But what are they and where did they come from? Some of you may be wondering why I didn't include them in my two previous post on fallen angels. Recent church tradition has told us that demons are fallen angels, but I am going to challenge that tradition. Now, I am not the first person to ever come up with the view I am presenting. In fact, this view goes back to the intertestamental period, and as I will prove, was carried over into the New Testament. There are other scholars who hold to this view as well, but because the "fallen angel" view is espoused by most of the popular preachers today, this "older" view doesn't get the platform it deserves. In fact, the view that demons are fallen angels did not develop until the 5th century A.D. So, if demons aren't fallen angels, what are they? Before I answer that question, I want to show you why they cannot be fallen angels.
Let's look at what we know about angels from our study so far:
1) As we have seen in our last post, angels have a spiritual form, but have the power to come down in bodily form. This means there is no need for them to seek bodies to possess or inhabit.
2) Angels, both good and evil, have the power to go back and forth from the heavenly realm to earth (Though now the evil angles have lost access to God and are cast down to earth). Demons are never shown to have had this power. Angels are also not limited in their mobility.
3) Satan has the ability to transform his appearance into an angel of light (we can assume that the other fallen angles had this ability since some of them were powerful sons of God).
4) Beings like Satan and the glorious ones are not to be rebuked by humans, but rather we are to call on the Lord to rebuke them (Jude 8-9).
5) The lake of fire is said to be for Satan and his angels (Matt. 25:41)
6) Some angles (sons of God) have a ruling authority and engage in combat with other angels, while some function as messengers. Demons are never presented as fighting against good angles, but rather spending their days afflicting humans.
Now let's look at demons:
1) The Gospel writers present demons as needing bodies to inhabit, and that they will often time settle for animals (Mark 5:1-13).
2) Demons are never called "angels" or "fallen angels", but "evil spirits" or "unclean spirits".
3) In Matthew 25:41 Jesus says that the lake of fire is for "the devil and his angels." It is telling that he uses the word "angels" here. The use of the word "demon" is common in the Gospels, and Satan is said to be head over them, so why doesn't Matthew use the word "demon" or "unclean spirit" or "evil spirit" when he has used it elsewhere? it is because Jesus is not referring to demons, but to fallen angels.
4) Demons possess, control, and afflict people (Matt. 4:23-25; 8:28-32; Lk. 4:40-41).
5) Demons have unusual physical strength (Mark 5:1-5)
6) Demons have limited mobility. They are presented as walking and wondering through the desert seeking a place to rest (Matt. 12:43).
7) Demons can be directly rebuked and cast out (Lk. 10:17).
8) Demons have the ability to deceive (1 Tim. 4:1-4).
Therefore we see some major differences between these two beings. The only thing they seem to have in common is that they are both under the control of Satan and are part of his kingdom, and both love to deceive. The fallen angels seem to have a ruling and warring function, while the demons are Satan's agents to directly torment humans.
Now on to the million dollar questions. If they aren't fallen angels, what are they and where did they come from?
As we have talked about previously, the book of 1 Enoch was a highly respected book in the days both before and after Jesus. We have seen its influence on some of the NT writers such as Peter and Jude. Other elements of its influence can be seen in the Son of Man imagery in the Gospels. 1 Enoch took this theme from Daniel and developed it more, and many of the reference of Jesus as the "Son of man" find parallels in the book of 1 Enoch. We have also seen that its teaching on angels and the Watchers was very influential as well. So, does the book of 1 Enoch say anything about the origin of demons, and would it have been the common belief in Jesus day?
The answer to both questions is yes. According to 1 Enoch, demons are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim (offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men- giants) who died in the flood.
(8) And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon (9) the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; (10) they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. [As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] (11) And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless (12) hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them. (Enoch 15:8-12)
Given that this was the popular view of the day, if it was wrong, why didn't Jesus correct it? He had no problems correcting their view on other things regarding spiritual beings, as well as other wrong teachings of the pharisees and religious leaders. Why don't any of the other New Testament authors correct this view, especially since spiritual warfare is such a big theme in the New Testament? The obvious answers are that view of demons in 1 Enoch was the accepted view; it didn't need explaining; it was right and did not need correcting.
In conclusion, demon spirits are the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim that died in the flood. This explains why they behave the way the do in the Gospels. It explains why they are looking for bodies to inhabit, and why they have such extraordinary strength.
At some point towards the end of this series, we will deal with demon possession, but for now, we will move on to discussing the elect (good) angels.
Update: The Ghost Theory of Demons
When we look at early Greek culture, both Hesiod and Celsus used the term "demon" to refer to the ghosts of dead men. This understanding seemed to trickle down through the ages. The Jewish historians, Philo and Josephus, both understood demons to be the spirits of the departed. Philo writes, "The souls of dead men are called demons." Josephus also states, "Demons are the spirits of wicked men, who enter into living men and destroy them, unless they are so happy as to meet with speedy relief."
Before we make an argument that the Gospel writers believed this, let's jump ahead to the church fathers. Justin Martyr, Ireneus, and Origen all held to this view. For example, Justin writes, "Those who are seized and tormented by the souls of the dead, whom all call demons, and madmen." This much evidence seems to indicate that the notion of demons as the ghosts of dead men, who could possess and torment the living, was a universally accepted ideal in Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity.
Did the Gospel writers understand demons as such? First, let me give you a quote from Alexander Campbell that will help put things into perspective. In talking about how to understand the word "demon" in the Gospels, he states, "Every word not specially explained or defined in a particular sense, by any standard writer of any particular age and country, is to be taken and applied in the current or commonly received signification of that country and age in which the writer lived and wrote." He goes on to argue that if this is not the case, then there is no value in dictionaries, or even learning ancient languages. His point is that no one in the Bible ever defines or redefines the word "demon". This means that they accepted the normal belief at that time- demons are the ghost of wicked men.
The word is used in its various forms around 75 times in the Gospels, without any hint of a different interpretation of the word, which is not their usual method if they are using a term or concept that is not generally understood by the culture of their day. As Campbell states, "Does anyone ask the meaning of the word Messiah, prophet, priest, elder, deacon, presbytery, alter...We refer him to the current signification of these words among the Jews and Greeks of that age. Why, then, should anyone except the term demon from the universal law? Are we not, therefore, sustained by the highest and most authoritative decision of that literary tribunal by whose rules and decrees all works sacred and profane are translated from a dead to a living tongue? We are then, fully authorized to say that the demons of the New Testament were the spirits of dead men."
I don't claim this view as fact, but it is very compelling, and there is major evidence there. If accepted, this means that "demons" is a more broad category, that included in both the spirits of the Nephilim and the spirits of the departed dead. Like the Nephilim view, the "ghost theory" explains why the demons and unclean spirits of the New Testament are looking for bodies. The "ghost theory" also explains why, in the story of the Gerasenes demoniac, the demons beg Jesus not to send them to the "pitt" or "abyss" (Luke 8:31). The "abyss" is used in the New Testament as the abode of the dead. These spirits, though they hate being cursed to roam the earth, do not want to be cast down and confined in Sheol, like the rest of the dead. To me, it seems like the Nephilim view and the Ghost Theory view compliment each other and actually fit together nicely.
This view raises many questions, such as "why do some wicked people's spirit become demons/ghosts, and others do not?" We will explore this question, and many more, when we get into the section on Ghosts.