Tumgik
#incorrect young man tale quotes
wackybuddiemewbs · 3 years
Text
Buddie Moodboard Masterpost
A thing I tend to do for my own convenience, which is to say: My memory is sh** and I tend to forget projects I’ve already done. So in case anyone’s looking for some of the rando Buddie moodboards I’ve done, here’s where you find them. Hopefully.
Looking for more shenanigan? Then check out my Incorrect Buddie quotes collection.
Tumblr media
Buck, the Wedding Planner – A not so cautionary tale of Evan Buckley planning his sister’s wedding, creeping everyone (the happy couple included) out, all the while battling his not unrequited feelings for Eddie...
The Lake House AU – Fed up with receiving his previous tenant's mail, Eddie writes a letter to said tenant to let him know it'd be appreciated if he updated his address. The confusion is great, as he gets a letter back from a guy named Buck who claims to live in the same house by the lake. Turns out they do, just in different times...
LAPD Consultant Evan Buckley and (Not) Personal Assistant Eddie Diaz – A bit of Elementary, a dash of Sherlock Holmes, and a whole lot of nonsense. As part of a personal deal with Sergeant Grant for his illegal underground fighting, Eddie is bound with babysitting one of L.A.'s best and most obnoxious consultants for the LAPD, Evan Buckley. Eddie is tasked to make sure Buck sticks with his treatment regimen, and Buck makes it his personal obligation to make sure Eddie quits. Fast...
No Reservations AU – The one tale wherein Eddie is actually a stellar chef, trying to balance raising his son alone after his wife died, leading a kitchen on his own, and putting up with his new sous chef and former food blogger by the name of Buck...
Being Human AU – An abstinent vampire and single dad, an anxious werewolf working as an orderly at the local hospital, and an amnesic ghost living under one roof? What could possibly go wrong? As Eddie, Buck, and Danny have to find out, a whole lot, actually...
The Baseball AU No One Asked For – Title has it. Bobby enlists Eddie to get the 118 ready for the upcoming baseball tournament for L.A.'s firehouses. Eddie does not know what he's been led into, as his teammates, and Buck in particular, make a sport of it not doing the sport he loves so much...
Castle AU – Working for the LAPD prepared Eddie for many things, but it really didn't ready him for the author B.A. Roo, his actual name's Buck, to tag along on his investigations to get some inspiration for his newest novel. Because said author was stupid enough to kill off the main character in his very successful series not too long ago...
Runaway Jury AU – Lawyer and jury consultant Chase Mackey is in for a big surprise on his latest case, as it is yet to be determined whether the City of Los Angeles is liable for negligence when it comes to the tsunami that hit the city about a year ago. Because what he believes to be a lucky coincidence, a young man who has beef with the city anyway to get stuck on jury duty, turns out to be part of a group making Mackey an offer hard to refuse: 10 million dollars for the verdict...
French Kiss AU – Because I am trash for the movie, simple as that. Still recovering from his leg injury, Buck travels to Mexico to find Abby after she sent him a cryptic letter. Chaos ensues, because of course it does, leaving him stranded in Mexico, with a guy named Eddie who smuggled plants in his luggage. At least it wasn't drugs...
Six Days Seven Nights AU – Did y'all realize I'm trash for those movies? If not, here's to another. Eddie just wants to get off a tropical island, fast, to get back to his son. While not at all fond of flying in small planes, Eddie will go as far as take the risk a flight with pilot Buck. It seems to be his luck that they get caught up in a storm and crash on an island off the grid. Because of course it does...
Erin Brockovich AU - Seriously an AU no one asked for, yet here we are. Eddie is a single dad trying to make ends meet, especially after he got into an accident and lost the lawsuit. He forces his lawyer Bobby to hire him as a secretary, only to stumble upon a case involving pollution of the water supply of an entire city. He receives unexpected help in more than one way from a biker called Buck moving in next door...
The Bourne Identity AU - The story follows a man who doesn't know who he was before he woke up on a fisher boat about six months ago, shot into the back several times. Trying to find out the truth of his identity and the reasons why he is expert for multiple language and combat, he travels to L.A. He runs into kind-hearted veteran Eddie, who helps him put some puzzle pieces together. Buck is not the only one trying to find himself, as he is chased by a government agency that stops at nothing, thus endangering everyone Buck came to know, including Eddie...
Supernatural AU - No matter what the source material turned out to be, I'm channelling my first fandom experiences with this AU. Eddie is living a normal life until hunter Buck winds up fighting a ghost in his very own living room. As it turns out, demons and ghosts are real - and people like Buck and his friends fight them. Buck is pursuing a yellow-eyed demon seemingly after Christopher like he was after Buck's brother Daniel. This prompts Eddie to join Buck in the hunting business to keep his son safe...
Jurassic Park AU - Christopher lies to his father, so not to miss out on his chance to live dinosaurs at Jurassic Park. When Eddie realizes where his son is, he boards the first plane to take him to that damned park. Animal trainer Buck tries to convince the owners of Jurassic Park to finally let the program run its course and leave the remaining dinosaurs to live out their last days in peace. But all hell breaks loose when unaccounted dinosaurs make their appearance at the park. In turn, Buck is bound to get a disabled kid and his fussing dad out of the park before the pterosaurs can eat them...
Pearl Harbor AU - Eddie and Buck are best friends since childhood. Both dreaming to be pilots, enlisting together feels like a dream come true. But the dream may soon turn to a nightmare when Buck leaves for Britain to fight the Luftwaffe, only for horrid news to get back to Eddie and the family they found along the way...
Forever AU - When Eddie and Buck start on the very same day at the 118, hardly anyone could have foreseen just how much the two would wind up having in common. Both have a son of their own. It's just that Buck's son Red is past his seventies, while Christopher is not even ten years old. Oh, and then there is this small detail, also: Buck is way past his 300, but who's counting when you have lived so many lives and died a good number of times, too...?
Modern Mary Poppins AU - Yet another AU no one asked for, exploring a strange journey of single father Eddie Diaz getting himself a most unconventional nanny for his son named Buck. Because if Eddie didn't know any better, he'd have to think Buck actually is kind of magical...
Pacific Rim AU - Because of course it was bound to happen. Eddie Diaz, former Ranger now single dad trying his best to keep his son safe in a world full of Kaiju coming from down below, finds himself back in the place he never wanted to see again. His former partner Buck is looking for a new partner to operate their Jaeger Lucky Nova. As part of the Lazarus Project, they hope to use the old Mark-3 Jaegers to close the Breach. Eddie is none too pleased, finding himself stuck in the dilemma that made him leave: The threat of losing Buck...
Chat Friends (to Lovers) AU - Eddie was honestly just looking for some now almost old-fashioned comfort in a chat room, to talk about his thoughts and feelings without the pressure of actually saying it to someone he knows. When "Firehose" Buck joins the chat, things take a sudden turn. Because soon enough, talking to Buck online is such an integral part of Eddie's life that he wants to take it to the real world, but for some strange reason, Buck dodges the topic. But Eddie is determined to find out why...
Star Wars AU - Buck and Eddie dreamed a lot of different dreams, growing up. Sadly, the couple's greatest dream was short-lived, but they still fight for it to come back. As part of the New Resistance, they are determined to do whatever it takes to protect the people they love. General Nash devises a plan to keep the Liberation Army from overthrowing a weakened senate and establishing once again militaristic rule under a regime running on nothing but false promises. They will do whatever it takes, to fight for hope to begin again...
Star Trek AU - Lieutenants Evan "Buck" Buckley and Eddie Diaz may have had a bit of a rough start onboard the USS Enterprise NCC-118, but since then they have proven themselves as one of the most capable teams, on the job and outside it. While discovering new life forms and find uncharted territories is a dream come true for both, it remains a dangerous job. And in a galaxy wherein a certain species is out to assimilate any other form of life, an otherwise happy life can take a turn for the worse fast...
Enchanted AU - Single dad Eddie Diaz is in for the surprise of his life when he runs into a real-life Disney prince who calls himself Buck. And no, Buck is not insane or hit his head too hard, he really is from a magical world he needs to get back to to reunite with his sister. Buck, set on finding his "happily ever after", tries his best to navigate this most magical land called Los Angeles. Though maybe his happily ever after is not at all what he thought it to be. And of course, there are a lot of unprompted musical numbers in it...
Soldier and War Correspondent AU - While deployed in Afghanistan, Eddie makes the acquaintance of war correspondent Evan "Buck" Buckley. The two develop a great friendship, but after Eddie is injured on his last mission before his son's birth, the two have to part ways. Eddie soon finds his marriage and shambles, doing his best to raise his son by himself. Though Eddie is in for the shock of his life when a journalist friend of Buck's, Taylor Kelly, reports about an incident in Kandahar: People have been taken hostage, and among them is the man who has been on his mind since, Buck...
Mr. & Mrs. Smith AU - An AU no one asked for, really, but here it goes anyway. Eddie and Buck Diaz are the perfect couple, raising Eddie's son together. What neither man knows is that they are both actually spies for opposite secret government agencies. That is until they are assigned the same target, which may take more than some marriage counseling to figure out...
The Eagle AU - In celebration of this very gay movie still pretending to be straight... Edmundus returns from the battle against the Northern tribes wounded, with his Ninth Legion and the Eagle gone. While he recuperates at Robertus' villa in Calleva, the two rescue a slave named Buck, a Brigante who thinks very little of Rome and its people, Robertus and Edmundus included. When Christophorus is taken in exchange for the return of the Eagle, Edmundus and Buck set out on a dangerous quest behind Hadrian's Wall...
Stardust AU - After his wife left Wall, Eddie is determined to make things right with her by catching a fallen star. Curiously so, the fallen star doesn't turn out to be a precious metal rock, but... a very loud, very displeased young man referring to himself as Buck, who is much more preoccupied with finding his sister than he is about this stubborn man trying to win his wife back. Little do they know that Eddie is not the only one set on possessing a fallen star...
Emergency Room AU - Trauma surgeons who are badass under pressure, Dr. Evan "Buck" Buckley and Dr. Edmundo "Eddie" Diaz, have since become known as the ER's dream team. While they were off to a rocky start, the two since developed not just a perfect synchrony on the job, but a deeply felt friendship... and perhaps a little more than that. But with the life they chose, the conclusion of what to do with that may not be as straightforward as the treatments for their patients tend to be...
27 Dresses AU - Because sure, what everyone needed was another wedding planner!Buck moodboard. Be it no matter: Buck is the perfect best man, helping his friends plan their weddings - and now even his sister's. His life is quite shaken through when his favorite writer for the Commitments section turns out to be nothing like Buck imagined E. Diaz to be. Because Eddie may write about weddings for a living, but to him, it is just nonsense. Though Buck remains determined to prove him wrong, for better or worse...
Bones AU - Evan "Buck" Buckley, famous forensic anthropologist/entomologist, and his team are working together to tell the stories of the dead. Albeit begrudgingly at first, Buck teams up with Special Agent Edmundo "Eddie" Diaz to help solve murder cases for the FBI. After all, Bobby gets to call the shots as the head of the Jeffersonian. While the two soon develop a great partnership and a deep friendship, they each have their skeletons in the closet (more than an anthropologist tends to have). And sadly, burgeoning feelings always at the wrong time don't help with solving those mysteries at all...
The Man in the Iron Mask AU - the steampunk version no one ever asked for. Buck resigned himself to the fate of dying in some faraway prison, wearing the mask that has covered his face for years. That is until a handsome priest comes as a replacement to take their confessions. And said priest turns out to be part of a resistance. Eddie's friends plan to overthrow the Baron and replace him with the rightful heir... who is Buck, apparently.
Film Noir AU - Private investigator Evan "Buck" Buckley and his assistant (note: not secretary) Edmundo "Eddie" Diaz run a small private agency in Los Angeles together. Eddie is still determined to find out what happened to his wife, which is what Buck is helping him with in exchange for his services. But their latest investigation may put not just their partnership on the job to the test...
Coast guard AU – Buck and Eddie are two of the top rescue swimmers around L.A. Both are part of the Aviation Survival Technician program, dedicated to saving lives. Though along the way, they often end up saving each other, in and outside the water. But with a job like this, tomorrow is never granted, a tough lesson both have to learn the very hard way…
Harry Potter AU – Eddie Diaz is in for a grand surprise when someone crashes through his roof. Because that certain someone is no other than Evan “Buck” Buckley, his childhood friend and “Wizard Extraordinaire” who took a rough fall from his broom during a chase. Because there is a well-kept secret in the Diaz household: Eddie is a wizard, just like Buck. And before he knows what's happening, Eddie finds himself embarking on a journey back to the world he left behind to be with his family – to keep his family safe…
The Wedding Date AU – Eddie’s plan is absolutely waterproof. Because he somehow has to get through his sister’s wedding in Mexico without his parents trying to snatch Christopher from him again. With a distraction of a lifetime – by announcing that he is engaged to a man now. While Eddie does feel attraction to men, he is not actually engaged to one. Meet Buck, L.A.'s finest pretend-boyfriend, pretend-fiancé, pretend-husband, whatever you want him to be, who will pose as his fiancé at that wedding. Really, this plan can't possibly go wrong, can it? Can it…?
Superpowers AU – The 118 is in for the surprise of their lives. After they got caught up in the midst of a mysterious storm during a call, all have felt a little off. But things take a sudden turn when a very desperate Chimney calls Hen, explaining to her that he has been running at the “speed of light” for hours and can't seem to stop. As it turns out, everyone who was in the storm now has special abilities. And they can be very dangerous, as they are about to find out…
Horror House AU - AKA of course I had to do some good old Halloween horror for this time of the year as well. When the 118 is called to an old house outside the city, Buck and Eddie are separated from the rest of the crew and can't seem to get out. To make matters worse, they are not alone there. Though whatever it is that is with them in the house has terrifying plans for them both...
Eureka Seven AU - Former soldiers turned rebels as part of the crew of the Aion 118, Buck and Eddie don't just navigate their LFO Jabberwocky together, they also have to navigate their more than complicated no-strings-attached kind of relationship. To make matters impossibly worse, Buck discovers a dark family secret that may force him not just away from the Aion, his family, but from the planet. Even though said planet contains the entirety of his universe revolving around Christopher and Eddie...
Criminal Minds AU - Eddie joins a BAU team led by Bobby Nash. He gets off to a rocky start with the youngest member of the team, Buck. But once Buck understands that Eddie is exactly what he seems, a nice, compassionate person and capable agent, he is more than ready to accept Eddie into his life, on and off the job. The team must hold on to each other, though, as the evil residing in many peoples' minds may very well mean their downfall any of these days...
Red, White & Royal Blue AU - American Vice President Eddie Diaz and Prince Evan, Prince of Wales and future King of the United Kingdom, are clashing yet again. While Princess Madeleine's wedding to Eddie's friend Howard "Chimney" Han should be a happy occasion for both, their longstanding feud won't take a break even on that occasion. When their quarrels culminate with both of them covered in cake a the party, both have to work together to save face. And somewhere along the way, the two find out that they might mean much more to each other than it first seemed...
194 notes · View notes
84hotpockets · 3 years
Text
Masterlist
If you're looking for my original stuff, then this is the post for you. There's audio, fiction, a few edits/gifs and some miscellaneous stuff, most of it very hotch-centric. Enjoy.
Tumblr media
Audio:
Tabula Rasa - Hotch's dialogue from the courtroom scene in 3.19
Ashes To Dust - Hotch talking about his father in 2.19, Ashes and Dust, the silent panic, and the thing he said about Abby that's probably also true for himself
Pleasure Is My Business - How am I a whore? 4.16
...And Back - Hotch's monologue from ep. 4.26. The perfect combination of score and TG's voice. It's hauntingly beautiful.
Natural Born Killer - The line from ep. 1.08 that sparked many fics.
Route 66 - a few soundbites from 9.05
Fiction:
Worse Things Have Happened To Me - about 2955 words. When David Rossi hired Aaron Hotchner he didn’t know the man was a walking danger zone. Or 5 times Rossi had to call Haley because her husband got hurt.
Atonement - 191 words about Hotch's feelings after Roy's death
Death Comes Knocking - about 1657 words. The five times Death came knocking on Aaron Hotchner’s door and the one time he opened it. This is probably as much about Death as it is about Hotch.
Death At 3:00 AM - about 3870 words. Mentioning of scars, sick hotch, death but not in the way that you may think, friendship, unfortunately no sponsoring from Gatorade, implied nudity
Love Is Not An Emotion - about 1041 words. Emily wonders why Hotch hates her. Dave explains some things.
Nuisance - about 597 words. Why did Hotch ignore the symptoms that lead to his collapse in 9.05? Maybe he didn't want to be a nuisance.
Four Words - an introspective blurb
What’s in a name? - about 470 words of why Hotch hated college
And Everything Goes Back To The Beginning - 1.8k words about Hotch’s not-so-great childhood with cameos from Haley, Mr Brooks and Jack Hotchner
Happy Birthday Aaron Hotchner - Hotch’s birthday B99 style
Happy Birthday Aaron Hotchner 2 - just shy over 1000 words of another birthday fic; Derek’s on an important mission and Hotch is his grumpy; Daredevil and a blue Slushy make things better
Edits/Gifs:
4.26 - you know which scene (gif)
Mayhem opening shot (gif)
Mayhem opening shot 2 (gif)
Hotch/Danny Nyland (gif)
Young prosecutor Hotch/Greg Montgomery (gif)
Hotch collapsing in Route 66, ep. 9.05 (gif)
a better version of the same scene for Aaron Hotchner Appreciation Week 2021 (gif)
Hotch during his SWAT days/Danny Nyland Chicago Hope (gif)
Natural Born Killer - Derek and Hotch communicating without words (gif)
...and back (gif)
Reaper arc (gifset)
Bully. Drill Sergeant. Narcissist. (edit/fanart)
Young prosecutor Hotch? TG in Tales Of The City (screencaps)
Moodboard for one of @masterwords's fics (edit)
Hotch - kevlar and shadow on a neutral background (edit)
Hotch and Morgan laughing at a crime scene (edit)
Three agents walk into a hospital - Chicago Hope (edit)
Bearded Hotch (edit)
Early 30s Hotch - Danny Nyland (edit)
Hotch at his desk at home (edit)
Hotch behind bars (edit)
Mayhem (edit)
Polo and kevlar (edit)
His tell (edit)  version 1
His tell (edit) version 2
Transparent Hotch (edit)
Casual Hotch/TG with bonus dad bod father figure (edit)
B/W kevlar (edit)
TG on The Tonight Show (edit)
Halloween (for the Aaron Hotchneer Appreciation week) (edit)
Charity event (edit)
Video
cut scene from 10.02 - Derek asks Hotch for advice
Miscellaneous:
prop mistake I
prop mistake II (or proof that Hotch was framed) - The Storm
Nameless, Faceless - Hotch's medical chart and some of my thoughts about it
Problem maker or problem solver?
plot bunnies for drowning Hotch
more plot bunnies for drowning Hotch - op is @hotchgan
plot bunnies for electrocution or hospital error - op is @hotchley
stupid or not so stupid thought of the day goes on and on
some incorrect quotes can be found here plus here and now also here.
68 notes · View notes
Note
Can we plez get more incorrect "young man tale" quotes?
Got one queued currently :D
-Mod 035
23 notes · View notes
benperorsolo · 5 years
Note
Can we really call SW a fairy tale? Because the modern understanding of the fairy tale is very much shaped by Disney and that’s just in the 20th and 21st century. Older fairy tales tended to be a lot darker if I’m not mistaken, and SW always seemed to draw on older things like myths and heroic journeys. I’ve listened to the commentary where JJ said “if” SW was a fairy tale, but I think he was making a comparative point about how it wasn’t a fairy tale. I don’t know I’m probably wrong
Yes, we can call it a fairy tale. George Lucas has called it a fairy tale multiple times.
“Rather than do some angry, socially relevant film…I realized there was another relevance that is even more important — dreams and fantasies, getting children to believe there is more to life than garbage and killing…Once I got into STAR WARS, it struck me that we had lost all that — a whole generation was growing up without fairy tales. You just don’t get them anymore, and that’s the best stuff in the world — adventures in far-off lands. It’s fun.” (x)
“I realized a more destructive element in the culture would be a whole generation of kids growing up without that thing, because I had also done a study on, I don’t know what you call it, I call it the fairy tale or the myth. It is a children’s story in history and you go back to the Odyssey or the stories that are told for the kid in all of us.” (x)
“Well, I had a real problem because I was afraid that science-fiction buffs and everybody would say things like, “You know there’s no sound in outer space”. I just wanted to forget science. That would take care of itself. Stanley Kubrick made the ultimate science-fiction movie and it is going to be very hard for somebody to come along and make a better movie, as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t want to make a 2001, I wanted to make a space fantasy that was more in the genre of Edgar Rice Burroughs; that whole other end of space fantasy that was there before science took it over in the Fifties. Once the atomic bomb came, everybody got into monsters and science and what would happen with this and what would happen with that. I think speculative fiction is very valid but they forgot the fairy tales and the dragons and Tolkien and all the real heroes.” (x)
“Indeed, it was his fascination with children and his penchant for looking at the world as if he were still a child himself that led him off on his whole “Star Wars” odyssey. And it was in no small measure because he had young children of his own that he continued trying to see the world through youthful eyes. It was from this impulse that what he calls his “modern day fairy tale” – formed out of a transnational pantheon of mythological figures that became the serial morality play known as “Star Wars” – continued to develop.” (x)
Additionally, George talks often about how Star Wars is not meant to be realistic but rather irrationally romantic and idealistic:
“So I made my bid to try to make everything a little more romantic. Jesus, I’m hoping that if the film accomplishes anything, it takes some ten-year-old kid and turns him on so much to outer space and the possibilities of romance and adventure. Not so much an influence that would create more Wernher von Brauns or Einsteins, but just infusing them into serious exploration of outer space and convincing them that it’s important. Not for any rational reason, but a totally irrational and romantic reason.” (x)
“You can’t, and how do you explain a Wookiee to an audience, and how do you get the tone of the film right, so it’s not a silly child’s film, so it’s not playing down to people, but it is still an entertaining movie and doesn’t have a lot of violence and sex and hip new stuff? So it still has a vision to it, a sort of wholesome, honest vision about the way you want the world to be.” (x)
“I wanted to make a kids’ film that would strengthen contemporary mythology and introduce a kind of basic morality. Everybody’s forgetting to tell the kids, ‘Hey, this is right and this is wrong.‘” (x)
So.
Yes. Star Wars is a fairy tale. Period.
Not only is it a fairy tale, but it is a fairy tale that does not even pretend to be real science fiction. George expresses total disinterest in making Star Wars anything resembling ‘hard’ sci fi, as well as a total disdain for realism. Star Wars, as George says, is planetary romance in the vein of Edgar Rice Burroughs (John Carter, etc) whose purpose is to uplift children (yes— Star Wars is for children) with a modern fairy tale that touches them the same way campy pulp like Flash Gordon touched George Lucas. Star Wars is supposed to inspire children and the child in all of us to aspire to a better, more moral way of life. It’s supposed to make us believe, as George says, that ‘there is more to life than garbage and killing’; to remind us ‘of the possibilities of romance and adventure.’ Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what you think the definition of a fairy tale is. This is what George means when he talks about Star Wars being a fairy tale. Pulp, romance, and idealism taking people to the stars. There are so many quotes by George detailing this from one article that I quoted alone that I couldn’t fit them all. To claim that Star Wars ever was about realism or some sort of gritty dark mythos in outer space is just ignorant. 
Additionally, I think you are making a false dichotomy between myths and fairy tales. They are the same thing. Fairy tales are an iteration of mythology. Older mythology is not magically darker than current mythology— the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen are not the only people who ever wrote fairy tales, and frankly speaking, they are early modern authors from a historical standpoint. To set up the Hero’s Journey in contrast with the optimism of modern fairy tales is also just…factually not correct. The basic steps of the Hero’s Journey are in Campbell’s own words:
“A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.” (x)
The structure of the Hero’s Journey is one of leaving the ordinary world, encountering trials and suffering, reaching the Abyss (this is Campbell’s term) or lowest point, overcoming this abyss, and then returning to the ordinary world full of wisdom to share with your fellow man. To suggest that this journey is a) separate or different than the structure of the fairy tale or b) more ‘realistic’ or ‘darker’ than a fairy tale is incorrect. Fairy tales are examples of the Hero’s Journey, and the Hero’s Journey basically outlines a happy ending: the hero overcomes his demons and returns victorious back to his home to share what he has learned with others.
Lastly, I don’t agree with your interpretation of JJ’s commentary quote. The quote is:
“For example, we looked at it like a Western, or a fairy tale…You’re probably going to have a castle and a prince and a princess, if you’re looking at a fairy tale. We wanted to have these fundamental, not cosmetic, but prerequisite elements, these locations in which we can set our new story and our new characters…But when his mask comes off, you see Adam Driver, and he just looks like a sort of prince.“ (x)
So, not to be rude, but I think you’re just not interpreting this quote correctly. JJ didn’t say, ‘If this were a fairy tale x would happen, but it’s actually y so z will happen.” He explicitly said —like literally, I have it bolded—:
“We looked at it like a Western, or a fairy tale.”
JJ is explicitly saying that they viewed TFA as a fairy tale, and because they viewed it as a fairy tale, they included elements like castles, and princes, and princesses, and then goes on to say Adam Driver is made up to look like a prince. He’s saying: if Star Wars is a fairy tale, then it must have these elements, and then goes on to explain how it does, as a direct consequence of intentionally shaping it to be one.
48 notes · View notes
Text
Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
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.
Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
stevefinnellp-blog · 5 years
Text
Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
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.
Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
cvrnewsdirectindia · 5 years
Text
Man City title hopes fading fast, Tottenham rotten to core
Keeper howlers, injury crises and chef Brendan Rodgers serving up some delightful delicacies. Buckle up: It’s Nick Miller’s Premier League weekend review.
JUMP TO: Liverpool the new United? | United no longer United | Spurs are rotting | Keep an eye on Villa
Have Man City already lost title?
It’s the end of the first week in October, and already the title race might be over after Man City’s shocking loss to Wolves on Sunday.
That’s a little hyperbolic, of course — particularly when we know what Manchester City are capable of. Plus, they still have to play Liverpool twice, so that lead could disappear in a hurry. But since three points for a win were introduced in 1980, only one team has ever been eight points clear at the top after eight games in the English top flight
Oh, yes, that other team to lead by eight points: It was Manchester United in 1985-86. They ended up finishing fourth, 12 back from champions Liverpool, and manager Ron Atkinson was sacked the following year. It’s a cautionary tale.
An old Pep Guardiola quote from Marti Peranau’s book “Pep Confidential” has been doing the rounds this weekend. “League titles are won in the last eight games, but they are lost in the first eight.”
Of course, there are lots of sage maxims from the game’s most learned figures that might not ultimately mean anything, but there is truth in what he said: City have, at best, made things extremely difficult for themselves. It adds further spice, if further spice was needed, to the game between the two sides in a few weeks: If City win, we have a proper title race, but if Liverpool win, it could genuinely be all over.
Have City become too predictable?
In terms of points, City are currently closer to Brighton in 14th place than they are to Liverpool. They’ve already dropped more points at home this season than they did in the whole of last. For the first time in a long while, they should be worried.
How to explain this one? The absence of Kevin De Bruyne was a factor, but you struggle to weep for them, considering they had David, Bernardo Silva, Riyad Mahrez and Raheem Sterling while leaving Phil Foden on the bench.
The common factor in their adverse results is that the longer you manage to frustrate City — and there are various ways to do that — the less they seem to know what to do. You can almost see their players looking toward the dugout when things aren’t going well, baffled as to why the plan isn’t working, as if there’s some sort of glitch in the system.
They aren’t going to change, and Guardiola has a body of work to justify that. But it’s possible that this super-charged automation, the machine that is City, has become predictable and too easy to combat.
Assist of the weekend
Among all the picking over City’s performance, a word for Wolves, who look back to their big boy bothering best of last season. A word for Nuno Espirito Santo for maximising their threat on the counterattack by shifting Adama Traore into the middle; for Traore, who carried out that plan; and for Raul Jimenez for his two brilliant assists, the first of which featured an outrageous shimmy that you can watch over and over.
Liverpool the new United?
A comparison such as this is probably premature, given the respective trophy hauls, but there is something about this Liverpool team that is reminiscent of Sir Alex Ferguson’s Manchester United in the 1990s. Like that United, Liverpool are relentless until the end, and any accusations that they consistently get lucky with late goals or penalties can be countered by that fact that they just keep going, aggressively pushing and putting themselves into positions to benefit from luck or “seen them given, seen them not given” penalty decisions.
Liverpool will go into their next game with the chance to equal Manchester City’s record for consecutive league wins at 18. Their next game is at Old Trafford. It should be spicy.
Luckiest moment of the weekend
As mentioned, it’s not that the penalty awarded to Sadio Mane against Leicester was necessarily an incorrect decision. It’s more that it was a coin flip. It could have been a penalty, but Liverpool could not have seriously complained if it hadn’t been given. Such luck is required to be champions.
– ESPN Premier League fantasy: Sign up now! – Luck Index 2019: Man United worse than sixth? – VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate guide
play
1:30
Steve Nicol says Liverpool deserved the win against Leicester despite the sides being level for 94 minutes.
United no longer United
It really is difficult to think of new ways to describe how desperate Manchester United are, so let’s keep this brief after another bad loss, this time to Newcastle at St James’ Park.
Many have pointed to the players available to Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, suggesting that he can’t do much more with them, and indeed nobody could. That is nonsense.
This is a distance from being a vintage United squad, but they have somehow looked less than the sum of their parts this season, which is almost impressive in its ineptitude. Sure, not many managers could make these players title contenders, but most coaches with a bit of nous and experience could at the very least do better than this.
Appointing Solskjaer was understandable, given the sentiment and the results in his first couple of months, but it’s clear now that it was a mistake. Keeping him for much longer would compound that mistake further.
A little respite for Newcastle
The only good thing that Manchester United did was give Newcastle a bit of respite. There were plenty of elements to encourage in Steve Bruce’s side’s win, not least Matty Longstaff’s performance and goal, but this victory doesn’t solve the problems that were apparent in last weekend’s defeat to Leicester.
They’re still there and won’t be solved by this one win. A long season still lies ahead for Bruce and his team.
Spurs aren’t stale — they’re rotting
There are so many problems with Tottenham at the moment that it would take far too long to discuss them all. Let’s just pick one of them: Spurs looked so incredibly passive in their 3-0 defeat to Brighton. This used to be a team that was utterly relentless, that would take charge of games, smothering and throttling the opposition. On Saturday, they were tentative and completely unassertive, they barely looked dangerous, and they were absent-minded in defence, conceding three avoidable goals.
This time Mauricio Pochettino couldn’t use the line that “everything they hit went in,” as he did in the 7-2 loss to against Bayern Munich. If that was a spectacular flaying, this felt much more mundane, a relatively routine home win by a team that on the day looked superior. Yet this was a team that at the start of play were a point off the bottom three and had won only once at home in 2019, which was against Huddersfield.
It has becoming increasingly apparent that Spurs haven’t gone stale. Rather, they’ve been rotting. When things go stale, they just sit there slowly going bad — nothing sudden happens — but when something rots, eventually it just collapses. Since around February, Spurs have been like a rotting roof beam that someone put a few coats of paint on as they progressed to the Champions League final: on the surface. Things looked OK, but beneath that they weren’t, and now the beam has collapsed.
There’s no easy answer to the question of where they go from here: It involves Pochettino leaving, the squad being torn up and painstakingly rebuilt, a combination of the two or some other, no less painful option. There could be grim times ahead.
play
1:23
Craig Burley says Frank Lampard has rejuvenated Chelsea with youth after the Blues’ 4-1 win over Southampton.
Old boys’ act
The narrative around Chelsea this season has broadly, and rightly, been around the excellence of the young players, and while Tammy Abraham and Mason Mount scored brilliant goals against Southampton, the driving force behind the 4-1 win over Southampton was the old guard.
Willian was exceptional and singled out for praise by Frank Lampard, Cesar Azpilicueta has regained some of his form after a troubling spell early in the season, and Jorginho has grown in influence to become the still point around which everything else spins.
Bouncing back
A week ago, Dean Henderson let a weak shot squirm through his grasp to cost Sheffield United their game against Liverpool. This weekend, he produced a string of brilliant saves to earn a point at Watford. That’s being a goalkeeper for you.
Misplaced confidence from Marco Silva?
Turf Moor is a bad place to go if you’re a manager under pressure. Not necessarily because Burnley are such an overpowering proposition on the pitch but more because if you lose, you have to walk past the away fans to reach the tunnel.
That fate befell Marco Silva at the weekend, and those Everton fans made their feelings clear, but it doesn’t seem to have made him doubt his methods too much. “We’re not worried at the moment,” he said. “I have the same confidence I had at the beginning of the season. The same confidence about our quality and what we’re doing every single day.”
One suspects his confidence might be very slightly misplaced.
Will Villa’s win loosen the jar?
Aston Villa’s performances had been better than their results suggested before this weekend, and you suspected that someone was going to get a hiding at some point. That someone turned out to be Norwich, and perhaps the 5-1 win will be the equivalent of that first bit of ketchup to come out of a troublesome bottle. Plenty more could follow after this.
from CVR News Direct https://cvrnewsdirect.com/man-city-title-hopes-fading-fast-tottenham-rotten-to-core/
0 notes
thecoroutfitters · 5 years
Link
The present-tense verb you utilize because the simple predicate in a phrase must concur in quantity aided by the subject that is simple. (This guideline additionally relates to last tense “be” verbs.)
More often than not, the exact same past tense verb works for both single and plural topics. (a vehicle honked, cars honked)
Make use of verb that is singular the straightforward topic is single.
Example: A bat flies from underneath the connection. ?(a single verb for a subject that is singular
Work with a plural verb when the straightforward topic is plural.
Example: Bats fly from beneath the bridge. ?(a plural verb for the plural topic)
Be mindful you recognize the predicate and subject associated with the phrase. Usually do not consider words that are interceding expressions. The niche and predicate of this sentence–the two main terms within the agree that is sentence–must quantity.
Instance: A can packed with old razor blades ended up being when you look at the tiny upper body.
In many sentences that start with right right here or here, the true wide range of the verb is dependent upon how many the niche after it. Often right right here or here are adverbs and determine a place, but usually they just do not. If they try not to, these are typically referred to as expletives. An expletive is just a word this is certainly only a placeholder without any meaning that is special. It is yet another term frequently utilized as an expletive.
Examples: There is a man that is strange. ?(There can be an expletive; right right here is definitely an adverb in this phrase.) right right Here are some delinquents that are juvenile. ?( Here is an expletive.) Its raining today. ?(It can be an expletive.)
A noun that is collective a single verb if the team is generally accepted as an unit, plus it takes a plural verb as soon as the people into the team are stressed.
Examples: The basketball team is popular. The group have actually received their prizes.
Verb Tense Changes (tense)
Tense means “time,” so verb tense informs the right time of the action or becoming. The action can happen in our, in past times, or perhaps in the long run. Every time has its own verb that is own type.
We walk now. We strolled yesterday. We will walk a few weeks.
Constant verb tense means you utilize the exact same verb tense to share with about actions into the exact same time period.
Work with a current tense verb to inform what exactly is taking place now. The action is continuing. (assistance)
Make use of past tense verb to share with just exactly what occurred in past times. The action is finished. (assisted)
Make use of future tense verb to inform just what will happen in the foreseeable future. The action hasn’t yet started. (may help)
Avoid switching verb tenses without cause. Keep in mind, a verb tense is used to share with about activities when you look at the time frame that is same. By using various tenses for the time that is same, your audience is likely to be lost over time. That isn’t good. Therefore check always your verbs. Be certain your verb tense is employed consistently.
here is a good example of mixed verb tenses with great outcomes. However the verb tenses demonstrably tell what exactly is taking place now and exactly exactly what took place within the past. Different verb tenses are correctly utilized to inform about various time structures.
Illustration of correct verb usage that is tense my dad’s favorite game has been dominoes. He likes dominoes since the game keeps their head active. As he had been young, he played dominoes when he served being a soldier. He states that dominoes had been the thing that made the war bearable.
listed here is a good example of blended verb tenses with poor outcomes. Various verb tenses are used to inform about actions when you look at the time frame that is same. Such verb that is careless modifications confuse the audience and hobble your writing.
Exemplory case of incorrect verb usage that is tense Talley penned about their youth, and then he writes of just exactly just how as he was a young child, he offers shells to a guy whom offered them to a different guy.
in many analyses, you need to choose tense that is present. Inform how a writer has written the piece in current tense. Inform about actions into the tale in current tense, too. Establish a time period, and shift verb tense then only once the full time framework changes. Listed here is a good example of verb tense within an analysis. This excerpt is through the sample Assignment 9 analysis.
Illustration of correct verb tight usage: Twain’s descriptive language additionally assists to illustrate their changing perceptions. Twain’s utilization of real description enables him to makes numerous appeals into the sensory faculties while he chronicles the differing methods he comes to see the river. Being a more youthful guy, he watches because the sunset’s “red hue brightened into silver.” The next day as an older man, he understands that such a sun only warns of wind.
Realize that although the passage is in current tense, the quote that is direct a past tense verb. That change in tense is certainly not a issue. Protect the verb tense within the source. You should be certain that when you exit the estimate, you move the verb tense back once again to provide tense.
Paragraph Breaks
A paragraph is an unit that is logical of. A beneficial paragraph provides the three essential areas of paragraph framework: basic sentence, information sentences, concluding phrase. Whenever one rational product of data is complete, the journalist should begin a paragraph that is new. In your writing because of this program, indent the sentence that is first of paragraph five areas.
Some authors try not to break when it comes to paragraph that is new. Because of this, an unending paragraph is done. Such monster paragraphs in many cases are difficult to read and harder to know. To try to break the amount of data into rational devices, an teacher might require a paragraph break into the text where a unique paragraph should start.
Paragraphs are a way of organizing information that is similar. These “sandwiches” of data should deliver units of data essay-writer.com which are complete in by by by themselves but which may additionally offer the thesis of an essay.
Once you compose a paragraph, first compose a basic phrase, frequently called a topic sentence–indented five areas. Include three sentences of information regarding this issue. Conclude the paragraph by recapping the sentence that is topic details. Then proceed to the next paragraph. Indent the very first phrase associated with the paragraph that is new areas.
DIFFERENT GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
A variety is marked by me of sentence structure issues in student essays. These add the major grammatical mistakes within the area above to misspellings to smaller grammatical mistakes. Some of these lesser errors that are grammatical explained in this part.
Learn about the Grading Marks i personally use only at that website website link.
Parallelism written down is really a thing that is good. Writing that does not have parallelism can be confusing. Parallelism means that equal terms in a phrase are identical grammatical type. The other equal term should be a noun, too for example, if one term is a noun. If both terms are nouns, as an example, your writing has parallelism. Then you have nonparallelism in your writing if you have a noun and an adjective presented as equal terms. That nonparallelism is really a weakness.
Examples: Running is much more enjoyable than to jog. ?(incorrect: The words that are boldfaced maybe maybe not parallel. The term that is first a gerund, plus the 2nd term can be an infinitive.) Operating is more enjoyable than running. ?(correct: The boldfaced terms are parallel. Both terms are gerunds.) To operate is more enjoyable than to jog. ?(also proper: The words that are boldfaced parallel. Both terms are infinitives.)
This woman is witty, charming, and has now cleverness. ?(incorrect: The boldfaced terms are maybe maybe not parallel. Initial two terms are adjectives, as well as the term that is third a noun.) She’s witty, charming, and smart. ?(correct: The words that are boldfaced parallel. All three terms are adjectives.) She’s wit, charm, and intelligence. ?(also proper: The boldfaced terms are parallel. All three terms are nouns.)
He’s smart, handsome, and he’s got great deal of cash. ?(awkward: This framework is certainly not quite nonparallel, but we view it a whole lot. I might mark this construction as awkward. Begin to see the modifications following.) He could be smart and handsome, and he’s got great deal of cash. ?(correct: include and between your two predicate adjectives. The 2nd component is a whole phrase.) He could be smart, handsome, and rich. ?(proper: Turn the phrase into a number of synchronous terms.)
from Patriot Prepper Don't forget to visit the store and pick up some gear at The COR Outfitters. Are you ready for any situation? #SurvivalFirestarter #SurvivalBugOutBackpack #PrepperSurvivalPack #SHTFGear #SHTFBag
0 notes
stevefinnell-blog · 5 years
Text
Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
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.
Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Demons: Ancient Superstition or Historical Reality?by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
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.
Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
0 notes
Text
Allows Acquire Abundant Together By Brent Wilkinson
The very first graphic that pertains to my mind when listen to words Escort is actually an athletic female with jet-black hair, shimmering brown eyes, olive tan, an awesome responsible for, a smile to die for and also 4 in dark pump heels - at accurate Latina charm. Goodie sushi produces excellent homemade gifts for grandparents, educators as well as additional, and also will produce those you care about feel exclusive. You view, our company believe that something or even an individual can create us delighted, but that mistakes. Our team invest our young people longing for aging so our experts can possibly do things that we presume create adults pleased, after that when our team are actually more mature our experts long for our youth and also how we lost that through not appreciating our health and wellness and also liberty off accountabilities. Be actually caring and also reasonable; simply don't slobber all around him in your attempt making him delighted. Definitely, consequently outside points as well as folks are not visiting create our company satisfied in the longterm, as they continuously need to be switched out along with something else. Some guys persist critters in some cases, and also no female, one or guy, suches as being compelled making adjustments. You can help make simple, yet stylish main features by simply grouping all together numerous small mounted photos. Irrespective of the circumstance or instances, we come to opt for whether our team intend to feel happy and invigorated, or even difficult and also tired. I make that an indicate check out an incident or 2 throughout the full week to offer me a good laugh. As well as while opting for, be sure you are actually opting for the one that uses you the resource of dining at one of the most popular dining establishments. Pleased folks often tend to be actually much more practical, creative, philanthropic, selfless and also healthier. Just be sure you designate each one, thus the other moms and dads know just what their children are enjoying! Probably you discover yourself during that group-- prosperous yet unsatisfied, not delighted but effective. Staying in contact along with family and friends is one of the leading 5 regrets from the passing away 7. Here is more about yellow pages uk mobile numbers (Read Webpage) take a look at our internet site. If you prefer much more documentation that this's helpful for you, I've found some analysis that confirms that can easily create you happier at the moment. As you could see, funny relationship quotes are a fantastic technique to bear in mind what makes our friendships so special as well as our good friends thus dear. Have that a step even more and also definitely look at dreams you possessed when you were actually younger or even currently have concerning what will definitely make you really happy. If you want to make your job in essay composing solution, after that you have to versed in several skill-sets such as research study, persuasive creating, as well as editing. Just I haven't made a decision concerning the wink but, because maybe it would produce this evident that I had actually heard their chat. Instead of getting revenge and also shedding your guy for good, why not make use of these emotions to earn him regret he ditched you and also plead you to have him back. If you have any problem reading this fic along with a monitor viewers, please do let me know and also I will certainly carry out definitely every thing I could to correct it. Generally, the tunes are actually not must understand the tale, nevertheless I am actually servicing featuring the lyrics to the tunes on the video recording posts so that ought to be actually up soon. What happened to me is actually not what i could maintain simply to myself yet to likewise tell the planet to ensure that those that were actually once like me will definitely arrive relative back as well as mored than happy again. You will start to look at the globe in adverse conditions and you will really tend to attract more points to earn you unhappy. Prior to rolling the rice and the algae, ensure that the algae is actually place on a wooden floor covering utilized to rumble the sushi (All these may be brought at the nearest Eastern corner store). In order to get begun you should choose to earn happiness a concern in your lifestyle. What Creates Me Satisfied was actually produced by Annie Gibbs for The Ragdoll Base from a suggestion through Anne Wood, Creator and also Creative Director from Ragdoll Productions Ltd and Fiduciary of The Ragdoll Base. Holiday parks could differ extremely so this's always most effectively to carry out some investigation and also see to it you selected a playground that satisfies your family's requirements. More mature girls which have actually finished their obligations and also are actually currently ready for a crazy and also care free opportunity, may find their excitement involved a screeching stop given that their partner possesses no enthusiasm in taking pleasure in sex. I am actually thus happy that i carried out not lose him to all respect and the girl visits PHYSICIAN Eze Malaka for his magnum opus. For more renowned quotes, look into the well-known, an internet site that focuses on 'Top 10' checklists of estimates in lots from groups. One more idea to create the place and also the occasion extra stylish is making a screen of photos from the celebrant through the years in white and also sterling silver frames. Whether that's being able to show yourself artistically or even managing to make a choice for yourself, private independence is essential. As a result, attempt other methods to control your lifestyle once again and also succeed in being happy and healthy and balanced. I meant a guy that is actually name is actually PREDICTOR AHMED he is actually actually strong as well as could assist designate incantations to recover one's gone, shed, misconducting enthusiast and magic cash spell or spell for a really good project or good luck spellI am actually currently pleased & a residing statement cos the man i had would like to get married to left me 3 full weeks just before our wedding event and also my lifestyle was actually inverted given that our partnership has actually goned on for 3years. Allow's mention you do close magic (which I highly suggest you must additionally do if you desire to make a good residing in magic) yet you locate that challenging to challenge individuals up close. Considering that this offered him a possibility to dig in to some from the much more clean emotions he had not had a chance to play along with in an although, he will selected this tune. There is nothing at all incorrect along with making certain you are happy but likewise live for others as well as you locate much more joy and happiness. Many researches have actually located that time devoted along with friends and family makes a large variation to just how happy we believe, usually. Combine that emotion with an enthused passion for young puppies, and you acquire Skou's organisation: Puppy dogs Create Me Pleased-- which right now generates $40,000 monthly. As well as, with a couple of ideas, you may most likely discover the best ways to approach him to make sure that he not only pays attention, but he has some action to earn sure that you are more pleased within your relationship. You do not must have a hard time to find excellent phrasing ideas for that unique individual's special day gathering.
0 notes
radreviews · 6 years
Text
2017 SQUAD PICKS
Hello, it’s us. It’s been awhile, but we’re back with our favorite art, moments, and trends from 2017. I usually have a whole preamble to set the stage for our picks, but let’s just get into it:
RADHIKA
In-Theater Experiences Every year I have a few movies that remind me how great the movie theater experience can be. A couple of years ago it was Magic Mike XXL; this year it was Get Out and Spider-Man Homecoming. I saw both films in packed houses, with the audience reacting to every line delivery, cameo and plot twist as it happened. It was exhilarating, and I can’t imagine seeing the films any other way. It reminded me that sometimes film needs to be a collective experience—that peer reactions can be the very thing that makes a good movie great. The same thing can be said of live theater, an inherently shared experience. Humblebrag time… we finally saw Hamilton this year and it exceeded the hype and expectations. I also listened to the soundtrack a million times and memorized all of the words after seeing it so, yep, I’m one of those people now. Also! We saw Mean Girls: The Musical in its previews in DC and holy wow you’re all in for a treat. Lady Bird Forget what I said about collective experiences because I saw this incredible film by myself, crying quietly through the entire third act. There are always films whose stories don’t necessarily overlap with my experiences, but make me feel everything (last year’s was La La Land). This film has universal love from every critic with a beating heart and it’s one thousand percent deserved. Lady Bird was my favorite film of the year — a beautiful portrait of the confusion of adolescence, of familial frustration and of love. It was note-perfect. Despacito CALL ME BASIC but I love this song. I will not apologize for how happy it makes me, for how secretly sexy the lyrics are, for how directly my mood is impacted by those opening chords. Also, I prefer the Justin Bieber version don’t @ me. “Remember Me” from Coco
Tumblr media
Let’s not talk about how much I cried during Pixar’s Coco (but if you must know, it was A LOT), let’s talk about the five different versions of its original song “Remember Me” that appear on the official soundtrack. There’s the three versions directly from the film (each BEAUTIFULLY sung by Benjamin Bratt, Gael Garcia Bernal, and Anthony Gonzalez), a Spanish version, and inexplicably a version by Miguel?!!??!? It’s a classic case of I didn’t know I needed it until now, but thank you for this gift.  CTRL - SZA Everything is all caps, and wow, what a debut. “The Weekend” spoke quiet sadness about being the ‘other woman,’ “Supermodel” delved deep into being unloved and retaliating, and everything before and after touched on the intricacies of relationships and heartbreak. It was personal and it was stunning. “Lemons” - blackish Eleven days into the new year, we already had one of the best episodes of the year. In a pointed middle finger to Trump, blackish became a mouthpiece for what all of us were feeling two months after the election—anger, confusion, and helplessness—and instead of harping on the negatives, it made lemonade. Traveling I was 2 steps away from going full “wanderlust”-Instagram-caption mode this year. I’ve always wanted to travel, but 2017 was the first year where I threw caution (and money) to the wind, and just…booked stuff. I went to Cuba, Philly and Nashville for the first time, explored San Francisco and Boston again with friends, and flew back to Michigan, Chicago, and Cleveland for various engagements and weddings. If ever there was a year where a few days of distraction were not just welcomed but needed, it was 2017. There’s only more exploring to be done in 2018. Pod Save America I think it’s safe to say we all feel more politically angry and engaged in this era of backwards politics. Twice a week, I relied on the educated discussion, hilarious banter, and informed opinions of former Obama staffers Jon Lovett, Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor to fill me in on what I should be angry about that day. It’s a podcast that just feels necessary. Also, I now own a ‘Friend of the Pod’ t-shirt and I feel like I’m part of a cult, but it’s the coolest cult ever. Bojack Horseman
Tumblr media
It’s common knowledge that I love art that makes me cry, but I never thought I’d cry while watching a cartoon. This show is equal parts acerbic, hilarious, and downright depressing (read: I love this show so much). Harping on the fragility of time, the fourth season of Bojack Horseman continued its upward trajectory and gave me one of my favorite quotes from and about television, probably ever. Bojack is one of the smartest, most thoughtful and well-written shows on this incredibly vast television landscape. We are so lucky to have it. The Emergence of Timothée Chalamet Relatively unheard of before 2017, Chalamet starred in two of the best films I saw this year — Lady Bird and Call Me By Your Name. Chalamet inhabited two completely different, complicated characters but made them both vulnerable, empathetic, and mesmerizing. He’s a star and even if the Academy doesn’t recognize him this year (which would be objectively incorrect), I’ll watch anything he’s in from here on out.
PROMA Trailer Hype
Tumblr media
I have never experienced a theater crowd cheering for a freaking trailer before – titters of excitement for Harry Potter, at best – but once the Black Panther full trailer dropped there was only one logical response. We cheered for it before  Spider-Man: Homecoming, before Marshall, before Thor: Ragnarok, and I hope to cheer for it again before February 2018, which is finally close. Seeing Things in Theaters Multiple Times Since moving to New York, I’ve never seen a movie twice in theaters - first because of cost and then because of time. Honestly I probably haven’t done it since high school, but I used to love it, and this year I finally returned to that with The Big Sick and Spider-Man: Homecoming. Worth it. A First Time with an Oldie
Tumblr media
I’ve loved Titanic since I first saw it in 2000, but of course I was too young to see it in theaters. It was re-released in 3D for a quick stretch in 2012, but I was in India at the time, so this year marked the first time I saw Titanic in theaters, that too in impressive 3D. I will never tire of watching old favorites in packed theaters full of people who love the film as much as I do and hum along with the music or clap for big moments. The Year TV Got Angry In a year when we were all perpetually existential or angry, it was cathartic to see TV mirror that state. I reveled in the female rage of The Handmaid’s Tale, the intersectional activism of Dear White People, She’s Gotta Have It, and the straight-up middle finger that was Difficult People. Having an AppleTV is almost as gratifying as screaming into the void! Facemasks A pack of facemasks literally arrived on my and Radhika’s doorstep at a point in 2016 when we didn’t realize we needed them. Since then, I’ve tried to always have some sheet masks around and let myself splurge on a charcoal mask that I’ve done almost every weekend without fail since September. Put on a mask, start an episode, remove  and rinse. Treat yo self. Mean Girls: The Musical Seconding Rads on this. I was lucky enough to catch Mean Girls in the workshop stage before it left New York for a summer hiatus and then previews – even in that early stage it was fantastic. It’s exciting to have been with a piece of art through all these iterations (not even including the movie and its decade of cult-status), and I can’t wait to see it blow up next year. Existential Twitter Twitter was always at its most funny and weird during ungodly night-time hours; The night is darkest before the dawn and now it’s like Night Twitter 24/7. From politics to entertainment, we are at least winning at hilarity on social media. But seriously, delete his account. The Return of MoviePass This squad has been preaching the gospel of MoviePass since like, 2014, and I’ll admit I faltered in the middle there when it hit $50/month (I took the 3/$30 plan instead). But now it’s $9.99/month and people have heard of it and don’t make that blank face when I talk about it and wow guys we are saving so much on movies I feel so alive!!! People still regularly ask me if it’s legit/worth it/a scam, but I am happy to answer them and spread this joy. The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel Listen, some shows are just pure joy and this is the second Amazon show to give me this jarringly unfamiliar sunny feeling in my heart when I watch (shootout to you, Mozart in the Jungle). This show is like eating ice cream covered in candy (but with some sweet wine) and the best part it gets me inspired to create. Oh, Hello Dittoing Rads again because our first theatre experience of the year was one of the best of my whole life. I laughed so fucking hard at Oh, Hello — I’ve never seen a piece of comedy so meticulously crafted, down to every word of every joke, and you could hear the payoff in the laughs, which hardly ever stopped.
ARJUN
“I’m not a body/the body is but a shell.” Like so many of us, I spent a scary amount of time this year being resentful and confused about a million different things happening in my hometown, state, and country – things outside of my own body, bigger than myself.  It is then maybe my (our?) subconscious trying to tell me something else in the shared themes of the music I was coming back to the most.  While I would say I was consumed by questions of the foundation our entire world rests on, my iTunes would counter that my existential questions this year were actually pointed inward, contemplating over what constitutes a relationship in 2017. “Is it warm enough for you inside me?” With the full acknowledgement that there was a LOT of great music from other artists, when I look back on what set music in 2017 apart from other years, I think I’ll most remember albums like SZA’s ctrl, Moses Sumney’s Aromanticism, and Charli XCX’s Pop 2.  These three have some pretty big differences (namely, how they literally sound), but I would argue that they are all contributors to the same internal dialogue that a single 20-something year old living in New York was having, if not always aware he was having it.  They ask questions about all forms of love and affection, including (but not limited to): What does it mean to love? What does that even look like in 2017? Is it co-dependent? Is it more than an initial attraction? Does it give us our worth? Is it harmful to tie our worth to it? How stupid are we for putting ourselves through it? If the stupidity makes us happy, is it actually stupid? How do we handle heartbreak? Do we take on an arrogant braggadocio? Do we show the utter lack of confidence hiding under that? And hey, what role does sex play in all this? “I’m not tryina go to bed with you/I just wanna make out in your car.” Admittedly, some of these aren’t the most original questions of all time.  It’s the way these artists answered (or tried to answer) them that felt special to this point in time.  When SZA says, “Lately you’ve been feeling so good/I forget my future/never pull out,” there isn’t even a question if they’re having sex, and no narrative build-up of her career; they are conditional to even be at the point in time being confronted.  For the narrator, the to-pull-out-or-not debate is less a sign of carelessness and more one of carnal satisfaction (though she points out it's pretty careless too).  In a borderline companion piece, Charli XCX adds on, “I just wanna spend the night/Fucking in your bed tonight/Watch a little TV/I love it when you need me.”  Sex and what comes after are given equal weight in all of the toiling, tossing, and turning. “Ooh no she didn’t/Ooh yes, I did.”
Tumblr media
No doubt, these songs have selfishness and over-dramatization at work.  But elsewhere, there’s a clearly embedded sense of self-awareness, too.  On “Indulge Me,” Moses Sumney’s verse starts and ends with a bit of a call and response when he sings, “All of my old lovers have found others…All of my old others have found lovers.”  There’s meant to be some sadness here, but the wordplay suggests a certain irony; he’s far from shocked.  Similarly, on “Out of My Head,” Charli XCX, Tove Lo, and ALMA begin singing, “You got me doing all this stupid shit/you fuck me up like this,” before finishing with, “Secretly I’m kinda into it, though.”  It’s as if the narrator is fully aware that she’s enveloping you in her own problems and she’s totally cool with that – she’s even giving you a wink while doing it.  The listener is simultaneously watching a card trick and listening to the magician explain exactly what he/she is doing each step of the way. “I blame it on your love/every time I fuck it up.” All of that is to say nothing of the music.  Throughout, we are sent on a journey of eclectic sounds & compositions, ranging from no-fucks-given aggression to dancefloor escapism to soothing near-lullabies.  The fully-formed picture is ultimately what made these works feel alive in the present.  They’re messy, they’re self-important, they’re dramatic, they’re self-deprecating.  They’re 2017.
ADITYA
Master of None, season 2 It’s exciting to watch talented people swing for the fences. Master of None, Aziz’s love letter to New York, millennial aimlessness, Italian cinema, food, and about 45 other things, is a start-to-finish shot at greatness. It’s filled with terrific performances, and breathtaking shots. It also radiates intelligence in its observations; Dev might be aimless but Aziz has a point of view.
Tumblr media
In a toxic 2017, the show’s generous nature stands out. In ‘New York, I Love You,’ Dev is completely absent; the exhilarating episode instead elevates viewpoints that are often reduce to stock clichés – the doorman, the driver, etc. In ‘Thanksgiving,’ Dev plays a clear supporting role as Lena Waithe’s Denise accepts her sexuality and hopes for her family to do the same. In episode after episode, Master of None pursues interesting stories, whether they’re with Dev or Arnold or Denise or Francesca or a taxi driver. The show insists that it’s worth caring about other people, and the spirit of empathy and curiosity is refreshing.  The show is unabashedly cinematic in its aesthetic. The first episode is a surprisingly detailed (if low stakes) homage to Bicycle Thieves, presented in black & white with dialogue entirely in Italian. Later references include L’Avventura and La Dolce Vita. Despite these influences, Master of None makes excellent use of the episodic nature of TV, with installments devoted to big issues, like the theme episodes of old. ‘First Date’ uses an inventive structure to highlight the bleak fun of app-driven dating. ‘Religion’ tackles..religion. ‘Door #3′ is a portrait of career indecision. Sprinkled throughout are observations of fame and celebrity, and Aziz’s (and Dev’s) status as a minority provides a unique observational lens. Let me point out that the season is also fun. It doesn’t matter how many hours of Fellini Aziz has watched; the moment he sings about eating food, it’s clear that Tom Haverford is irrepressible. The show is consistently funny, both sharp and silly (I’ll laugh at any framing of the tiny Dev next to his immense buddy Arnold). Dev’s relationship with Francesca is, for me, the best rom-com of the past few years. It’s bracing to watch funny, charming people fall in love, and there’s a thrilling prolonged scene in ‘Dinner Party’ - where Dev is sitting in an Uber processing the fact that he is desperately in love – that ranks among the best of the year.  Mask Off + I’m the One + Red Bone I’ve been told that I’m bad at “good” music. Because of the pretentious circles within which I reside, I’m often faking musical expertise. ‘You know who’s great?’  I’ll say. ‘Ess Zee Ayy. Yeah, no, SZA, that’s what I meant. They’re good.’ But when no one was looking over my shoulder, it was these three songs all day all year. That’s a liability! Get Out & Lady Bird Two brilliant debuts. Get Out is a biting satire/comedy/polemic built on a horror movie chassis. From the creepiness of the “No, no, no, no…” scene to the “haha…wait a minute” guilty recognition of the liberal family to the shoulder-slumping devastation of the keys scene, the film takes no false steps. Lady Bird is great all the way through, led by Saoirse’s fiery performance and a sparkling, hilarious script. Greta Gerwig’s love and understanding for the characters on screen shines through.  NYT’s “Trump’s Daily Life” Pieces The NYTimes has grown essential in the Trump era. Sure, sometimes they Disney-ify Nazis, or allow David Brooks to moan about the difficulties of getting a sandwich with a poor person. But have you seen the WSJ editorials, or the ever-multiplying panels of “experts” on CNN? I’ll take the Gray Lady. While there’s plenty to appreciate, I want to call out the Sunday night articles, usually by Maggie Haberman and 300 unnamed sources, that offer hilarious insight into Trump’s daily life. I can’t get enough of these. 8-12 Diet Cokes? 14 hours of TV? Tries to impress John Kelly by doing a push-up? Sexts himself from Melania’s phone? Tell me more. We laugh so as not to cry.  I Am Not Your Negro
Tumblr media
The startlingly powerful documentary relies exclusively on Baldwin’s own words, culled from various letters and writings, and read by Samuel L. Jackson. Even if you’ve read Baldwin, to sit in the theater and drown in his unparalleled eloquence is a shattering experience. The director, Raoul Peck, works with Baldwin to underline the film’s relevance to present day. Images of police brutality in the 1960s fade into images from Ferguson; Baldwin’s words close the gap in time. Another standout section involving a clip of Baldwin explaining his “fixation” on racial issues onThe Dick Cavett Show- a Tonight Show forerunner - is a sharp rebuke to the anti-intellectualism that is currently pervasive.  I was hanging on to Baldwin’s words, amazed at their relevance in the world I would walk into when the credits rolled. I can’t recommend this highly enough.  Revisiting the Godfather A back-to-back screening of The Godfather Parts I & II was a lovely experience. I was particularly moved by the father and son seated behind me. Most of us learn to appreciate the Corleones through our fathers, forcing ourselves to stay awake the first time we watch it because our infallible dads insisted it was brilliant. The pair behind me was all too familiar. The father patiently entertained his son’s incessant questioning (who’s that again? Wait, why did they kill Luca? Can we get more popcorn?), leapt to cover his son’s eyes during the topless scene, and nudged his son excitedly during the Baptism. The kid is now mixed-up in the family business for life. Twitter I love Twitter. I love retweeting things I agree with and I also love retweeting things I disagree with with a “get a load of this guy”-type comment. I love jumping into the fray and tweeting something like “call your senator!” and then patting myself on the back. I love seeing what other people I follow like, and seeing that they like things that are very similar to what I like, further affirming the idea that everyone is on my side. I love political twitter. I love sports twitter. I love movie twitter. I love reading the first sentence of an article and immediately knowing that I want to tweet it out. I love twitter. Protests For when Twitter isn’t enough. I was dreading Trump’s inauguration day, fully anticipating tears when the Obamas finally helicoptered away to a much deserved peace. When the moment came, and Trump was sworn in, it was…bearable. I knew that in less than 24 hours, I would get to witness thousands of women marching in defiant response. The Women’s March had an incredible energy that I assumed was rare. But it was replicated repeatedly - at the airports after the attempted Muslim ban, outside the courthouse where the ACLU challenged the administration, throughout the city after the DACA decision, etc., etc.  I’m a longtime petition signer, but I’m a novice protestor. I’m not great at chanting and I’m bad at estimating how big to make letters. A lot of my signs looked like I’M WITH her. But with the Trump administration determined to reduce the idea of America, protests were catharsis. They were a messy, vital declaration to the administration that they would be met with a response. They’ve recharged and inspired and reassured, and they’re what I’ll remember most about 2017.
0 notes