Can Christians become possessed? Why not?

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I've always been taught that a Christian cannot be possessed. Can't find a verse that says that though. And passages like 2 Cor 11:3-4 that refer to receiving "another spirit" seem to indicate otherwise. "Another" seems to indicate "in addition to", not "a different one". So how would you Biblically lay out a position that Christians cannot be demon possessed?

I believe a lot gets blamed on "the devil" or his minions that makes him a scapegoat. "The Devil made me do it" is mostly just an excuse. When you look at cases of demonic possession in the New Testament, it isn't just people giving in to their own lusts and desires. It is (usually?) characterized with very self-destructive behavior. People throwing themselves into fires and such. When they went into the pigs, they threw themselves over the cliff. Demons want to destroy us.

So on the one hand, I think we are real quick to blame the devil, but on the other hand, I have to wonder if we aren't playing the game where our theology and worldview reflects that we don't really believe he exists or that he can impact us. But what are *your* thoughts? If we truly are in the "last days" and things are getting worse and worse prior to His second coming, why is it that we don't see the kinds of examples of demon possession that seems so prevalent in the Gospels? And if it *does* happen today, how do we defend the idea that it can't happen to Christians when Paul seems to indicate that people can have "another spirit".

[Nancy]

Why does Job come to mind? He was not possessed, he was oppressed. Big difference. Secondly, he did not have the Holy Spirit so he doesn't qualify as a post-Pentecost believer.

Lisa said:

To be honest, and I've looked over the years - there is nothing that Biblically supports demonic possession in a believer (Christian).

That being said, I do believe that a Christian can be oppressed by the Devil. Job comes to mind. I think part of the problem nowadays is that people tend forget that Satan is an entity that actually *exists*.

I do think "the devil made me do it" thing is a complete copout - but I do believe that if we believe in the Supernatural and Divine Goodness of God, that we must also believe in the Oppression of Satan and his demons.

The thing of it is - there are convincing arguments as to why they *can* be possessed. The common argument is that an indwelling of evil cannot exist in a human who has accepted Christ. This argument fails to recognize our sinful nature as humans - and that accepting Christ doesn't make us Divine....as evidenced in Jeremiah 17:9.

The other thing to remember is that possession only controls the person's *body*. The Soul is not found within the body, and still belongs to Christ. Possession is not about capturing a person's soul - it's about pain, torment, agony - and effecting all that know and love the possessed as well.

Christians are not yet redeemed (as they are born with sin and a fallen nature) until death, or I guess the Rapture.

Because of that - I do believe that possession can and does occur (very, very, rarely) among devout Christians.

Why? Because we are flawed - and where there is sin - there is the Devil/devils/demons.

[mem]

This is supported by 2Co 12.18, I think.

The point of "another spirit" here, I think, is actually that it is a different spirit. I don't have the Greek right in front of me, but I'd guess the word is hETEROS, which may connote that the spirit they received (i.e., the spirit in which the message / person arrived) was different than the spirit in which Paul came and in which he sent Titus.

I don't think this passage has anything at all to do with demon possession, at least not in the context of what's written.

Lisa said:

Oh - and "to receive another spirit", I believe if read in context, means accepting a false teaching....but you know, I could be wrong. :P

[Marv]

Yes, the word is heteros. I would imagine you mean it is not allos. Daniel, I think the comment you made on the word would usually be associated with allos, not heteros. But I'm not too sure how significant this is. If Paul is referring to a spirit that is not the Holy Spirit, it really doesn't matter if he calls it another spirit or a different spirit.

But what I'd like to point out before this thread goes any further is that there are a load of issues involved, particularly definitions of things like "possessed." This term has established itself as a standard English way of expressing a certain popular concept of the effect a demon can have on a person. But it is based on a misunderstanding that has firmly taken root. The word possess means to have or own. One of the arguments that Christians cannot be possessed by a demon is that God owns them. But the whole idea is a case of folk theology, I'm afraid. The Bible never indicates that demons possess people, but that people possess demons. The phrase "to be possessed of" is a synonym for "to possess." It is NOT a passive form of the verb. That would be "to be possessed by"

So, I'm sorry, but I think there is a problem with the entire premise of your question.

As you surely already know one of the ways the NT refers to this concept is daimonizomai, which in the KJV is often translated "to be possessed of devils." Again the English here is equivalent to "to have a demon" not to "the demon has someone." Often we just angilicize the verb and say "demonize," which really does not advance us much because it still needs to be defined and explained from the Biblical data. The question is does this invariably imply a case like the Gadarene demoniac, or are less severe cases possible. Well, almost by definition that case is extreme. They are called Legion because they were many. What about just one?

Anoher issue is whether demonization occurs just as it did prior to the cross. Some people say no it doesn't. I really don't know, but this is an issue relevant to your question.

So in short, Daniel, this seems to be the type of question that unless it is tightened up will lead us all over the map.

mem said:

This is supported by 2Co 12.18, I think.
The point of "another spirit" here, I think, is actually that it is a different spirit. I don't have the Greek right in front of me, but I'd guess the word is hETEROS, which may connote that the spirit they received (i.e., the spirit in which the message / person arrived) was different than the spirit in which Paul came and in which he sent Titus.
I don't think this passage has anything at all to do with demon possession, at least not in the context of what's written.

Lisa said:

Oh - and "to receive another spirit", I believe if read in context, means accepting a false teaching....but you know, I could be wrong. :P

[Jande]

I have heard two viewpoints. There are some in Charismatic circles that have "deliverance" ministries and seem to find demons in every Christian that comes to their meetings. But I also hear repeatedly that it is not possible for a Christian to have a demon. I cannot find a clear cut passage to support either view. But those ministers I have the most respect for hold to the latter.
Perhaps the scriptural attitude would be a balance somewhere in the middle?

[john roberts]

In the O.T. demons are idols or false gods. see. Deu. 32:17; Ps 106:37

"take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods." (Deu 12: 30-31)

To sacrifice unto demons was to serve false or NO gods like Moloch.


"The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk; Rev. 9:20

Evidence seems to suggest that demons are idols or false gods of the heathen whom the jews were continually prone to be deceived into serving.

[Jande]

I do not believe the conclusion that “In the O.T. demons are idols or false gods” can be made from Deuteronomy 32:17 and Psalm 106:37, especially in light of NT revelation. It seems more accurate to say that demons inspired idol worship and were behind it, and in that sense they were receiving false worship via the idols. The passage you quoted from Revelation 9 "worshiping demons and idols" appears to validate this position. Additionally, Mathew 11:18 Jesus said, “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon.” Note it says “has” a demon – not that John was accused of worshipping idols.
Matthew 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour. This indicates the demon is an actual personality.
Luke 9:42 And as he was still coming, the demon violently convulsed and tore him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and healed the child. Here we see a demon doing something. We also see that Jesus rebuked the “unclean spirit,” a word evidently synonymous with a demon. Jesus would not have accommodated untrue beliefs. Demons must be actual entities.


john roberts said:

In the O.T. demons are idols or false gods. see. Deu. 32:17; Ps 106:37

"take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods." (Deu 12: 30-31)

To sacrifice unto demons was to serve false or NO gods like Moloch.


"The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk; Rev. 9:20

Evidence seems to suggest that demons are idols or false gods of the heathen whom the jews were continually prone to be deceived into serving.

[john roberts]

Does the passage in Mark 5 negate those of the O.T. and Revelation? I don't believe so.

Instead of negating what the O.T. and Revelation say...that demons are idols, it seems to me wiser to seek understanding.

Why does the O.T. refer idols or false gods as demons?

Demons were man made idols or images that people worshiped and sacrificed to. And as Revelation states these demons and idols "cannot either see or hear or walk". They became false gods to the people. Which is an abomination to God because He is the LORD and there is no other god beside Him. All other gods are false gods and no gods at all in reality. They are the inventions of men.

So how are we to understand passages like Mark 5?

The O.T. is the best dictionary for the N.T. We continually see in the O.T. that the Jews were very prone to worshiping the false gods of other nations, so much so that they even sacrificed there own children to them. This practise continued in N.T. times. The demons or idols were believed by them to have a real existence. They were believed to cause sicknesses and disease.

For example, demons were believed (falsely) to have caused people to be blind. When Jesus healed the blind man in Matt 12 the Pharisees believed it was done by the false god beelzebub who was believed to be the prince of demons. But in the O.T. we read: "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? is it not I the LORD?" (Ex 4:11).

So why does the O.T. say that God makes the dumb, deaf and blind? because He does...He has ALL POWER!

However, many believed in false gods of which they attributed these things to.

[john roberts]

Jande,

You said: “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon.” Note it says “has” a demon – not that John was accused of worshipping idols.


Here you are right, they were not accusing John of worshipping idols, but instead that he was possessed by a demon. That he was possessed by a false god. Which is the false understanding of the day.

I think it's important to understand that although idols and false god do not exist or are not real, the fact remains that people believe they are real. And there is a real connection between idol worship or worshipping false gods and giving it a name and a face.

To one person the face may be that of Moloch; to another the face may be that of a serpent, But no matter what face or name you give it it is the face and name of sin which is real.

[Jande]

Please note the word “and” in Rev 9:20 …that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). It is the idols that cannot see, hear or walk.
Demons can indeed cause infirmity. In Matthew 9:32-33 a demon was the apparent cause of dumbness. Once the demon was cast out, the man could speak.
You responded,” demons were believed (falsely) to have caused people to be blind.” While I agree that not all blindness is the direct result of demon possession, the Word is clear that there are times that demons DO cause it. Matthew 12: 22 shows that when Jesus cast out the demon the person could see and speak. The demon had caused the blindness.
Matthew 14:17-18 tells us of a boy who had convulsions. “Jesus rebuked the demon and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour”
In Mark 5 we have the story of Jesus delivering a man from demon possession that caused bizarre behavior. Jesus talked to the demon. Why would he talk to the demon if it were not real?
Jesus obviously believed that demons are real. He is the final authority. He would not perpetuate a false belief. He is truth. So that leaves us with three options:
1.) Demons are real based on the words and actions of Jesus in response to them, OR
2.) Jesus did not know that demons were not real, OR
3.) Jesus went along with the crowd’s wrong idea about the existence of actual demons.

Only the first option upholds the fact of Christ’s deity & truthfulness.


john roberts said:

Does the passage in Mark 5 negate those of the O.T. and Revelation? I don't believe so.

Instead of negating what the O.T. and Revelation say...that demons are idols, it seems to me wiser to seek understanding.

Why does the O.T. refer idols or false gods as demons?

Demons were man made idols or images that people worshiped and sacrificed to. And as Revelation states these demons and idols "cannot either see or hear or walk". They became false gods to the people. Which is an abomination to God because He is the LORD and there is no other god beside Him. All other gods are false gods and no gods at all in reality. They are the inventions of men.

So how are we to understand passages like Mark 5?

The O.T. is the best dictionary for the N.T. We continually see in the O.T. that the Jews were very prone to worshiping the false gods of other nations, so much so that they even sacrificed there own children to them. This practise continued in N.T. times. The demons or idols were believed by them to have a real existence. They were believed to cause sicknesses and disease.

For example, demons were believed (falsely) to have caused people to be blind. When Jesus healed the blind man in Matt 12 the Pharisees believed it was done by the false god beelzebub who was believed to be the prince of demons. But in the O.T. we read: "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? is it not I the LORD?" (Ex 4:11).

So why does the O.T. say that God makes the dumb, deaf and blind? because He does...He has ALL POWER!

However, many believed in false gods of which they attributed these things to.

[john roberts]

There are two way that you can read or view Matthew 9:32-33: you can either say that the demon was a real personal being that was being cast out of the dumb person, or you can say that the demon is the name and face of what sin has resulted in...people being born blind and dumb etc.

The Pharisees, had the first idea of which I beleive is the wrong one. Who is to say that one blind person is possessed by another being and another made blind by God who is the One who pronounced the punishment for Adams sin.

[Jande]

I don't think I understand what you mean by, "you can say that the demon is the name and face of what sin has resulted in...people being born blind and dumb." Can you clarify that for me?

john roberts said:

There are two way that you can read or view Matthew 9:32-33: you can either say that the demon was a real personal being that was being cast out of the dumb person, or you can say that the demon is the name and face of what sin has resulted in...people being born blind and dumb etc.

The Pharisees, had the first idea of which I beleive is the wrong one.

[john roberts]

People give names and faces to idols and false gods...Moloch, Chemash, beelzebub etc.

These idols do not exist in reality, they are man made. On the other hand, sin is real and the heart of man is above all things deceitful and desparatley wicked. So that sin results from false worship. When Paul says that sin is a Master he is giving it personality.