http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=120
Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?
As one begins a perusal of the New Testament, he encounters an unusual
phenomenon known as “demon possession.” The first Gospel writer recorded
these words: “And the report of him [Jesus] went forth into all Syria:
and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden with divers
diseases and torments, possessed with demons, and epileptic, and
palsied; and he healed them” (Matthew 4:24,
ASV). From this point on, there are numerous references to “demons” or “demon possession” in the New Testament. [
NOTE: “Devils,” as found in the
KJV, is an incorrect rendition. The Greek word for devil is
diabolos. Other terms,
diamon (found once) and
dimonion (63 times), are transliterated as “demon(s)” in the
ASV. There is only one devil, but there are many demons.]
Critics of the Bible, of course, allege that this is an example of the
sort of gross superstition that characterizes the ancient volume. The
following quote represents a typical atheistic approach to this matter:
Mark 5:1-13 relates an incredible story wherein Jesus casts out the
“devils” from an unfortunate man. He then causes the devils to enter,
instead, a herd of swine, and the swine, thus bedeviled, race over a
cliff, fall into the sea and drown. Fundamentalists would have us
believe that this is a true story. That tells us a lot about
fundamentalists. Belief in demons and fairies and goblins and dragons
ended, for most people, ages ago, and is remembered only in some Fairy
Tales. Such primeval superstitions should be left behind, in our
colorful past, where they belong (Hayes, 1996, pp. 129-130).
Even religious modernists are prone to dismiss the biblical accounts of demon possession. William Barclay wrote:
We need not argue whether demons were realities or not. One thing
certain is that in the time of Jesus people believed in them with
terrified intensity. If a man believes he is ill, he will be ill. If a
man believed that he was demon-possessed, then, illusion or no, he was
definitely ill in mind and body (1976, p. 26).
The Scottish scholar went on to concede that Jesus may have believed in
demons, but that “He did not come into this world to give men medical
knowledge, and there is no reason to think that his medical knowledge
would be any more advanced than that of the people of his day” (p. 27).
To suggest that such a comment is a reflection upon the deity of Christ
is an understatement. The New Testament does not represent Jesus merely
as believing in demons, but depicts Him actually speaking to these
beings, and being spoken to by them. He even commanded demons to do
certain things. Either these evil spirits were a reality, or else the
biblical record is entirely wrong. There is no other way to view the
matter.
This sort of
a priori dismissal of the historical record is
typical of unbelief. The skeptic, and even those religionists who have
been influenced by the rationalistic mode of thought, repudiate anything
that is not consistent with current human experience. But such an
ideology simply is not an intelligent basis upon which to establish
conclusions. There is validity in the credibility of historical
testimony. The reality of demon activity, therefore, is not to be
determined upon the basis of twentieth-century experiences; rather, it
is grounded in whether or not the New Testament documents are credible.
While I do not have the space to explore this matter in depth, I would
like to make this observation. In 1846, Simon Greenleaf, Dane Professor
of Law at Harvard University, produced a work titled
The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice.
Greenleaf was the greatest authority in the history of legal procedure
on what constitutes evidence. His massive three-volume set,
A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842-53), is, to this very day, a standard on the topic of evidence. Greenleaf argued in
The Testimony—with
dramatic authority—that the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
passed the strictest tests of authenticity, and thus may be regarded as
dependable (1903, pp. 1-54). And without controversy is the fact that
these writers described cases of demonic activity during the ministry of
Jesus.
THE ORIGIN OF DEMONS
The etymology of the term “demon” is rather obscure, but some have
suggested that it comes from a Greek root meaning “to know,” hence
probably means “a knowing one” (Vine, 1991, p. 203). Vincent noted that
Plato derived the term from
daemon, signifying “knowing” or
“wise” (1972, p. 92). Ancient Greek writers suggested that the genesis
of the term is to be found in the fact that these entities were
considered to be “intelligent beings” (McClintock and Strong, 1968,
2:639). I will not concern myself with a detailed discussion of how
demons were perceived in the ancient world, except to say that they were
seen as evil spirits “somewhere between the human and the divine”
(Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 168).
Unlike the speculative literature of antiquity, the New Testament makes
no attempt to explain the origin of demons or to describe any
materialized features (cf. Reese, 1992, 2:141). This appears to be
significant; the restraint, I believe, is a subtle evidence of the
divine inspiration of the narratives (see Jackson, 1996). Scholars,
however, have speculated as to the origin of demons. I will consider
briefly some of the prevalent ideas.
(1) Some claim that demons were the disembodied spirits of a pre-Adamic
race of men who lived upon the Earth in a “gap period” that allegedly
fits between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. There are two things wrong with that
notion: (a) There is absolutely no evidence that there ever was a
historical “gap” between the first two verses of Genesis (see Fields,
1976). (b) There were no people before Adam. He came directly from God
(Luke 3:38), and was the “first” man (1 Corinthians 15:45).
(2) Others trace the origin of demons to a supposed cohabitation
between angels and certain women of the pre-Flood world (Genesis 6:1-6).
This theory is negated by the fact that Christ taught that angels are
sexless beings, incapable of such unions (Matthew 22:30; see also
Kaiser, 1992, pp. 33-38).
(3) It has been argued that first-century demons may be identified with
the fallen angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, some of whom,
consistent with the divine plan, were permitted to leave temporarily
that sphere of confinement for the purpose of inhabiting certain people.
Charles Hodge argued this theory (1960, p. 643), which probably is the
most popular idea regarding this matter.
(4) Another view is that demons were the spirits of wicked dead men who
were allowed by God to leave the Hadean realm to accommodate the
implementation of the divine plan of redemption. Josephus claimed that
demons were the “spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are
alive and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them” (
Wars
7.6.3). Alexander Campbell delivered a lecture in Nashville, Tennessee
on March 10, 1841, in which he, in rather persuasive fashion, argued the
case that the “demons” of the ancient world were the spirits of the
dead. The printed form of that presentation is well worth studying
(Campbell, n.d., pp. 379-402).
In the final analysis, no dogmatic conclusion can be drawn with
reference to the origin of demons. That they existed admits of no doubt
to anyone who takes the Bible seriously; as to their origin, the
Scriptures are silent.
THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF DEMONS
The
nature of demons is spelled out explicitly in the New
Testament. They were “spirit” beings. This, of course, creates a problem
for the skeptic, who denies that there is anything beyond the material.
But consider the testimony of Matthew. “And when evening was come, they
brought unto him [Christ] many possessed with
demons: and he cast out the
spirits
with a word” (8:16). Note that the terms “demons” and “spirits” are
used interchangeably. Since it is known also that “a spirit does not
have flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39), one must conclude that demons were
not physical beings.
As spirit entities, demons could exercise both volition (“I will
return...”) and locomotion (“Then goeth he...”) (Matthew 12:44-45).
Moreover, they could assimilate factual information. A demon once spoke
to Christ and said: “I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God”
(Luke 4:34; cf. Mark 1:24). Too, they possessed a religious sensitivity.
“Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well, the demons also
believe and shudder” (James 2:19). “Shudder” suggests to “be struck with
extreme fear, to be horrified” (Thayer, 1958, p. 658). The fact is,
they tremble in prospect of their ultimate doom (see Matthew 8:29).
As to their character, demons are depicted as “unclean” and “evil.” In
describing the vile nature of the Jewish nation of His day, the Lord
gave an illustration regarding a man who was possessed of an “unclean”
spirit (Matthew 12:43); the spirit left the man, but eventually
re-entered the gentleman, taking with him other spirits “more evil” than
himself (vs. 45). This passage reveals the “unclean” (Greek
akathartos—“not pure”) or “evil” (
kakos—that
which not only is morally malignant, but injurious as well; cf. Vine,
1991, p. 272) disposition of demons. From this text it is observed also
that there were degrees of vileness (“more evil”) in demons.
THE EFFECTS OF DEMON POSSESSION
The physical and/or mental effects occurring in certain individuals as a
consequence of being possessed by a demon or demons (more than one
could indwell a person; Mary Magdalene had once been inhabited by seven
demons—Luke 8:2) were varied. Some demoniacs were afflicted with
blindness and/or the inability to speak (Matthew 9:32; 12:22). Some thus
possessed might be prone to violent convulsions. A case recorded by all
three synoptic writers tells of a young man who was “epileptic.” He
suffered grievously, frequently falling into the fire or into water
(Matthew 17:15). He was dashed to the ground and bruised badly (Mark
9:18; Luke 9:39); he foamed at the mouth, ground his teeth, and “pineth
away” (Mark 9:18). This final descriptive may suggest that the boy’s
body became rigid so that he was incapable of motion (Arndt and
Gingrich, 1967, p. 550). A demon-possessed man who lived among the tombs
on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee had excessive strength. He
often had been bound with chains and fetters, but he had broken these
restraints into pieces, and no one had the power to tame him (cf. also
Acts 19:16). Further, he was characterized by both emotional illness and
antisocial behavior (e.g., he wore no clothes—Luke 8:27), but when
Christ purged the demon from the poor fellow he was observed “clothed,
and in his
right mind” (Mark 5:15).
It is important to distinguish between cause and effect in these cases.
The cause was that of demon possession; the effects were physical
and/or emotional maladies. The Scriptures never confuse the two. In
other words, “demon possession” was not just an ancient, unenlightened
attempt to explain physical and/or mental problems. Rather, a clear
distinction is made between being inhabited by an unclean spirit and
being sick. Demon possession could produce illness, but not all illness
was attributed to the indwelling of evil spirits. Note the distinction
that is drawn in the following passage. “And at even, when the sun did
set, they brought unto him [Jesus] all that were sick, and them that
were possessed with demons” (Mark 1:32). The double use of the definite
article (
tous), together with the conjunction, reveals that two
distinct classes are under consideration—those who were merely sick, and
those who were demon possessed and may or may not have had attending
problems. Lenski has commented: “Two classes are markedly distinguished;
those suffering from ordinary diseases and those possessed with demons.
The distinction shows that the latter cannot be classed with the former
in spite of modern attempts in that direction” (1964, p. 84).
THE DIVINE PURPOSE IN ALLOWING DEMON POSSESSION
The New Testament clearly indicates that demons were under the control
of divine authority. Jesus, for example, could command them to leave a
person (Matthew 8:16), or even to keep quiet (Mark 1:34). The demons
that tormented the man in the country of the Gerasenes could not enter
the nearby swine herd except by the Lord’s concession (Mark 5:13-14).
Since it is the case that demons could do nothing except by divine
permission, the intriguing question is:
Why did God allow these malevolent beings to enter into people?
The truth of the matter is, the Bible does not give a specific answer
to this question—as much as our curiosity wants to be fed. I believe,
though, that a reasonable case can be built to help shed some light on
the subject.
If the mission of Jesus Christ, as the divine Son of God, was to be
effective, the Lord’s absolute authority had to be established. No stone
could be left unturned. Accordingly, we see the Savior demonstrating
His authority in a variety of ways. (1) Christ exhibited power over
diseases and physical ailments (Matthew 9:20-22; John 4:46-54; 9:1-41).
(2) The Lord exerted His authority over material objects (Matthew
14:15-21; 17:24-27; John 2:1-11; 21:1-14). (3) Jesus showed that He
could control the elements of nature (Matthew 8:23-27). (4) The Master
even suspended the force of gravity with reference to His own body when
He walked upon the waters of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 14:22-23). (5)
The Lord released certain ones who had been captured by death (Matthew
9:18-26; John 11:1-45). (6) Finally, it is not unreasonable to assume
that, just as the Savior had displayed His marvelous power in all these
realms, it likewise was appropriate that He be able to demonstrate His
authority in the
spirit sphere as well. Satan is not in
full
control! In fact, note this interesting passage. When the seventy
disciples returned from an evangelistic trip (Luke 10:1), they joyfully
proclaimed to Christ: “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in thy
name.” Jesus responded: “I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven”
(Luke 10:17-18). The significance of that statement is this: the
disciples’ power over demons, under the aegis of Christ’s name
(authority), was but a
preview of the ultimate and complete fall of the devil. One scholar has expressed the matter in the following way.
Jesus viewed the triumph of these [disciples] as being symptomatic of
ever so many other victories over Satan throughout the course of the new
dispensation, triumphs accomplished through the work of thousands of
other missionaries. He was looking far into the future (cf. Matt.
24:14). He saw the ultimate discomfiture of the ugly dragon and all his
minions (Hendriksen, 1978, p. 581).
Consider another reference. Christ said: “But if I by the Spirit of God
cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. Or how can
one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except
he first bind the strong man?, and then he will spoil his house”
(Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 11:20-22). The Savior’s argument is: I have cast
out demons, the servants of Satan. I could not have done so if I were
not stronger than he is. My power thus is superior to his.
These passages, I believe, help us to understand the purpose of demon possession in the first century. It established the
comprehensive and
supreme authority of the Son of God.
Why demons entered
particular individuals is not explained in
the Scriptures. Unger speculated that “in the great majority of cases
possession is doubtless traced to yielding voluntarily to temptation and
to sin...” (1952, p. 95). However, in the instance of the epileptic
boy, the lad had been tormented “from childhood” (Mark 9:21), which
suggests, at the very least, that personal sin was not necessarily a
causative factor in demon possession.
CASES IN THE GOSPEL RECORDS OF JESUS’ EXPELLING DEMONS
-
The demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:23;
Luke 4:33-36).
-
The Gerasene demoniac (Matthew 8:8:28-34;
Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39).
-
The Syrophoenician girl (Matthew 15:21-28;
Mark 7:24-30).
-
The epileptic boy (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark
9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43).
-
The mute demoniac (Matthew 9:32-34).
-
The blind/mute demoniac (Matthew 12:22ff.;
Luke 11:15).
|
A CONTRAST WITH PAGANISM
It is worthwhile to make this brief observation. The ancient world
abounded with superstition relative to demons (where the genuine exists,
the counterfeit will be as well). But there is a vast chasm between the
accounts of demons in the New Testament and that of the pagan world
and, in fact, even among some of the Hebrew nation. For instance, as
mentioned earlier, there are no accounts in the New Testament of any
visual descriptions of demons. Such characterizations, however, were
common in the heathen world. A bronze statue from ancient Babylon
contains the image of the demon Pazuzu. The figure has the wings and
feet of an eagle, a human body with claws for hands, and a misshapen
head (Aune, 1979, 1:920). Josephus tells of a demon expulsion whereby
the exorcist “put a ring which had a root of one of those sorts
mentioned by Solomon, to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he
drew out the demon through his nostrils...” (
Antiquities 8.2.5). The New Testament contains no such absurd concoctions.
DEMON POSSESSION TODAY?
Do evil spirits enter into human bodies and afflict people today? I
confidently affirm they do not. Unfortunately, though, some modern
writers have argued that demon activity is still a part of Earth’s
environment. Charles Ryrie contended that certain “fallen angels” are
“still free to roam the earth as demons carrying out Satan’s designs”
(1959, p. 296). Merrill Unger, a respected scholar, subtitled his book,
Biblical Demonology, “A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest.” Several years ago a book titled
UFOs, Satan and Evolution enjoyed a limited circulation in the evangelical community. Therein the author claimed that hundreds of
UFO
visits to Earth represented an invasion of demons. He cited one
“example” where a demon raped a woman (an interesting feat for a
spirit!). The fact that a prominent creationist wrote the Foreword for
this literary fiasco remains an inexplicable mystery.
The position that demon possession does
not exist today can be
argued from a twofold base. First, a thoughtful study of the details
associated with the so-called modern examples of demon habitation
reveals that these cases bear no resemblance to the genuine examples of
spirit possession described in the New Testament. The contrast is
dramatic. Second, a consideration of certain data set forth in the New
Testament leads only to the conclusion that demon possession was a
first-century experience; it was allowed for a very specific reason, and
the divine concession was suspended near the end of the apostolic era.
THE MODERN EXORCISM MANIA
When the movie,
The Exorcist (based upon William Blatty’s novel
of the same name), made its appearance in December 1973, a wave of
mystical excitement that has been dubbed “the exorcism frenzy,” swept
the nation. (By the time the movie had been out for 5 weeks, Blatty’s
book had sold 9 million copies.) Scores of people began to surmise that
they were possessed of evil spirits—or that they knew someone else who
was! Numerous articles regarding these alleged experiences appeared in
mainline newspapers and magazines. A careful consideration of the
details involved in these alleged episodes highlights some startling
contrasts to the New Testament (cf. Woodward, 1974). Reflect upon the
following differences.
(1) The “exorcisms” of today are performed almost invariably in dark,
secluded environments, only to be publicized later. When Jesus cast out
demons, the episodes were public, and therefore subject to critical
examination (cf. Luke 4:31-37).
(2) The Lord could expel evil spirits with but a word, and the effect
was immediate (Luke 4:36; Matthew 17:18). The Jesuit Priest who
supposedly “exorcised” a demon from the youngster who served as the
subject of Blatty’s book,
The Exorcist, confessed that it took
him two months of preparation (fasting on bread and water), and twenty
ritual ceremonies to purge the child.
(3) The demoniacs of the New Testament era were afflicted, either
physically or mentally, by a malfunction of what were otherwise normal
human traits. Those cases involved no grotesque details. However,
according to Roman Catholic priest Luigi Novagese (the official exorcist
for the papal diocese in Rome), “A man’s skin turned white like paper,
his teeth became transparent, his eyes bulged with balls of flame and
fire issued from his mouth.” One priest claimed that a demon took a bite
out of his sandwich. The February 11, 1974 issue of
Newsweek
magazine carried a photo of the burglarized delicacy, displaying
perfect, human-like teeth prints! (I wonder—do demons get cavities?)
(4) Modern demoniacs frequently are described as uttering “fierce
curses” and “bursts of blasphemy.” In the New Testament record, demons
always were very respectful of deity (Mark 1:24; 3:11). There is not a
solitary case of a demon blaspheming either God or Christ in the
biblical narratives.
(5) Two cases of demon possession in the New Testament reveal that the
unclean spirits could empower their hosts with supernatural strength
(Mark 5:1-20; cf. Acts 19:13-16). The demoniac described in Mark 5 could
not be bound even with a “chain.” A respected university professor
posed this interesting query: “If we have demon-possessed people today,
why in my travels in over forty countries of the world have I never seen
a person who is so strong that you can’t bind him with chains (cf. Mk.
5:3)?” (Edwards, 1996, p. 135).
(6) The ability to cast out demons in the first century was given in
order to confirm the truth of the Gospel message (Mark 16:17-20). Modern
“exorcists” preach everything but the Gospel.
A REASONABLE ARGUMENT
A powerful case can be made for the proposition that demon possession
was not allowed to continue beyond the apostolic age—i.e., the era of
miracles.
I first must mention that when the prophet Zechariah foretold the
coming of the Messianic dispensation, and the blessings that would
accompany the spread of the Gospel, he suggested that the Lord would
“cause the prophets and the
unclean spirit to pass out of the
land” (13:1-2). Some feel that the expression “unclean spirit” may hint
of, or at least include, the cessation of demonic activity. Hailey sees
this as a prediction of the eventual termination of prophetic activity
(on the part of God’s people) and the curtailing of the power of unclean
spirits.
Likewise, unclean spirits, the antithesis of the prophets, would cease.
In the conquest of Christ over Satan and his forces, unclean spirits
have ceased to control men as they did in the time of the ministry of
Christ and the apostles... (1972, p. 392).
While this is not a common view of Zechariah’s prophecy, and certainly
not one upon which an entire case could be built, it is not without
possibility. A firmer proposition can be argued as follows.
With the close of the first century, the age of the supernatural came
to a close. God is not empowering men to operate in a miraculous fashion
today. This is evinced in the following way:
(1) Nothing duplicating the miracles of the first century is apparent
today. No one can walk upon water, raise the dead, calm a raging storm,
turn water into wine, instantly heal an amputated ear, extract tax money
from a fish’s mouth, etc. Miracles are self-authenticating phenomena
that cannot be denied, even by hostile critics (cf. John 11:47; Acts
4:14-16); clearly, they are not occurring today.
(2) The purpose of supernatural gifts was to confirm the authenticity
of divine revelation being received from heaven (Mark 16:9-20; Hebrews
2:1-4). Since the revelatory process was completed when the last New
Testament book was written, miracles no longer are needed, hence, have
ceased. They were like the scaffolding that is removed once the building
is finished.
(3) The New Testament explicitly argues that the day was on the horizon
when miracles would cease. Paul defended that position both in
Ephesians 4:8-16 and in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. During the early days of
the apostolic era, divine revelation had been “in part,” i.e.,
piece-by-piece. The apostle said, however, that when “the perfect” or
“the complete” arrived, the partial revelation, which came by means of
the various “gifts” (e.g., supernatural knowledge and prophecy), would
cease (1 Corinthians 13:8ff.). Prominent Greek scholar, W.E. Vine,
summarized the matter well.
With the completion of Apostolic testimony and the completion of the
Scriptures of truth (“the faith once for all delivered to the saints”,
Jude, 3, R.V.), “that which is perfect” had come,
and the temporary gifts were done away. For the Scriptures provided by
the Spirit of God were “perfect”. Nothing was to be added to them,
nothing taken from them. This interpretation is in keeping with the
context (1951, p. 184).
Elsewhere this writer has discussed the theme of miracles and their
duration in much greater detail (Jackson, 1990, pp. 114-124).
Here is a crucial point. If it is the case that miraculous powers have
been removed from the church’s possession, including the ability to cast
out demons (Mark 16:17-20), does it stand to reason that God would
allow demons to supernaturally assault people today, thus granting Satan
an
undue advantage over the human family? How would this square
with the promise that “greater is he that is in you than he that is in
the world” (1 John 4:4)? In other words, if the gift of expelling demons
no longer is extant, is it not a reasonable conclusion that demon
possession is obsolete as well?
CONCLUSION
Certainly Satan exerts great influence today. However, as God does not
work miraculously in this age, but influences through his Word and
through the events of providence, so also, the devil wields his power
indirectly, and non-miraculously, through various media. Current cases
that are being associated with demon possession doubtless are the
results of psychosomatic problems, hysteria, self-induced hypnosis,
deception, delusion, and the like. They have natural, though perhaps not
always well understood, causes.
REFERENCES
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1967),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).
Aune, D.E. (1979), “Demonology,”
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ed. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Barclay, William (1976),
And He Had Compassion—The Healing Miracles of Jesus (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press).
Campbell, Alexander (no date.),
Popular Lectures and Addresses (Nashville, TN: Harbinger Book Club).
Edwards, Earl (1996), “Powers of Darkness—Demon Possession,”
Settled in Heaven, ed. David Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).
Fields, Weston W. (1976),
Unformed and Unfilled (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Greenleaf, Simon (1903 edition),
The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice (Newark, NJ: Soney & Sage).
Hailey, Homer (1972),
A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hayes, Judith (1996),
In God We Trust: But Which One? (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Hendriksen, William (1978),
An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Hodge, Charles (1960 edition),
Systematic Theology (London: James Clarke).
Jackson, Wayne (1990), “Miracles,”
Giving a Reason for Our Hope, ed. Winford Claiborne, (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).
Jackson, Wayne (1996), “The Silence of the Scriptures: An Argument for Inspiration,”
Reason & Revelation, 16:17-22, March.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. (1992),
More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1964),
The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
McClintock, John and James Strong, eds. (1968 reprint),
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Reese, David G. (1992), “Demons,”
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.
David Noel Freedman, (New York: Doubleday).
Ryrie, Charles C. (1959),
Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Thayer, J.H. (1958 edition),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark).
Unger, Merrill F. (1952),
Biblical Demonology (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press).
Vincent, Marvin (1972 edition),
Word Studies in the New Testament (Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers and Authors).
Vine, W.E. (1951),
First Corinthians—Local Church Problems (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Vine, W.E. (1991),
Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Iowa Falls, IA: World Bible Publishers).
Woodward, Kenneth L. (1974), “The Exorcism Frenzy,”
Newsweek, 83:60-66.
Famed atheist and New York Times bestselling author Sam Harris published a book in 2010 titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.
In the book he attempted to show that atheistic materialism can provide
a standard by which to judge moral behavior. He failed to prove his
point, as we have shown in other places (
For
many years in the United States, Christian families and public
education seemed to go hand in hand. The vast majority of American
families happily identified themselves as “Christian,” and they gladly
sent their children to public schools to learn reading, writing, and
arithmetic. In the 1800s and the early 1900s, many US students also
learned as much (or more) about the Bible in school as they did at home.
The Creator was unashamedly recognized. The Word of God was frequently
quoted. Jesus was identified as man’s Savior. The six days of Creation
were taught as fact. The Ten Commandments were read. Immorality was
rebuked. Disrespectfulness was swiftly punished. Public education was
not perfect, but, overall, it was many times more wholesome and
Christian-family friendly than what we see in much of the country today.