Tag Archives: demonology

Lilith, Adam, and the Limits of Deductive Interpretation:

Posted by expedition44 on

An Ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple Reassessment of the “First Wife” Tradition – Lilith

The figure of Lilith has become one of the most widely discussed characters associated with the early chapters of Genesis, particularly in modern theological speculation and cultural interpretation. In some contemporary retellings, Lilith is portrayed as the first wife of Adam, created prior to Eve and departing the Garden of Eden following conflict with Adam. Yet the origins of this narrative lie far outside the canonical text of Genesis itself.

The present study examines the Lilith tradition through a historical and textual framework rooted in Ancient Near Eastern linguistics, Second Temple Jewish literature, and rabbinic interpretation. The primary aim is to determine whether the concept of Lilith as Adam’s first wife can be sustained through exegetical analysis of the biblical text or whether it emerges primarily through deductive interpretation imposed upon the text by later traditions.

While theological deduction is an unavoidable feature of interpretation—indeed all theological systems rely upon synthesis beyond the immediate words of Scripture—the Lilith tradition provides a compelling case study in the boundary between interpretive inference and post-biblical mythmaking. By tracing the development of Lilith from Mesopotamian demonology to medieval Jewish folklore, it becomes clear that the narrative of Lilith as Adam’s first wife is not grounded in the Genesis text itself but emerges from later interpretive traditions seeking to harmonize perceived tensions in the biblical narrative. Given this, is there still room to incorporate Lilith into the biblical narrative and remain faithful to biblical interpretation?

The Absence of Lilith in the Genesis Narrative

The canonical account of creation in Genesis offers no explicit reference to Lilith. The early chapters present two creation narratives that have often prompted interpretive discussion. Genesis 1:26–27 describes the creation of humanity (hāʾādām) in the image of God, stating that “male and female he created them.”¹ Genesis 2:18–23 then recounts the formation of the woman from the side of Adam within the Garden narrative.²

Some interpreters have proposed that these two passages imply the creation of two separate women, with Genesis 1 describing a primordial woman distinct from the Eve of Genesis 2.³ However, the majority of modern biblical scholarship understands Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as complementary literary traditions within the Pentateuch rather than sequential historical events.⁴ I however, often challenge this view reading Genesis 1-2 as a sequential narrative reading or chronological reading of the text. If you read it this way, it may better open up the door for a first wife before Eve and the need for her to be “later” created.

The only explicit appearance of the term לִילִית (lîlîṯ) within the Hebrew Bible occurs not in Genesis but in Isaiah 34:14, where the prophet describes the desolation of Edom and lists a series of wilderness creatures inhabiting the ruins.⁵ The term appears within a poetic catalogue of desert beings, including jackals and goat-demons (śeʿîrîm).⁶

Because the word appears only once in the Hebrew Bible, its meaning has long been debated. Some translations render it as “night creature” or “screech owl,” while others retain the transliteration “Lilith.”⁷ The context suggests a demonic or mythological wilderness being, rather than a historical figure associated with the Eden narrative.

In this light, a further feature of the Eden narrative that must be considered is the presence of mythopoetic and anthropomorphic imagery within the text itself. Several of the figures and elements within the primeval history are described in ways that blur the boundaries between natural creatures and symbolic agents within the narrative world. Gordon Wenham reminds us that the serpent in Genesis 3, for example, speaks and reasons in human language, engaging the woman in moral and theological dialogue despite being described as one of the “beasts of the field” (ḥayyat haśśādeh). Likewise, the cherubim placed at the entrance of Eden in Genesis 3:24 appear not as ordinary creatures but as composite guardian beings stationed at sacred space, paralleling protective figures associated with temple entrances throughout the Ancient Near East. Even the trees of the garden, particularly the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, function within the narrative as more than botanical objects, representing cosmic or moral realities embedded within sacred geography.

These features demonstrate that the Eden narrative employs a literary environment where symbolic and anthropomorphic elements are common. Animals converse, trees convey knowledge, and guardian beings protect the boundaries of sacred space. Such imagery resembles the mythopoetic storytelling common to the ancient world, where narrative symbolism communicates theological truths through figurative representation. Yet importantly, the text never introduces a figure resembling the later Lilith tradition within this symbolic cast of Edenic beings. If Genesis were intended to preserve a memory of such a character, one would reasonably expect some trace within the narrative alongside the serpent, the trees, and the cherubim. The absence of any such reference reinforces the conclusion that the Lilith tradition emerged not from the narrative structure of Genesis itself but from later interpretive speculation.

At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the biblical narrative frequently displays a remarkable economy of detail, often focusing narrowly on the theological point of the story being told while leaving many surrounding elements unexplained. The Scriptures regularly assume a broader narrative world that is only partially disclosed within any given passage. In numerous instances, later texts appear to illuminate or expand earlier material through retrospective inference, suggesting that not every element of the biblical worldview is exhaustively articulated at its first appearance. For example, the identity and role of the serpent in Genesis 3 remain largely undefined within the Eden narrative itself, yet later biblical literature associates the figure with cosmic opposition to God (cf. Rev. 12:9). Likewise, Genesis 6 briefly introduces the enigmatic “sons of God” and the Nephilim with minimal explanation, leaving subsequent Jewish traditions and later biblical reflections to wrestle with their meaning.

Note: Biblical interpretation frequently involves a degree of retrospective or “back-reading” into earlier texts, a hermeneutical practice widely recognized within both Jewish and Christian traditions. Later revelation often illuminates earlier passages in ways not immediately apparent in their original context. A well-known example is the Christian reading of the Old Testament through a Christological lens, where the life and work of Jesus are understood to fulfill and reveal deeper meanings within earlier Scriptures (e.g., Luke 24:27). Such interpretive movements demonstrate that retrospective theological inference can be legitimate, though it must remain anchored within the broader trajectory of the canonical text.

Lilith isn’t mentioned in the Genesis text and this narrative restraint may demonstrate that the biblical authors prioritize the theological thrust of the account rather than providing a comprehensive cosmology of every figure involved in the story. Consequently, while the absence of Lilith from the Genesis narrative strongly cautions against reading such a figure directly into the text, the broader pattern of Scripture also reminds interpreters that certain dimensions of the biblical world are occasionally clarified only through later reflection and textual development. The challenge for interpreters, therefore, is discerning the difference between legitimate theological inference grounded in later revelation and speculative deductions that extend beyond the trajectory of the canonical text.

Evidence from the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) discovered at Qumran further complicates interpretation. In this manuscript the term appears in plural form (liliyyôt), suggesting that the word may refer to a category of night spirits rather than a singular named entity.⁸ Thus, from the standpoint of textual criticism and lexical analysis, the Hebrew Bible provides no direct evidence that Lilith functioned as a character within the Genesis narrative.

Akkadian Linguistic Background and Ancient Near Eastern Demonology

The linguistic origins of the term lîlîṯ point toward a broader Ancient Near Eastern mythological context. In Akkadian texts, scholars have identified a group of supernatural beings known as lilu, lilītu, and ardat-lilî.⁹ These entities appear frequently in Mesopotamian incantation texts as malevolent wind or night spirits associated with illness, infertility, and sexual predation.¹⁰

The Akkadian līlû is commonly regarded as a loanword reflecting earlier Sumerian linguistic elements. The Hebrew lîlîṯ (Lilith) ultimately derives from the Sumerian root LIL, though most plausibly through the intermediary of Akkadian līlû and related demonological terminology rather than by direct borrowing from Sumerian.¹¹

Among the earliest literary references to a Lilith-like figure appears in the Sumerian narrative “Gilgamesh and the Huluppu Tree,” dating to the early second millennium BCE.¹² In this text a female being identified by the phrase ki-sikil-lil-la-ke inhabits the trunk of a sacred tree alongside a serpent and the Anzû bird until she is driven away by the hero Gilgamesh.¹³

Although the linguistic connection between this Sumerian phrase and the later Hebrew lîlîṯ remains debated, the narrative demonstrates the presence of female wind spirits in Mesopotamian mythology long before the composition of the Hebrew Bible.¹⁴

Archaeological evidence further attests to widespread belief in such spirits. Aramaic incantation bowls, dating between the fifth and seventh centuries CE, frequently contain protective formulas against Lilith and related demons.¹⁵ These bowls, often buried beneath homes, reflect a pervasive fear of nocturnal spirits believed to threaten women and infants.

Within this broader cultural environment, the reference to lîlîṯ in Isaiah likely reflects Israel’s awareness of Mesopotamian demonological traditions, particularly during the Babylonian exile.¹⁶ Yet the biblical authors do not develop these figures into elaborate mythological characters. Instead, the reference appears only as poetic imagery within a prophetic oracle of desolation.

Lilith in Second Temple and Dead Sea Scroll Literature

During the Second Temple period Jewish literature exhibits an increased interest in angelology and demonology. Within this context, Lilith appears as one among several destructive spirits.

The Dead Sea Scroll text Songs of the Sage (4Q510–511) contains an incantation intended to repel supernatural forces. Among the spirits mentioned are Lilith, the howling creatures, and desert demons.¹⁷

Similarly, other Second Temple texts reflect a worldview in which demonic forces inhabit the wilderness and threaten the righteous community.¹⁸ These references demonstrate that Lilith had become a recognized figure within Jewish demonology by the late Second Temple period.

Nevertheless, these texts still do not connect Lilith to Adam or the Eden narrative. Instead, Lilith appears alongside other supernatural beings associated with chaos and the desert.

This pattern aligns with the symbolic geography of the Hebrew Bible, where the wilderness frequently represents a realm of disorder and demonic presence, standing in contrast to the ordered sacred space of the temple.¹⁹

Thus, in Second Temple literature Lilith functions as one among many hostile spirits, rather than a primordial human figure.

Rabbinic Tradition and the Emergence of the “First Wife” Narrative

The identification of Lilith as Adam’s first wife appears only in medieval Jewish literature. The earliest known source is the Alphabet of Ben Sira, a satirical work composed sometime between the eighth and tenth centuries CE.²⁰

In this narrative Lilith is said to have been created from the earth just as Adam was. When Adam demands sexual submission, Lilith refuses, declaring that both were created equally from the ground.²¹ She then pronounces the divine name and flees the Garden of Eden.

The story continues by describing Lilith as a demonic figure who preys upon newborn children, reflecting earlier traditions associated with infant mortality.²²

Many scholars interpret the story as a midrashic attempt to resolve the apparent tension between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.²³ If Genesis 1 describes the simultaneous creation of male and female, some interpreters speculated that this might refer to a woman preceding Eve.

Yet even within Jewish tradition the Lilith myth was not universally accepted. Rationalist thinkers such as Maimonides regarded many demonological traditions as remnants of ancient superstition rather than theological doctrine.²⁴

Thus the identification of Lilith as Adam’s first wife represents a late interpretive development, emerging more than two millennia after the composition of Genesis.

Note: The fact that a theological idea emerges later in the history of interpretation does not automatically invalidate it as a subject of serious consideration. Many theological systems developed long after the biblical texts themselves were written. For example, the systematic framework of Reformed theology was largely articulated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, yet it remains widely studied and engaged by biblical scholars today. Historical development alone, therefore, is not sufficient grounds to dismiss an interpretive proposal; the question must ultimately be whether the idea can be responsibly grounded within the broader trajectory of the biblical witness.

Deduction and the Boundaries of Exegetical Interpretation

The Lilith tradition ultimately illustrates a significant hermeneutical issue within biblical interpretation: the distinction between textual exegesis and theological deduction.

Interpretation necessarily involves drawing conclusions that extend beyond the explicit wording of a text. Indeed, the construction of systematic theology depends upon synthesizing diverse biblical passages into coherent doctrinal frameworks.²⁵

However, responsible interpretation requires that such deductions remain grounded in the historical and literary context of the text itself. When interpretive conclusions depend primarily upon later traditions rather than the biblical narrative, the risk arises that extrabiblical mythology may be read back into Scripture.²⁶

The Lilith tradition exemplifies this process. The theory that Lilith was Adam’s first wife relies upon several deductive steps:

  1. The assumption that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 describe two separate creations of women.
  2. The identification of the “night creature” in Isaiah 34 with a personal demonic figure.
  3. The incorporation of Mesopotamian demonology into the Genesis narrative.

None of these steps arise directly from the text of Genesis itself. Rather, they reflect later interpretive speculation layered upon the biblical narrative.²⁷

Consequently, while the Lilith tradition remains historically fascinating, most scholars have then deduced that it cannot be considered a faithful exegetical reading of the Genesis account… but not all of them!

Conclusion

The development of the Lilith tradition demonstrates how biblical interpretation evolves through the interaction of language, culture, and theological imagination. Linguistic evidence connects the Hebrew lîlîṯ with a broader family of Ancient Near Eastern night spirits, while Second Temple literature confirms that Lilith functioned within Jewish demonology as one among many destructive beings.

Only in the medieval period did interpreters reinterpret this figure as Adam’s first wife in an effort to harmonize perceived tensions in the Genesis creation narratives.

While such deductions may hold cultural or literary interest, they remain extrinsic to the biblical text itself. The Genesis narrative consistently portrays Adam and Eve as the primordial human pair, and the Lilith legend represents a later tradition rather than an exegetical conclusion.

In this sense, the Lilith tradition provides a cautionary example within biblical interpretation: deduction may enrich theological reflection, but when it moves too far beyond the textual foundations of Scripture it risks transforming interpretation into mythology.

Acknowledgment: The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Mark Chavalas for his assistance and expertise in matters relating to Akkadian philology.

Footnotes

  1. Genesis 1:26–27.
  2. Genesis 2:18–23.
  3. Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990), 221.
  4. Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, 1987), 5–7.
  5. Isaiah 34:14.
  6. John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 624.
  7. Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Bellingham: Lexham, 2015), 188.
  8. Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 79.
  9. Samuel Noah Kramer, History Begins at Sumer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981), 188.
  10. Tzvi Abusch, “Mesopotamian Witchcraft,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48 (1989): 3–7.
  11. Dictionary of Deities and Demons, ‘lillith’ by M. Hutter, pp. 520-521. 
  12. Samuel Noah Kramer, “Gilgamesh and the Huluppu Tree,” Assyriological Studies 10 (1938): 1–30.
  13. Ibid., 12–15.
  14. Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses (New York: Free Press, 1992), 36–37.
  15. James Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1913), 112.
  16. Mark Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 148.
  17. 4Q510–511, Songs of the Sage.
  18. Loren Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 202.
  19. John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 72.
  20. Alphabet of Ben Sira, ed. David Stern (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 89.
  21. Ibid., 90.
  22. Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 225.
  23. Judith Baskin, Midrashic Women (Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2002), 34.
  24. Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed III.37.
  25. Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 87.
  26. Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 36.
  27. John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 129–130.

Bibliography for Further Reading

Primary Sources and Ancient Texts

Abusch, Tzvi, and Daniel Schwemer. Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Alexander, Philip S. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.

Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983–1985.

Kramer, Samuel Noah. History Begins at Sumer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.

Kramer, Samuel Noah. “Gilgamesh and the Huluppu Tree.” In Assyriological Studies, vol. 10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Montgomery, James A. Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1913.

Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Ancient Near Eastern Religion and Demonology

Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. Gods, Demons, and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992.

Bottéro, Jean. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Free Press, 1992.

Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.

Leick, Gwendolyn. Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City. London: Penguin, 2002.

Second Temple Jewish Literature and Demonology

Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2005.

Rabbinic Literature and the Lilith Tradition

Baskin, Judith R. Midrashic Women: Formations of the Feminine in Rabbinic Literature. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2002.

Patai, Raphael. The Hebrew Goddess. 3rd ed. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.

Stern, David. The Alphabet of Ben Sira: A Critical Edition and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1939.

Genesis, Creation Narratives, and Ancient Near Eastern Context

Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015.

Sarna, Nahum. Genesis. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books, 1987.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.

Hermeneutics and Biblical Interpretation

Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Demon Possession and Christians

Posted by expedition44 on

A couple times a month I get asked similar questions about demons and possession. Are there really spirits in the Old Testament that are still plaguing people today or are people really just experiencing mental illness? Can Christians be afflicted or possessed? What kind of intervention is best? All of these are great questions and as with many Biblically or spiritually related things, theology is important. In my normal scholarly approach, I am going to try to NOT spoon feed you with what I think but offer you some things to consider as you form your own thoughts.

I would urge you to first read this article as it will no doubt affect your comprehension here. Spiritual Healing is certainly central to this conversation.

Where did fallen Spirits come from or originate?

First, there is no demon possession in the Old Testament.1 Some might even say that there are not even any demons attested, although translations are problematic here.2 Secondly, this article centers on a foundation of biblical theology, not on phenomenology, however I will touch on this at the end. In a traditional sense, most scholars understand that when the snake or nahash3 figure tempts eve it is the introduction to a fallen spiritual being, something we would later call a demon. Adam and Eve are permitted to eat the fruits of all the trees except one, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The woman is tempted by a talking serpent to eat the forbidden fruit, and gives some to the man, who eats also.4

There are several non-traditional views, one option within this narrative is to see it as a dual fall5. In this view, it is not only the fall of humanity but the first (or what becomes main*) spiritual being to deny their vocational calling and “fall” as well. We also get insight into spiritual beings continuing to fall and Genesis 6 and Revelation seems to imply that fall continues and that when Jesus come 1/3 of all the spiritual beings will fall.6 The lake of fire was intended for these beings.7 The snake could then be reconciled as the “Ha Satan” figure of later notoriety and becomes the leader of the fallen spirits we call Satan. If you haven’t read this post, it might help before you get too much further.

  • All of this is highly debatable. To be clear I am still on the fence as to what I think the best options are. There may have been other spiritual beings that fell before this one. If the snake had already fallen, he likely would not have been allowed in the garden, therefore logically it seems we are reading the dual fall. Therefore, the story might not necessarily be giving us a narrative of the first spiritual being falling, but simply a story telling the fall of humanity while inferring the other fall. But we don’t know if it is the first fallen spiritual being or not. We aren’t ever given that in the Bible. We may be reading partially the significance of this later turning into the leader of the cosmic bad guys, Satan but we don’t know this for sure either. The central story is about the fall of the man and woman in the garden. The primary message is the casting out of the garden and hermeneutically we shouldn’t deduce much else.

Extra-Biblical Source

You might be surprised to learn that there’s no verse in the Bible that explains where demons came from. Christians typically assume that demons are fallen angels cast from heaven, but the Bible doesn’t actually state that, we would have to deduce it. When it comes to theology I don’t particularly like deductions or constructs or theologies of man, I like exegesis (which is still going to require some deductions!) But we do get some clues in the Bible and some other extra biblical sources that could help. In ancient Jewish texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, demons are the disembodied spirits of dead Nephilim giants who perished at the time of the great flood8. I am tempted to save the time and not go where I am going to go, but Matt and I wrote a book9 partially on this and it is fascinating so I want to share some of it. Let me see if I can keep it brief here. I think you will be glad I decided to indulge. I will essentially attempt to summarize the content largely found in Michael Heiser’s Unseen Realm.10

In several contexts the Apkallu are seven divine beings, sometimes described as part man and part fish or bird, associated with human wisdom; these creatures are often referred to in scholarly literature as the Seven Sages.11 They are central to the Mesopotamian version of the flood story and important to Ugaritic text.12 The apkallu were dispensers of divine knowledge to humanity.13 Gilgamesh is perhaps the most familiar example. He is called “lord of the apkallu”14 in a cuneiform inscription on a small clay seal. But this is controversial, I might ad, he might not actually be considered one of the apkallu, but has that title attributed to him on a cylinder seal that proclaims his mastery (similar to apkallu). Again, my point is we have to use care with this. Both the divine fathers and their giant children are called apkallu. The apkallu are sometimes referred to by another Mesopotamian term: mats-tsarey, which means “watchers.”15 Genesis 6:1–4 was written by Israelites who wanted to make a statement: the apkallu before the flood were not good guys. Heiser would assert that what they did was wicked, and the giant offspring apkallu produced by their transgression were enemies of the true God of heaven. In fact, their own giant offspring were bent on annihilating Israel many years later. However, I would agree with Walton that there are a number of arguable points here. In Genesis it is not clear that the Nephilim are the offspring of the sons of God, and in Numbers 13, it is not clear that they are giants (that may refer only to the Anakim, and some interpreters conclude that the grasshopper comment there has to do with insignificance rather than with size). As you can imagine, there are certainly some questions to the interpretation.

Later in biblical history, during the days of Moses and Joshua, the Israelites ran into groups of very large warriors called Anakim in Numbers 13:32–33 and tells us explicitly that the Anakim came from the Nephilim.16 Heiser claims that the “The key to understanding how these giants were perceived as demons in the biblical material—an idea that got a lot of focus in Jewish writings produced after the Old Testament—is the term Rephaim.”17 I also might note that the Rephaim are perceived as spirits of the dead in the netherworld, but that does not make them demons.

You also might consider the Rephaim in this discussion, but these discussions are highly controversial and deeply debated. I would be reticent to derive confident conclusions about demons from what we know of them. But to give you a background, in the Old Testament, the Rephaim are described as giant warlords18 (Deut 2:8–11; 3:1–11; Josh 13:12), but also as frightening, sinister disembodied spirits (“the shades”) in the Underworld, called Sheol in Hebrew (Isa 14:9; 26:14; Job 26:5). The disembodied spirits of these giants were therefore associated with the abode of the dead, something everyone feared, since everyone feared death. But the Rephaim also had another awful association. There are nearly 10 references in the Old Testament to a place called the Valley of the Rephaim (e.g., 2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13). Joshua 15:8 and 18:16 tell us that the Valley of the Rephaim adjoined another valley—the Valley of Hinnom, also known as the Valley of the Son of Hinnom.19 In Hebrew “Valley of Hinnom” is ge hinnom, a phrase from which the name gehenna derives—a term conceptually linked to Hades/Hell in the New Testament.20 In the book of 1 Enoch the villainous sons of God of Genesis 6:1–4 are not only called angels—they are called Watchers. The link back to the Mesopotamian apkallu is transparent and unmistakable. First Enoch spells out how the Watchers and their offspring were the source of demons:21 From here I would urge you to read for yourself —1 Enoch 6:1-2; 7:1; 9:1, 9-10; 10:9; 15:8-9 1 Enoch calls the giants “bastard spirits”—a phrase used of demons in several Dead Sea Scrolls. Essentially, we get the idea that fallen beings are a bit more complex than we might at first think.

This leads us to some questions. “Are they still around? Are they to be identified with the demons that we engage in spiritual warfare today?” From here we drift farther from an exegetical approach. Walton reminded me here that just because Enoch connects them to demons doesn’t make that a biblically defensible view and I have to agree. We begin to drift into the guessing game. Every scholar seems to have a slightly different take on it. Nobody really knows the exact answer. Much of what we know is just the way people in the ancient world perceived things, we don’t know that their narrative was actually true. So now, let’s see what the Bible tells us.

Where are they in scripture?

Well after we just progressed to the guessing game, let’s get back on exegetical track! The New Testament is a different “cultural river”22 to use Walton’s terminology. There is little or no connection to Nephilim, apkallu or rephaim. In Jesus Christ’s teachings and ministry, He often confronted demons and their activities, i.e., demonic possession of individuals (Matthew 12:22-29, 15:22-28, 25:41; Mark 5:1-16). Christ demonstrated His power over demons and, furthermore, He gave His disciples power to cast out demons (Matthew 10:1).23 Some cessationists would say this period dies with Jesus and His victory at the cross meaning the demons are gone or phased out within a generation. That notion seems far-fetched. Jesus seemed to spend a great deal of time training the disciples for spiritual warfare and imparting the same aspects in scripture for those after to glean. We might distinguish between casting out demons and spiritual warfare at this point in the discussion. The former would be one aspect of the latter, but we know that spiritual warfare as it is envisioned today is a much broader concept.24

The New Testament does testify to the fact that demons are able to enter and control both humans and beasts. It is not mere psychological dysfunction on the part of a person. We find this from general statements the New Testament gives as well as specific examples of demon-possession.

This is an ADD squirrel moment, but again interesting – The gospel of John has very little about demons as you will see below, ironically the only times demons are mentioned is when someone accuses Jesus of being demon possessed in John 7:20 and John 8:48. While John’s gospel does not record any account of the healing of those demon possessed, it certainly acknowledges that the people believed demon-possession was a reality. Some have used this to say that John may not have had the same feelings about demons as other writers.

After Jesus ascended into heaven, the exorcism of demons continued through the ministry of His disciples. They were able to drive out demons through the authority of Jesus. You might remember Acts 8:7, “for unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed; and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured.” There is another account of a Slave Girl At Philippi in Acts 16:18.

Here are all the accounts in the NT in harmony for you:25

  • Synagogue At Capernaum (Mark 1:25-27; Luke 4:51-56)
  • The Gadarene Demoniacs (Matthew 8:28-34) (Mark 5:1-20) (Luke 8:26-39)
  • The Daughter Of The Gentile Woman (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-50)
  • The Demoniac Boy (Matthew 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-42)
  • The Mute Man (Matthew 9:32-34)
  • Mute, Blind, And Demon-Possessed (Matthew 12:22-30; Mark 3:20-27; Luke 11:14-23)
  • Slave Girl At Philippi Acts 16:18

What do we learn from these texts?

1. Demon-Possession Does Occur
2. Possession May Be Voluntary Or Involuntary
3. Those Possessed May Not Necessarily Live Immoral Lives
4. May Or May Not Be Permanent
5. Can Affect The Body
6. Can Also Affect The Mind
7. There Can Be A Wide Variety Of Symptoms
8. When Someone Is Delivered It Is Immediate

Do Christians need an exorcist?

This is the central question, and this one is up for debate. Different theologies see it differently. Michael Heiser in His book, Demons would say that,

“The jurisdictional authority of these sons of God has been nullified by the resurrection and ascension of Christ. That reality is what frames the Great Commission—the call to reclaim the nations (“go into all the world and make disciples”). The kingdom of darkness will lose what is essentially a spiritual war of attrition, for the gates of hell will not be able to withstand the Church. This is why believers are never commanded to rebuke spirits and demand their flight in the name of Jesus. It is unnecessary. Their authority has been withdrawn by the Most High. Believers are in turn commanded to reclaim their territory by recruiting the citizens in those territories for the kingdom of God.” 26

However, I don’t personally see eye to eye with Heiser on this one. There are at least two instances when Jesus seems to be preparing His disciples for coming spiritual warfare and still possibly needing to take command over them. Both come as field trips by Jesus which should show us that they were strategic in genre. The first is the crazy pigs story and the second is the grotto of pan. I have written on both instances. At the cross we see a Christus Victor sense of atonement where Jesus gains the keys of death back and the fallen spiritual beings are bound but not completely done away with, imprisoned, or cast into the lake of fire. That comes later after judgment. Until then, I would say they are still active but restrained.

Walton also would not agree with some of what Heiser states here, would have reservation about the cavalier identification of the sons of God with demons (which Heiser believed he built an evidential case for). Walton might disagree with the notion of the Great Commission as saying anything about the activity of demons in the world. Making disciples is not the same as making converts or followers. It is training apprentices who will take up the mantle in the next generation.27

Many of you know that one of my life mentors is John Walton. He and his son wrote an excellent book entitled, Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in its Cultural and Literary Context. 28 The book runs quite contrary to Dr. Heiser’s take on Demons. Both books shed good light on the subject, but I actually don’t agree with all of the assumptions of either. Walton and Walton think that a lot of what we believe about demons is wrong, I agree. They would assert that Bible is not meant to teach us any kind of demonology as the beliefs about the demons came from the culture much like one could talk about geological beliefs about the shape of the Earth and the nature of creation without having that be meant to give us scientific details. The Waltons also say this doesn’t serve the cause of what they call conflict theology, where God is fighting against the ways of the devil as classically understood, in a good light.29 The book serves a useful purpose of deconstructing some false “churchianity” stuff that is likely in your head, and I found it very useful. I can’t summarize everything that I would like to, so I highly suggest you buy the book and read it. It also seeks to challenge mental illness related to spiritual world assertations. I will get to this.

My personal take is that Christians can’t be possessed. If your life is in Jesus and you are fully inhabited as the temple of the holy spirit you can’t also be inhabited by a demon. You can however not be in good space or be weak and susceptible to nagging or leaching. Think of it as a spirit holding on to your ankles like a dog. They can be cast away in the name of Jesus in my opinion based on scripture. Sacred space might also creep into this conversation but I have written on it before so I think I will leave it alone here. Do you need continual checkups? Do demons creep in? Are they waiting at the gate? We simply don’t have all those answers, but we have enough to make biblically educated deductions.

Satan has been defeated

Can we equate Satan and demons? The only Biblical connection is in the designation of Beelzebub as the “prince of the demons” (Mt 9:34)–but even that is only stated as the opinion of the critics of Jesus. In other words, narrative simply tells us that is what they thought, we aren’t given this as Biblical truth. If that is indeed the case, we cannot say that Christians are immune to possession because demon possession is the invasion of something evil.

Satan has been defeated, but this is theologically foreseen as already not yet instance. I will use some of Andrew Womack’s wording but find the need to slightly edit towards a better theology (I love Andrew but not all of his theology or lack thereof). Satan has already been completely defeated according to Heb. 2:14. But he is still present as the New Testament goes on to clearly emphasizes.

Exegetically, I should again remind you that Satan is never indicated as a fallen being in the Bible (in Enoch, yes but not specifically in the Bible), nor are demons identified as fallen beings.30 Casting them out of heaven in Revelation is future and may or may not be another matter. In other words, your theological convictions are going to continue to matter in the way that you go on to interpret how we are personally affected. Walton and Walton are going to take a different trajectory than anything you might be familiar with. From their perspective, it is even difficult to Biblically prove that demons are the minions of Satan. If you think this way, whatever power Satan does or does not have cannot be associated with demon possession. Satan’s work is not represented as demon possession and demon possession is not associated with Satan. Judas (Satan entered into him) cannot be brought into this conversation any more than Peter (get behind me Satan) can be at Caesarea Philippi.

But theologies differ, in a traditional sense of fallen spiritual beings being thought of as demons, Satan and the other fallen degenerate spirits only power is the power to deceive Christians. I might call these leaching or nagging demons. Our battle should be against the schemes of the devil and his minions (Eph. 6:11), not the devil himself. Any other approach is cognitively giving the devil authority and power which he doesn’t have or deserve.  The only weapon Satan has is the power we give him when we believe his lies. In this sense Satan is powerless towards Christians, Satan was defeated in a Christus Victor sense at the cross.31

As I have been going back and forth, I need to go back to Waltons view here and make the point that demon possession is dependent on associating demon possession connected to the power of Satan.32

Colossians 2:15 says, “And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” The archaic meaning of the word “spoiled” here is “to plunder; despoil” (American Heritage Dictionary). This means that after Jesus defeated Satan, He stripped him of everything he had, specifically the keys of death and hell (Rev. 1:18). Satan has no power to imprison anyone.

Despite the fact that Jesus and his disciples certainly believed the world was oppressed with evil forces, they exhibited a complete freedom from fear in regard to such entities. In fact, the fearlessness of the early Christians was one of the chief “selling points” of early Christianity, since most people in the ancient world lived in fear of demonic forces.33 In large part, that is why the later second temple period had such an apocalyptic genre to so much of its writing including Biblical literature. 34

Mental Illness and demonology

This is going to be a controversial section. Different people see it differently. We are certainly plagued by our demons. In other words, some of the things we refer to as “demons” are figments of our own inability within a fallen world. Since I believe both in literal demons as well as metaphorical “demons” that are behavioral health issues, it’s important to distinguish between the two. I agree with C.S. Lewis, who said, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our [human] race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” 35 We need a balanced approach. There are literal demons, but there are also metaphorical ones. Around the world, in countless cultures and religions, people experience both intentional and unintentional spirit possession, as well as exorcisms to cure them of unwanted possessions. 

One view is that Jesus never conducted rituals to free someone of a demon. In some cases, he engaged them in conversation that resulted in their expulsion. In other cases, the reader is not given details but is left to assume that Jesus summarily dismissed the demons without discussion.36 I would go on to represent this view by stating that the examples of demonic possession listed in the Gospels were not provided as a manual for modern exorcism (let alone as a diagnostic manual of mental disorders), just as Jesus’ miracles are not a blueprint for a higher Christian life. This is a general hermeneutical rule: We shouldn’t automatically deduce general principles or doctrines from a Biblical narrative. There is also a perspective that we aren’t Jesus and won’t ever be (yet are always called to image Him), so perhaps the better question is what did He instruct of His disciples? Sometimes rather than casting out demons we need to seek mental health care for people. However, some theologies of healing would disagree (such as Andrew Womack) and believe that Christ heals all spiritual and physical ailments through his atoning work at the cross. This is where I remind you to read about the theological differences of healing of you haven’t already. I also do not subscribe to Bill Johnson’s theology of healing, but you should see for yourself. I certainly respect the approach.

Dr. Steve Cassell ads, when a person is demon-possessed (non-born-again person), oppressed (born-again person), or mentally unwell, they all can exhibit the exact same ’symptoms’, so there is no way to truly know without the ‘discerning of spirits’ that is offered as a gift from the Holy Spirit. I lean into 1 Cor 2:10-16.

CASTING OUT DEMONS:

Will you cast out demons from non-believers and nagging or leeching demons from Christians? That is for you to decide. Luckily, we have the Holy Spirit to help us there. I believe this is something that is influenced by God’s order and gifting. Much like miraculous healing there are several things that come into play such as the faith of the healer, the faith of the crowd, and the faith of the one being healed. You also have to take into account the glory of God, what scripture already says about the situation, God’s will and ways, and a plethora of other influential spiritual dynamics. I believe we should all be open and working on all the gifts. Some see casting out demons as a gift. Some are better than others but (if you follow this theology) all should be working on their gift. So, if you go that way, let me give you a better theological framework for it.

This is sometimes called “Deliverance.” As I am weary as to all of the “encounters” I am convinced possession is real and there is a need to call out the demons in the name of the Lord. As I have mentioned, I respect Andrew Womack’s ministry, and I think He has done some good work in this area. As I am hesitant to share this as I don’t agree with all of it. I think you should read it. 37 It is set up in the form of a group discussion should you want to use it that way. Here is a sermon by Bill Johnson that gets into this, more of a cheerleading piece in my opinion, but you still might find it helpful.

I have cast out more demons than I can count. Here are some things to consider: I believe in counseling and the person may need some through this process. I dislike step plans for anything. God doesn’t always work that way, but here is some framework.

  1. Ask for the spirit to guide you. Seek a fresh anointing and the presence of God. The person needs to be honest and transparent (if they are cognitively able).
  2. What might be holding them back? Bitterness, unforgiveness, communion, unreconciled sin. You might need to bring out what is hidden. What needs to be revealed?
  3. Faith – Your faith, their faith. I believe in counseling and the person may need some.
  4. In the name of Jesus renounce – I have found it the most powerful to shepherd this. Start by saying it and urging the person to affirm in their own words. This means to repudiate; disown; to give up or put aside; to give up by formal declaration; to deny, disavow, discard, recant, cast off, and sever oneself from.
  5. Sometimes I think it is important to make a proclamation to live this out. This comes back to faith. Do they need to break every hereditary curse coming down from their ancestors or through their bloodline? Jesus can break generational chains. I would be careful to call these curses. I don’t think that is always accurate or the best theological framework.

CONCLUSIVE THOUGHTS:

I have grown to very much appreciate Waltons criteria for a faithful interpretation over the years. I really like how he finished one of our conversations and I will share it in hopes that it will also help you come to your own conclusive thoughts. John Walton concludes, “I should make it clear that I have no hesitation at all in my belief that demon possession is a reality and that casting them out is an activity in which Christians may be called upon to engage, though I have never been in that situation myself. Nevertheless, I have questions about how confident we can be in connecting some of the dots (sons of God to demons, demons to evil, Satan to demons) and about some traditional teachings (fallen nature of spiritual beings) that are not taught in the Bible (none are). I hope that my comments will help you sharpen up the post a bit, even when you continue to hold a position that may differ from mine.”38 I love that heart!

I pray that you come to your own well exegeted conclusions. I am going to land with Brian Zahnd39 again on this one (which might point to some of my personal theology here different than where you land.) There is nothing to be done with demons but to wage war upon them and their works. That means setting people free by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the unique Kingdom manifestation of displacing demons. Every human vice and mental torment is a haunt of demon power. (Some would say this is over spiritualizing things but personally I don’t think so.) We can only imagine what led Mary Magdalene to become vexed by seven demons and how can we imagine the nightmarish road the Gadarene with his thousands of demons walked? But Jesus set them free. And He commissioned His followers to do the same in His name. I have to admit I still have a lot of unanswered questions for Jesus on this one! Don’t live in fear, don’t put the rest of the Bible on the shelf and go on a witch hunt, simply follow Jesus, love people, learn the power of God, and you will have opportunities to set people free from demon power by the authority of Jesus’ name. And finally, remember Revelation 20:10!

A special thanks to my good friend and mentor John Walton for his continued impact in my theological studies and so many others through his writing. He has been a lifelong source of inspiration and great advocate of faithful interpretation. Thank you, John.

MORE RESOURCES:

Steve Gregg on Demons

4 views for understanding spiritual warfare

  1. Some might consider (1 Sam 16:14) but here it uses the word “oppressed” not “possessed” and it is further not clear whether this should be identified as a demon ↩︎
  2. A personal conversation with John Walton based on his book, https://www.amazon.com/Demons-Spirits-Biblical-Theology-Walton/dp/1498288782 ↩︎
  3. Graf, Fritz (2018). “Travels to the Beyond: A Guide”. In Ekroth, Gunnel; Nilsson, Ingela (eds.). Round Trip to Hades in the Eastern Mediterranean Tradition: Visits to the Underworld from Antiquity to Byzantium. Cultural Interactions in the Mediterranean. Vol. 2. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 11–36. doi:10.1163/9789004375963_002. ISBN 978-90-04-37596-3. ↩︎
  4. Galambush, Julie (2000). “Eve”. In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789053565032. ↩︎
  5. It should be noted that “Fall” is not a Biblical term. It generally refers to a fall (from grace). Walton makes the point that this is not an exegetical conclusion concerning humans, Satan, demons, or the Sons of God. The snake is never connected with Ha-Satan exegetically and he is never the leader of fallen spirits in the Bible. The Bible knows of no fallen beings (except the King of Babylon in Isa 14;12, but that is metaphorical—not a fall from grace and he is not a spirit being). See discussion in W&W. ↩︎
  6. Faulkner, Raymond O.; Goelet, Ogden Jr.; Andrews, Carol A. R. (1994). Dassow, Eva von (ed.). The Egyptian Book of the Dead: the Book of Going Forth by Day. San Francisco, California: Chronicle Books. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-8118-0767-8.  ↩︎
  7. Wilkinson, Richard H. (1992). Reading Egyptian Art: a hieroglyphic guide to ancient Egyptian painting and sculpture (1998 ed.). London, England: Thames and Hudson. p. 161. ISBN 0-500-27751-6.  ↩︎
  8. Belial (or Beliar, a corruption of the original form) is the most common name for the leader of the demons in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and occurs in other intertestamental literature and in II Corinthians 6:15. Belial (Heb. Beliyya’al) is a Hebrew compound word which etymologically means “no benefit” or “no thriving” and in liberal usage is often equivalent to “scoundrel.” But already in the Bible “streams of Beliyya’al” means “streams of destruction” (II Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:5). In the intertestamental literature Belial is “the spirit of perversion, the angel of darkness, the angel of destruction” and other spirits are subject to him. Mastemah, which as a common noun means approximately “enmity, opposition” in Hosea 9:7, 8 and in some passages in the Five Scrolls, is a demon “Prince Mastemah” in Jubilees (11:5, 11; 17:16; et al.), and perhaps also in the Damascus Document (16:5). Watchers (Aram. ʿirin) are a type of angel mentioned in Daniel 4:10, 14, 20. To this class the intertestamental literature assigns the angels who, according to Genesis 6:2, 4, cohabited with women before the flood and fathered the race of giants (Test. Patr., Reu. 5:6–7; Test. Patr., Napht. 3:5; cf. Genesis Apocryphon, ii 2:1, 16). Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8, 17) is a demon who had slain the first seven husbands of Sarah, who becomes the wife of Tobias son of Tobit. ↩︎
  9. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F1FQ5CX8 ↩︎
  10. https://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Realm-Recovering-Supernatural-Worldview/dp/1577995562 ↩︎
  11. van der Toorn, Becking & van der Horst 1999, “Apkallu”, page 72. ↩︎
  12. George, Andrew (2007) “The Gilgameš epic at Ugarit”. Aula Orientalis, 25 (2). pp. 237-254. ↩︎
  13. Ataç, Mehmet-Ali (2010), The mythology of kingship in Neo-Assyrian art (1. publ. ed.), Cambridge University ↩︎
  14. Kramer, Samuel Noah (1961), Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C.: Revised Edition, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 0-8122-1047-6 ↩︎
  15. https://divinenarratives.org/the-watchers-origins-roles-and-cultural-influence/ ↩︎
  16. Wyatt, Nicolas (2001). Space and Time in the Religious Life of the Near East. A&C Black. ISBN 978-0-567-04942-1. ↩︎
  17. https://www.bing.com/search?q=heiser+%22The+key+to+understanding+how+these+giants+were+perceived+as+demons+in+the+biblical+material&cvid=c4cae408c0fe4b2593efc7b5e97bea16&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOdIBCDQ2NTlqMGo0qAIIsAIB&FORM=ANAB01&PC=SMTS ↩︎
  18. Yogev, J. (2021). The Rephaim: Sons of the Gods. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East. Brill. p. 6. ISBN 978-90-04-46086-7. ↩︎
  19. Rouillard-Bonraisin, Hedwige. 1999. “Rephaim.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons, pp. 692–700. ↩︎
  20. Kohler, Kaufmann; Ludwig Blau (1906). “Gehenna”. Jewish Encyclopedia. “The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the ‘valley of the son of Hinnom,’ to the south of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8, passim; II Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 2:23; 7:31–32; 19:6, 13–14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and ‘Gehenna’ therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for ‘hell.'” ↩︎
  21. Barker, Margaret. (2005) [1998]. The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and Its Influence on Christianity. London: SPCK; Sheffield Phoenix Press. ISBN 978-1-905048-18-2 ↩︎
  22. https://hc.edu/news-and-events/2016/12/02/the-role-of-the-ancient-near-east-and-modern-science-in-interpretation/ ↩︎
  23. ANGELS ELECT AND EVIL, C. Fred Dickason, p. 150. ↩︎
  24. IBID 1 ↩︎
  25. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_58.cfm ↩︎
  26. https://www.amazon.com/Demons-Bible-Really-Powers-Darkness/dp/1683592891 ↩︎
  27. IBID 1 ↩︎
  28. Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in its Cultural and Literary Context by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton (2019). ↩︎
  29. https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2019/08/19/book-plunge-demons-and-spirits-in-biblical-theology/ ↩︎
  30. IBID 1 ↩︎
  31. https://www.awmi.net/reading/teaching-articles/spiritual_authority/ ↩︎
  32. IBID 1 ↩︎
  33. https://reknew.org/2015/07/are-you-afraid-of-demons/ ↩︎
  34. L. Michael White. “Apocalyptic literature in Judaism and early Christianity”. ↩︎
  35. C. S. Lewis Preface – The Screwtape Letters (1942) ↩︎
  36. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/breathingspace/2023/02/the-difference-between-mental-illness-and-demonic-possession/ ↩︎
  37. https://cdn.awmi.net/documents/study-guides/sg417/discipleship-evangelism-study-guide-language-english-level-2-lesson-5.pdf ↩︎
  38. Personal email from John Walton ↩︎
  39. https://brianzahnd.com/ ↩︎