt deliberately implied by Paul’s illustration.  The significance of the breastplate of righteousness, the armor that primarily protects the chest, is to compel the Christian to forge a strong protection of the heart by living a holy and righteous life.  The Greek term is dikaiosune which is the same word used to express spiritual justification.  Elsewhere, Paul emphasizes “faith and love” with the breastplate (1 Thessalonians 5:8).  No doubt that faith and love and righteousness are all linked elements of one’s justification before Christ.[48]

            6. Feet fitted with the gospel of peace.  As Christians doing battle with spiritual forces, we are to be prepared for that battle.  The fitting of the feet signifies one’s readiness or preparation for battle.  The significance of the “gospel of peace” is to reflect the inward peace bestowed by God while a raging battle takes place externally.  Philippians 4:7 reminds us that the peace of God surpasses all understanding and that it will protect our hearts and minds.

            7. The shield of faith.  Often in the Old Testament God is said to be our “shield” (for example, see Psalm 3:3; 5:12; 7:10; 18:2, 30, 35; 28:7, to name a few) in the sense that God is our protector.  In a similar way, we are protected from “the flaming arrows of the evil one” (Ephesians 6:16) by means of our faith in God.  Naturally, if we let go of our faith then we let go of our shield and the attacks from the enemy will be more effective against us.  Doubt, when not confronted with knowledge, blossoms into skepticism and eventually atheism.  When one has ultimately lost their faith, they appear quite defeated (though I dare not suggest that all atheists are defeated theists; that would not be a charitable interpretation of atheism).  Some of us simply do not respond to that still, quiet voice of God in our hearts because we demand that God show us fireworks to keep us from slipping.  However, as with many things, a world where miracles are common and ongoing will probably lead to complacency and will simply appear as everyday events that no longer command our special attention.[49]  The relative infrequency of miracles is no doubt intentional.  And our faith is not to be based exclusively on the evidence for it.  We should rely on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit and utilize evidence and reasoning as additional confirmation of the same faith.

            8. The helmet of salvation.  The helmet protects one of the most vital areas of the human body: the head.  Salvation, of course, is our first order of business with respect to holiness and righteousness.  Without salvation, one is not justified before God.  The head is the seat of the mind.  As such, it commands our bodies to act and obey.  Spiritual warfare is in many respects a battle for the mind.  But if one embraces her own salvation, she is now God’s and cannot be separated from His love in any attack (Romans 8:38-39).

            9. The sword of the Spirit.  Paul once again borrows imagery from the Old Testament.  In the book of Psalms, we have a reference to “gird your sword upon your side” (Psalm 45:3).  The significance here is that what God commands is sure to come to pass – enough to embolden any servant of God.  We can also glean from a similar reference in the New Testament to the “sword of the Spirit” as in the case of Hebrews 4:12:

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

The surety of God’s message is an established fact in biblical history, which is perhaps why such an emphasis is made on recording and preserving God’s commandments.[50]  The “sword of the Spirit,” as it represents the Word of God, expresses the divine truths conveyed by God (cf. John 17:17).[51]  In the face of divine revelation, there is no opposition that can change or abolish the well-rooted words of our Lord (Matthew 24:35).  This fits perfectly in a Pauline apologetic since knowledge of scripture and studying its material are integral parts of our Christian walk.  If we are knowledgeable about scripture, we will be armed and ready when criticisms and falsehoods approach from the horizon.

            10. Be alert and pray without ceasing.  The following verse in Ephesians 6:18 expresses to its readers to “be alert” and to “always keep on praying for all the saints.”  This is perhaps intentionally not part of the Pauline armor since it suggests that this sort of maneuver is for those who are not actually involved in direct spiritual warfare – that they are temporarily on the sidelines.  As such, these people (which could be you or me in certain seasons of our lives) have the ongoing goal to help stabilize those who are in the heat of battle.  Sometimes we are in a position to assist those who are presently suffering and to help shoulder their burdens so that they are not weighed down heavily by satanic attack (Galatians 6:2).  Our prayers help our fellow brethren to petition God and to put us in situations to counsel one another during times of crisis.  Being alert is quite important.  In order to make us effective salt for the earth, we have to be alert and ready to deal with any attacks that may (or, rather, will) come our way.[52]

Conclusion

            If we monitor our scriptural understanding and make sure that we embrace a biblical portrait of spiritual warfare, our battles will be appropriately conducted by the hand of God.  Though we are partakers of God’s army, He is our Commander-in-Chief and we must battle the forces of darkness in the manner that God prescribes.  By enhancing Satan’s resume or by giving ourselves too much credit, we must ultimately rely on God’s saving grace and truth to prevail.  If we take responsibility and flee from evil, God will honor that and we will survival our battles with little or no injuries to our souls.  If we play footsy with the likes of those involved in spiritual fanfare, we are susceptible to being scorched by one of Satan’s most victorious schemes: our own ignorance!

Endnotes