How do you explain the story about the demoniac called Legion (Mar 5:1-20)?

To “have a demon” was the same as to “have an unclean spirit”, which is a Bible way of saying that something was wrong or “unclean” about a person’s way of thinking or mental capability. In short, a person with a demon was a person with a mental illness.

The story about Legion — a man with many demons — illustrates this conclusion quite well. Prior to Jesus’ healing, Legion is described as “a man with an unclean spirit who lived among the tombs… so fierce that no one could pass that way… for a long time he had worn no clothes… no one could bind him any more, even with a chain… night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out, and bruising himself with stones” (Mar 5:2-5; Luk 8:27; Mat 8:28, RSV).

After Jesus’ healing, the “man who had had the legion” caused great concern among the townspeople who “came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind” (Mar 5:15). The man’s “before” and “after” descriptions contrast “unclean spirit” with “in his right mind”, “fierce” with “sitting”, and “wore no clothes” with “clothed”. In other words, sane behavior replaces insane behavior.

The behavior of ferocity, tomb-living, constant moaning and self-bruising can be explained by mental instability (manic depressant). Similarly, the “many demons” in the one man can be described by the affliction of multiple personalities (schizophrenia). Thus the story of Legion is that of a wild madman who terrified the countryside… who became (with Jesus’ help) a calm, rational disciple who proclaimed to that same ten-city area “how much Jesus had done for him” (Mar 5:20; Luk 8:39).

a) It is helpful to recognize the sequence of events. Notice that Jesus’ command for the unclean spirit to come out of the man (Mar 5:8; Luk 8:29) is prior to the man’s response of worship and saying “what have you to do with me?… do not torment me” (Mar 5:6,7; Luk 8:28). The healed man properly pays tribute to Jesus, but is still understandably concerned about a recurrence of his madness — had Jesus given him false hope? Jesus knew what was behind the man’s panic, as indicated by his teaching about an ‘apparently’ cured madman:

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first” (Luk 11:24-26).

A reasonable conjecture is that Legion had experienced progressively worse bouts of his madness. He had to have been calm enough from time to time to have people try to restrain him with chains. But then his adrenalin-fed mania would burst the bonds and drive him raving mad again. Given this interlude of sanity, it makes sense that Legion did not want his illness to come back with a vengeance. How could Jesus assure him that he was healed for good?

b) Jesus provided an unforgettable sign. In response to the man’s begging — and Matthew’s record says there were actually two men involved, which may explain why the text reads “they begged him” — Jesus had the disease enter a great herd of swine which were feeding on a nearby hill. Maddened, the 2,000 pigs rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned. Thus Legion saw with his own eyes the destruction of his madness.

The swine stampede was obviously a frightening experience, for “when the herdsmen saw what had happened, they fled, and told it in the city and in the country”, and eventually, “all the people of the surrounding country… begged Jesus to depart from them; for they were seized with great fear” (Luk 8:34,37; Mat 8:33,34). The difference between the two beggings is instructional.

As with his healing of the paralytic, Jesus had provided an object lesson. How could Jesus demonstrate that sin was forgiven? Command the man to pick up his pallet and walk! (Mar 2:5-12) Since no one could see that an invisible sin was gone, Jesus allowed the doubters to see the unmistakable fact of a paralytic instantly cured. How could Jesus convince Legion that an invisible insanity had forever left his mind? Have it visibly transferred to the “unclean” pigs, which were subsequently drowned! As the prophet Micah wrote, “He will again have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot. Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic 7:19).

c) In all three Gospels, the story of Legion comes immediately after Jesus’ calming of the wind and sea (Mat 8:23-27; Mar 4:35-41; Luk 8:22-25). This cannot be accidental. Surely the point is that Jesus can calm the storm in a man’s mind as easily as he can speak to the howling whirlwind and tumultuous waves.

Interestingly enough, the text says Jesus spoke directly to the wind and the sea as if they were living objects — but they weren’t. Perhaps that helps answer why the text seems to present demons as if they were living objects — when they really aren’t. When Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law, he “rebuked the fever, and it left her” (Luk 4:39). Was the fever an independent entity? No.

d) How do doctors explain mental illness today? They don’t. They observe the interactive responses and manifestations of chemicals, electricity, neurons, the brain and the body. And they give long scientific names to certain phenomena and behavior. But applying a label does not constitute understanding. The Bible description of being “possessed by a demon” is just as meaningful and accurate as today’s medical pronouncement: “he’s a manic depressant” or “he has bipolar affective disorder”. And the Bible description is certainly easier to understand.

a) Not every case of demons was strictly mental illness: sometimes there was blindness, dumbness and deafness involved (eg Mat 9:33). So a fuller definition of demon is: a term descriptive of those physical and mental aberrations whose cause and source is veiled from the sight of man.

The summation of Jesus’ wonderful healing is described as “healing every disease and every infirmity among the people… all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them all” (Mat 4:23,24). Since all categories of illness are being included, this description is covering both physical and mental illnesses, and thus the term “demoniacs” is probably indicative of both.

Later on, Jesus gave the twelve “authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (Mat 10:1). So having an unclean spirit, ie, being possessed by a demon, seems to bridge mental and physical aspects, yet provides a distinct category of its own: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mat 10:8, a restatement of v 1).

b) Demon possession is clearly a class of infirmity, as is made clear by the following:

“That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’ ” (Mat 8:16,17).

Here, “possessed with demons” parallels “infirmities”. The usual words that go with “demons” and “unclean spirits” are “cast out”, as in this passage, but in Mat 12:22 and Luk 7:21, the words are “healed” and “cured”. Act 19:12 presents the same picture: “diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them”.

c) The Bible does not present demons as independent, distinct entities. Like a disease, they always have a human host. So when we read, “then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw” (Mat 12:22), it is not a distinct entity which is blind and dumb but the man who could not speak or see. Similarly in Mar 9:25, the “dumb and deaf spirit” meant that it was the boy — not some other entity — who could not speak or hear.

d) At various times, Jesus himself was thought to be or accused of being mad, that is, he “had a demon”. An interesting series appears in John’s Gospel. When Jesus stated that the Jews were seeking to kill him, “The people answered, ‘You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?’ ” (Joh 7:20). When Jesus unswervingly told the Jews the truth about themselves, and that they were not listening to the words of God, “The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?’ ” (Joh 8:48). When Jesus replied that any one who kept his word would not see death, “The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, “If any one keeps my words, he will never taste death” ‘ ” (Joh 8:52).

In other words, the Jews were saying Jesus was “crazy”, “deluded”, “insane”, or as might be colloquially said today, “you’re mad!”

e) In Mar 3, Jesus is accused this way: “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out demons” (v 22). “He has an unclean spirit” (v 30). Even some of Jesus’ friends were saying, “He is beside himself” (v 21). Of course, Jesus was not crazy. Rather, his teaching proved he was from God, and his healing was destroying the stronghold of the dreadful diseases.

f) Consider two statements of the apostle Paul: “Come to your right mind and sin no more. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1Co 15:34), and “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you” (2Co 5:13). Here, “right mind” is opposite “beside ourselves”, ie, crazy or deluded. This phraseology is the same as that used by Jesus’ accusers who claimed he had a demon; he and his teaching were, in their view, the result of madness! So it is not surprising to read about the Roman governor Festus, alarmed by the penetrating and uncomfortable testimony of the apostle, accusing Paul of being deluded: “You are mad, your great learning is turning you mad!” (Act 26:24).

g) What is the significance of having “an unclean spirit”? The reverse of unclean is clean. What then is a clean spirit? 1Co 2:11 says, “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” This verse indicates that one aspect of “spirit” is the close connection with (but distinction from) thoughts. The passage goes on to talk about the mind of the LORD and having the mind of Christ (1Co 2:16). In other words, the spirit of a man is the mind of a man. A man’s spirit oversees his thoughts, which in turn determine behavior. So when a man has a clean spirit, his thoughts and resultant behavior will reflect that cleanness.

David describes this kind of cleanness: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit” (Psa 51:10-12). He understood that God wanted him to have “truth in the inward being” and “wisdom in my secret heart” (v 6). He needed to be forgiven by God, and then he would “be clean” (v 7). He realized that “the sacrifice to God is a broken spirit” (v 17), a mind seeking forgiveness of sins (vv 1-4). David was physically suffering as the result of his unrepentant sins of adultery and murder, and needed to find the blessed relief of forgiveness given to a man “in whose spirit there is no deceit” (Psa 32:1-5).

Replace the good characteristics with their opposite. What do you get? An unrenewed, wrong, unwilling, rebellious, deceitful spirit. In short, an unclean spirit. How is that unclean spirit made manifest? In a person’s thinking and resultant behavior. And inescapably, in a person’s health. So when Jesus was casting out unclean spirits (demons), he was in effect giving a person a new start in life with glowing health and sins forgiven.

h) The connection between the mind and illness is being understood better every day. What used to be dismissed as “psychosomatic” — the illness is all in the mind and, hence, not real — is rapidly becoming the real explanation in the majority of cases (B Siegel, MD, “Love, Medicine and Miracles”, Harper & Row, New York, 1986, p 111). So healing an unclean spirit (mind) is truly getting to the source.

(a) Could there still be a distinct entity or evil spirit called a demon which “possesses human beings” and causes them to have physical and mental problems? Theoretically, yes. But would it not be logically redundant? Given what seems to be a clear linkage of “sin” and “unclean” and “disease”, being demon-possessed indicates a person having a maddening disease, rather than a demon causing a maddening disease.

(b) If one argues that there needs to be a cause behind the disease, then the real, true cause must go back to God Himself. The Bible makes this point very clear: “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exo 4:11).

The source of the evil spirit that came upon king Saul is explained to be from God (1Sa 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9). God claims full and unique responsibility for bringing evil and affliction upon mankind (cf. Isa 45:7; Amo 3:6; 9:4; Eze 6:10; Jer 32:23; 1Ki 21:21). The teaching that there is another evil power at loose in this world — Satan or the Devil — is not true Bible teaching.

(c) If one still insists that there can be some entity between God and man who can bring evil upon the man, one explanation is an “angel of evil”, like those described in Psa 78:49 (KJV) — an angel that, under God’s control, brings “evil” or trials upon mankind… not an “evil angel” in the sense of being sinful or wicked. When God pours out His wrath upon the earth, Scripture describes it as being performed by His angels (cf Rev 16). So if someone argued that a demon was an angel of God who brought a maddening disease to an individual, in the sense discussed above, there would be room for agreement.

(d) Why does the New Testament frequently mention demons, but the Old Testament hardly mentions them at all? The most likely answer is that, between Old and New Testament times, the notions of the Greek culture had had a significant impact on the world of the Middle East. “Demon” was a word the Greeks used to describe many of the (false) gods they worshiped. Paul uses the word twice to mean a heathen god, and equates them with idols:

“What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1Co 10:19-21).

For a monotheistic Christian — one who believed in the one and only God of Israel — any behavior (like eating food offered to idols) that would suggest credence in pagan gods, could create a stumbling-block for someone who wasn’t fully convinced. This was the substance of Paul’s discussion in 1Co 8. While those strong in faith knew that “an idol has no real existence” (v 4), they were to avoid any appearance of indicating belief in Greek demons, and were thus exhorted: “Shun the worship of idols” (1Co 10:14). Non-worship of idols is plainly an Old Testament teaching (eg, Exo 20:4; Isa 44:9-20), and the basis of Paul’s arguments come directly from Moses: “They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods… They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded” (Deu 32:16,17).

By NT times, therefore, the Greek belief of demon-gods who were the cause of evil among men had infiltrated the thinking of Mid-Easterners. For example, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote: “The poets speak excellently who affirm that when good men die, they attain great honor and dignity… It is also believed that the souls of bad men become evil demons.” The first-century Jewish historian Joseph-us claimed: “Demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked that enter into men that are alive, and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.” Such teaching is not found in the Bible.

(e) Not everybody in the Greek-speaking world believed in demon possession. Hippocrates was a famous Greek doctor who lived in the fifth century before Christ. In his treatise on epilepsy, he stated that the popular belief in demon worship was not true; epilepsy must be treated by medical care just like every other disease ( I. Asimov, in Guide to Science, vol 2, ch 4, Basic Books, New York, 1972). For about the next 600 years, until the second century AD, all the best-educated Greek doctors were taught this (“Hippocrates” and “Galen”, in The Penguin Medical Encyclopedia, Penguin Books, London, 1972). This does find support in the Bible.

Points of Interest

1. Associated with “healing” (Mar 1:34; 3:15; 6:13).
2. Nature of diseases: dumbness (Mar 9:17,25), epilepsy (Mat 17:15-18).
3. John records healing miracles without ever referring to “demons” — thus the precise language is secondary.
4. The manifestation of “demon” possession depended entirely on a host. Evidently, then, the “demons” had no separate existence.
5. No OT refs to demons; no teaching as such in all of Scripture (NMk 19,20).
6. Though Jesus “spoke” to demons, he also “spoke” to a fever (cp Mar 1:31 with Luk 4:38).

Here is an illustration — Biblical or non-Biblical? — to expose the evil men against whom Jude writes. Michael the archangel, in disputation with the devil about the body of Moses, is content to leave the issue in God’s hands: “The Lord rebuke thee”.

The parallel passage in Peter runs thus: “Presumptuous are they, not afraid to speak evil of dignities (glories); whereas angels which are greater (than they?) in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (2Pe 2:10,11).

The modernists have a field day here. Without any evidence (in fact, against the evidence, as will be seen by and by), they assume that an apocryphal work, ‘The Assumption of Moses’, was already in existence and that Jude was alluding to it in this place.

What are the facts about this mysterious writing? All that is known definitely about it is that a few short quotations are made from it by some of the early fathers and that one or two of them (Origen, Clement of Alexandria) assert that Jud 1:9 quotes or alludes to it. This piece about the body of Moses is not included in any of the known quotes, but a marginal addition to a Jude manuscript has come to light which is probably from ‘The Assumption of Moses’, and it reads thus: “When Moses had died on the mountain, the archangel Michael was sent to transfer the body. But the devil resisted, wanting to cheat, saying that the body was his as master of the material (man), at any rate because he (Moses) had killed the Egyptian (Exo 2:12), having blasphemed against the holy man and having proclaimed him a murderer. The angel, not bringing the blasphemy against the holy man, said to the devil: ‘The Lord rebuke thee’.”

There is a common assumption by the critics that the Assumption of Moses precedes Jude and is quoted by him. Yet the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, for Peter states that this encounter between angel and “devil” took place “before the Lord”, but in the quote just given “the archangel Michael was sent” (ie from God). So it looks very much as though the Jude passage was misunderstood by this apocryphal writer and by him was blown up into an imaginative and theologically absurd story.

The correct and thoroughly satisfying explanation of Jud 1:9 gives the coup de grace to any idea of dependence on The Assumption of Moses.

An unmistakable clue as to the meaning is given in the words: “The Lord rebuke thee”, which are a straight quote from Zec 3:2: “And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan… is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments…” (vv 1-3).

The background to this prophecy is the attempt on the part of some who returned from Babylon to get themselves included in the priesthood of the new temple (Ezr 2:61-63). Lack of unimpeachable genealogy led to their exclusion “until there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim” to give a firm divine decision. Evidently, in reaction from this, the men so excluded retorted against Joshua that by the same token he was disqualified from being high priest. Where were his true high priestly robes?

In the Zechariah vision, these grumblers are the Satan. Joshua is vindicated not by the Lord’s angel, who himself is content to await divine decision, but by Yahweh Himself. Joshua is given new robes, and there is set before him (in the breastplate — so the Hebrew text implies) the stone of decision belonging to the Urim and Thummim (v 9).

QUESTION: Who is the “Devil” of the Bible?

ANSWER:

The “devil” is a New Testament term referring to the basic sinful tendency inherent in human nature, and is used to label individuals or human powers who are false accusers or slanderers. It is quite often used as a personification of sin or opposition to God as manifested in some human or power. Therefore it is incorrect to claim that “the devil” is a rebellious fallen angel who brings sin into the world, and who deceives mankind into following that way that leads to destruction.

1. The word “devil” (Greek diabolos, one who throws things against) is found only in the New Testament, but is used to personify the Old Testament idea of the rebellious human heart, as the following references show.
2. The human heart, ie, mind, is the source of evil thoughts (Mark 7:21; Gen 6:6; Pro 6:14; Jer 4:14; 17:9; 23:26; Psa 64:1-6). Thus Scripture points to ourselves, not a fallen angel, as being the source of all temptation.
3. Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires (Jam 1:14; cp 1Jo 2:16). If that person yields to the temptation of his own passions, he sins (Jam 1:15) and is labeled “of the devil” (1Jo 3:8). On the other hand, not to yield is described as “resisting the devil” (Jam 4:1-4,7). Similarly, to withstand the wiles of the devil is to put off being corrupt as through deceitful lusts, and living in the passions of the flesh, following the desire of body and mind (Eph 2:3; 4:22,27; 6:11).
4. That “the devil” means “the tendency of human nature to sin” is well illustrated in the life of Christ. Since Jesus shared our human nature, he was tempted in every respect like ourselves (Heb 2:14; 4:15). His temptation “by the devil” in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11) is readily understood as being prompted by his own thinking and desires (e.g., hunger pangs, sensationalism, human glory: cp 1Jo 2:16). Never giving in to his own human will made Jesus sinless (Mat 26:38-42; 1Pe 2:22; Heb 4:15), and thus he overcame sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26; 10:4-10; cp Rom 8:3). In other words, by figuratively and literally crucifying the flesh, Jesus destroyed the “devil” in himself (Heb 2:14; 1Jo 3:8; Gal 5:24; 6:14; Col 2:13-15; Joh 3:14).
5. The betrayer Judas is called a devil (Joh 6:70). Being a thief greedy for money, Judas decided to sell out his Lord; this is described as: “the devil put it into his heart” (Joh 12:6; 13:2; cp Luk 22:3-5). Similar expressions are used in connection with Ananias (Act 5:3,4), Elymas (Act 13:8-10), and the murderous Pharisees (Joh 8:44). Other passages of similar character are: Jam 3:15; 1Ti 3:6,11; 2Ti 2:26; 3:3; Tit 2:3. Roman and Jewish persecuting powers are also personified as “the devil” (1Pe 5:8,9; Rev 2:9,10; 12:3,9,17; cp Mat 2:16; Act 4:26,27).
6. The Bible nowhere refers to the origin of the devil, and those verses which are sometimes used to suggest that it does (like Isa 14:12 and Eze 28:13) plainly refer in picturesque language to arrogant human powers, in the first case Babylon, and the second Tyre.

---

QUESTION: Who or what is “Satan”?

ANSWER:

“Satan” is simply a term meaning adversary or opponent. It doesn’t necessarily have an evil connotation since it can refer to any person or being who deliberately gets in the way of another. Satan is invariably used to personify opposition as manifested in some human or power. Therefore, although the word is sometimes used in a similar context, “Satan” is quite distinct in meaning from “the devil”, and to equate the two is erroneous.

1. The word “Satan” (Hebrew satanas, an opponent or adversary) is an Old Testament term transliterated in the New Testament. It has a wide range of applications as a label, including an angel of God, God Himself, David, Peter, an infirmity, a temptation, the Ro-man authorities, Jewish opposition, etc., as the following passages will indicate.
2. In Num 22:22,32 it refers to an angel of God, an adversary who withstands the wicked prophet Balaam.
3. In 1Ch 21:1 it refers to one who tempted David to an unworthy deed, but in 2Sa 24:1 it is said that the LORD moved David in this way.
4. David is regarded as a possible adversary (1Sa 29:4), as are the sons of Zeruiah (2Sa 19:22). Other various human adversaries of Solomon and others are found in 1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23,25; Psa 38:20; 71:13; 109:4,6,20,29.
5. The classical application of the word “Satan” is to Peter himself, who is said by Jesus to be a “hindrance to me — you are not on the side of God but of men” (Mat 16:23; Mar 8:33).
6. “Satan” is used in the sense of an infirmity in Luk 13:11,16, and of temptation in Mat 4:10; Luk 22:3; Act 5:3,4.
7. Several times it is used in reference to the Jewish (or Roman?) power as an adversary of the Gospel (Rev 2:9,13,24).
8. It is apparently twice used of this world, into which Paul determined that unworthy disciples should be excommunicated (1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20).
9. On the remaining occasions, “Satan” refers to the source of temptations and persecutions, or to the embodiment of the power of evil (Mat 12:26; Mar 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; Luk 4:8; 10:18; 11:18; 22:31; Joh 13:27; Act 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1Co 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 11:11,14; 1Th 2:18; 2Th 2:9; 1Ti 5:15; Rev 3:9; 12:9; 20:2,7).
10. In special passages like Job 1; 2, the word “Satan” occurs 12 times of someone who appears in the councils of God and with God’s consent plays a leading role in the trials of Job. Note, however, that in every case it is God who was the real source of all the evil that came upon Job (Job 1:20; 2:10; 42:11).
11. Similarly in Zec 3:1,2 the word occurs 3 times of an accuser in a visionary trial of the priest Joshua. The historical context of Ezr 4:1,4,6 shows there were real enough adversaries against the rebuilding of the Temple.

---

QUESTION: Who or what are demons? How do you explain the story about the demoniac called Legion (Mark 5:1-20)?

ANSWER:

To “have a demon” was the same as to “have an unclean spirit”, which is a Bible way of saying that something was wrong or “unclean” about a person’s way of thinking or mental capability. In short, a person with a demon was a person with a mental illness.

The story about Legion — a man with many demons — illustrates this conclusion quite well. Prior to Jesus’ healing, Legion is described as “a man with an unclean spirit who lived among the tombs… so fierce that no one could pass that way… for a long time he had worn no clothes…no one could bind him any more, even with a chain… night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out, and bruising himself with stones” (Mar 5:2-5; Luk 8:27; Mat 8:28, RSV).

After Jesus’ healing, the “man who had had the legion” caused great concern among the townspeople who “came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind” (Mar 5:15). The man’s “before” and “after” descriptions contrast “unclean spirit” with “in his right mind”, “fierce” with “sitting”, and “wore no clothes” with “clothed”. In other words, sane behavior replaces insane behavior.

The behavior of ferocity, tomb-living, constant moaning and self-bruising can be explained by mental instability (manic depressant). Similarly, the “many demons” in the one man can be described by the affliction of multiple personalities (schizophrenia). Thus the story of Legion is that of a wild madman who terrified the countryside… who became (with Jesus’ help) a calm, rational disciple who proclaimed to that same ten-city area “how much Jesus had done for him” (Mar 5:20; Luk 8:39).

More About the Story

a. It is helpful to recognize the sequence of events. Notice that Jesus’ command for the unclean spirit to come out of the man (Mar 5:8; Luk 8:29) is prior to the man’s response of worship and saying “what have you to do with me?… do not torment me” (Mar 5:6,7; Luk 8:28). The healed man properly pays tribute to Jesus, but is still understandably concerned about a recurrence of his madness — had Jesus given him false hope? Jesus knew what was behind the man’s panic, as indicated by his teaching about an ‘apparently’ cured madman: “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first” (Luk 11:24-26).

A reasonable conjecture is that Legion had experienced progressively worse bouts of his madness. He had to have been calm enough from time to time to have people try to restrain him with chains. But then his adrenalin-fed mania would burst the bonds and drive him raving mad again. Given this interlude of sanity, it makes sense that Legion did not want his illness to come back with a vengeance. How could Jesus assure him that he was healed for good?

b. Jesus provided an unforgettable sign. In response to the man’s begging — and Matthew’s record says there were actually two men involved, which may explain why the text reads “they begged him” — Jesus had the disease enter a great herd of swine which were feeding on a nearby hill. Maddened, the 2,000 pigs rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned. Thus Legion saw with his own eyes the destruction of his madness.

The swine stampede was obviously a frightening experience, for “when the herdsmen saw what had happened, they fled, and told it in the city and in the country”, and eventually, “all the people of the surrounding country…begged Jesus to depart from them; for they were seized with great fear” (Luk 8:34,37; Mat 8:33,34). The difference between the two beggings is instructional.

As with his healing of the paralytic, Jesus had provided an object lesson. How could Jesus demonstrate that sin was forgiven? Command the man to pick up his pallet and walk! (Mar 2:5-12) Since no one could see that an invisible sin was gone, Jesus allowed the doubters to see the unmistakable fact of a paralytic instantly cured. How could Jesus convince Legion that an invisible insanity had forever left his mind? Have it visibly transferred to the “unclean” pigs, which were subsequently drowned! As the prophet Micah wrote, “He will again have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot. Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic 7:19).

c. In all three Gospels, the story of Legion comes immediately after Jesus’ calming of the wind and sea (Mat 8:23-27; Mar 4:35-41; Luk 8:22-25). This cannot be accidental. Surely the point is that Jesus can calm the storm in a man’s mind as easily as he can speak to the howling whirlwind and tumultuous waves.

Interestingly enough, the text says Jesus spoke directly to the wind and the sea as if they were living objects — but they weren’t. Perhaps that helps answer why the text seems to present demons as if they were living objects — when they really aren’t. When Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law, he “rebuked the fever, and it left her” (Luk 4:39). Was the fever an independent entity? No.

d. How do doctors explain mental illness today? They don’t. They observe the interactive responses and manifestations of chemicals, electricity, neurons, the brain and the body. And they give long scientific names to certain phenomena and behavior. But applying a label does not constitute understanding. The Bible description of being “possessed by a demon” is just as meaningful and accurate as today’s medical pronouncement: “he’s a manic depressant” or “he has bipolar affective disorder”. And the Bible description is certainly easier to understand.

More About Demons

a. Not every case of demons was strictly mental illness: sometimes there was blindness, dumbness and deafness involved (eg, Mat 9:33). So a fuller definition of demon is: a term descriptive of those physical and mental aberrations whose cause and source is veiled from the sight of man.

The summation of Jesus’ wonderful healing is described as “healing every disease and every infirmity among the people… all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them all” (Mat 4:23,24). Since all categories of illness are being included, this description is covering both physical and mental illnesses, and thus the term “demoniacs” is probably indicative of both.

Later on, Jesus gave the twelve “authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (Mat 10:1). So having an unclean spirit, ie, being possessed by a demon, seems to bridge mental and physical aspects, yet provides a distinct category of its own: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mat 10:8, a restatement of v 1).

b. Demon possession is clearly a class of infirmity, as is made clear by the following: “That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’ ” (Mat 8:16,17).

Here, “possessed with demons” parallels “infirmities”. The usual words that go with “demons” and “unclean spirits” are “cast out”, as in this passage, but in Mat 12:22 and Luk 7:21, the words are “healed” and “cured”. Act 19:12 presents the same picture: “diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them”.

c. The Bible does not present demons as independent, distinct entities. Like a disease, they always have a human host. So when we read, “then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw” (Mat 12:22), it is not a distinct entity which is blind and dumb but the man who could not speak or see. Similarly in Mar 9:25, the “dumb and deaf spirit” meant that it was the boy — not some other entity — who could not speak or hear.

d. At various times, Jesus himself was thought to be or accused of being mad, that is, he “had a demon”. An interesting series appears in John’s Gospel. When Jesus stated that the Jews were seeking to kill him, “The people answered, ‘You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?’ ” (Joh 7:20). When Jesus unswervingly told the Jews the truth about themselves, and that they were not listening to the words of God, “The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?'” (Joh 8:48). When Jesus replied that any one who kept his word would not see death, “The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, “If any one keeps my words, he will never taste death” ‘ ” (Joh 8:52). In other words, the Jews were saying Jesus was “crazy”, “deluded”, “insane”, or as might be colloquially said today, “you’re mad!”

e. In Mar 3, Jesus is accused this way: “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out demons” (v 22). “He has an unclean spirit” (v 30). Even some of Jesus’ friends were saying, “He is beside himself” (v 21). Of course, Jesus was not crazy. Rather, his teaching proved he was from God, and his healing was destroying the stronghold of the dreadful diseases.

f. Consider two statements of the apostle Paul: “Come to your right mind and sin no more. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1Co 15:34), and “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you” (2Co 5:13). Here, “right mind” is opposite “beside ourselves”, ie, crazy or deluded. This phraseology is the same as that used by Jesus’ accusers who claimed he had a demon; he and his teaching were, in their view, the result of madness! So it is not surprising to read about the Roman governor Festus, alarmed by the penetrating and uncomfortable testimony of the apostle, accusing Paul of being deluded: “You are mad, your great learning is turning you mad!” (Act 26:24).

g. What is the significance of having “an unclean spirit”? The reverse of unclean is clean. What then is a clean spirit? 1Co 2:11 says, “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” This verse indicates that one aspect of “spirit” is the close connection with (but distinction from) thoughts. The passage goes on to talk about the mind of the LORD and having the mind of Christ (1Co 2:16). In other words, the spirit of a man is the mind of a man. A man’s spirit oversees his thoughts, which in turn determine behavior. So when a man has a clean spirit, his thoughts and resultant behavior will reflect that cleanness.

David describes this kind of cleanness: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit” (Psa 51:10-12). He understood that God wanted him to have “truth in the inward being” and “wisdom in my secret heart” (v. 6). He needed to be forgiven by God, and then he would “be clean” (v 7). He realized that “the sacrifice to God is a broken spirit” (v 17), a mind seeking forgiveness of sins (vv 1-4). David was physically suffering as the result of his unrepentant sins of adultery and murder, and needed to find the blessed relief of forgiveness given to a man “in whose spirit there is no deceit” (Psa 32:1-5).

Replace the good characteristics with their opposite. What do you get? An unrenewed, wrong, unwilling, rebellious, deceitful spirit. In short, an unclean spirit. How is that unclean spirit made manifest? In a person’s thinking and resultant behavior. And inescapably, in a person’s health. So when Jesus was casting out unclean spirits (demons), he was in effect giving a person a new start in life with glowing health and sins forgiven.

h. The connection between the mind and illness is being understood better every day. What used to be dismissed as “psychosomatic” — the illness is all in the mind and, hence, not real — is rapidly becoming the real explanation in the majority of cases (B. Siegel, MD, Love, Medicine and Miracles, Harper & Row, New York, 1986, p 111). So healing an unclean spirit (mind) is truly getting to the source.

Other Viewpoints

a. Could there still be a distinct entity or evil spirit called a demon which “possesses human beings” and causes them to have physical and mental problems? Theoretically, yes. But would it not be logically redundant? Given what seems to be a clear linkage of “sin” and “unclean” and “disease”, being demon-possessed indicates a person having a maddening disease, rather than a demon causing a maddening disease.

b. If one argues that there needs to be a cause behind the disease, then the real, true cause must go back to God Himself. The Bible makes this point very clear: “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exo 4:11).

The source of the evil spirit that came upon king Saul is explained to be from God (1Sa 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9). God claims full and unique responsibility for bringing evil and affliction upon mankind (cf Isa 45:7; Amo 3:6; 9:4; Eze 6:10; Jer 32:23; 1Ki 21:21). The teaching that there is another evil power at loose in this world — Satan or the Devil — is not true Bible teaching.

c. If one still insists that there can be some entity between God and man who can bring evil upon the man, one explanation is an “angel of evil”, like those described in Psa 78:49 (KJV) — an angel that, under God’s control, brings “evil” or trials upon mankind… not an “evil angel” in the sense of being sinful or wicked. When God pours out His wrath upon the earth, Scripture describes it as being performed by His angels (cf Rev 16). So if someone argued that a demon was an angel of God who brought a maddening disease to an individual, in the sense discussed above, there would be room for agreement.

d. Why does the New Testament frequently mention demons, but the Old Testament hardly mentions them at all? The most likely answer is that, between Old and New Testament times, the notions of the Greek culture had had a significant impact on the world of the Middle East. “Demon” was a word the Greeks used to describe many of the (false) gods they worshiped. Paul uses the word twice to mean a heathen god, and equates them with idols: “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1Co 10:19-21).

For a monotheistic Christian — one who believed in the one and only God of Israel — any behavior (like eating food offered to idols) that would suggest credence in pagan gods, could create a stumblingblock for someone who wasn’t fully convinced. This was the substance of Paul’s discussion in 1Co 8. While those strong in faith knew that “an idol has no real existence” (v 4), they were to avoid any appearance of indicating belief in Greek demons, and were thus exhorted: “Shun the worship of idols” (1Co 10:14). Non-worship of idols is plainly an Old Testament teaching (eg, Exo 20:4; Isa 44:9-20), and the basis of Paul’s arguments come directly from Moses: “They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods…They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded” (Deu 32:16,17).

By New Testament times, therefore, the Greek belief of demon-gods who were the cause of evil among men had infiltrated the thinking of Mid-Easterners. For example, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote: “The poets speak excellently who affirm that when good men die, they attain great honor and dignity… It is also believed that the souls of bad men become evil demons.” The first-century Jewish historian Joseph-us claimed: “Demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked that enter into men that are alive, and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.” Such teaching is not found in the Bible.

e. Not everybody in the Greek-speaking world believed in demon possession. Hippocrates was a famous Greek doctor who lived in the fifth century before Christ. In his treatise on epilepsy, he stated that the popular belief in demon worship was not true; epilepsy must be treated by medical care just like every other disease (cited by I. Asimov, in Guide to Science, vol 2, ch 4, Basic Books, New York, 1972). For about the next 600 years, until the second century AD, all the best-educated Greek doctors were taught this (articles: “Hippocrates” and “Galen”, in The Penguin Medical Encyclopedia, Penguin Books, London, 1972). This does find support in the Bible.

The “devil” is a NT term referring to the basic sinful tendency inherent in human nature, and is used to label individuals or human powers who are false accusers or slanderers. It is quite often used as a personification of sin or opposition to God as manifested in some human or power. Therefore it is incorrect to claim that “the devil” is a rebellious fallen angel who brings sin into the world, and who deceives mankind into following that way that leads to destruction.

1. The word “devil” (Greek diabolos, one who throws things against) is found only in the New Testament, but is used to personify the OT idea of the rebellious human heart, as the following references show.
2. The human heart, ie, mind, is the source of evil thoughts (Mar 7:21; Gen 6:6; Pro 6:14; Jer 4:14; 17:9; 23:26; Psa 64:1-6). Thus Scripture points to ourselves, not a fallen angel, as being the source of all temptation.
3. Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires (Jam 1:14; cp 1Jo 2:16). If that person yields to the temptation of his own passions, he sins (Jam 1:15) and is labeled “of the devil” (1Jo 3:8). On the other hand, not to yield is described as “resisting the devil” (Jam 4:1-4,7). Similarly, to withstand the wiles of the devil is to put off being corrupt as through deceitful lusts, and living in the passions of the flesh, following the desire of body and mind (Eph 2:3; 4:22,27; 6:11).
4. That “the devil” means “the tendency of human nature to sin” is well illustrated in the life of Christ. Since Jesus shared our human nature, he was tempted in every respect like ourselves (Heb 2:14; 4:15). His temptation “by the devil” in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11) is readily understood as being prompted by his own thinking and desires (eg, hunger pangs, sensationalism, human glory: cp 1Jo 2:16). Never giving in to his own human will made Jesus sinless (Mat 26:38-42; 1Pe 2:22; Heb 4:15), and thus he overcame sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26; 10:4-10; cp Rom 8:3). In other words, by figuratively and literally crucifying the flesh, Jesus destroyed the “devil” in himself (Heb 2:14; 1Jo 3:8; Gal 5:24; 6:14; Col 2:13-15; Joh 3:14).
5. The betrayer Judas is called a devil (Joh 6:70). Being a thief greedy for money, Judas decided to sell out his Lord; this is described as: “the devil put it into his heart” (Joh 12:6; 13:2; cp Luk 22:3-5). Similar expressions are used in connection with Ananias (Act 5:3,4), Elymas (Act 13:8-10), and the murderous Pharisees (Joh 8:44). Other passages of similar character are: Jam 3:15; 1Ti 3:6,11; 2Ti 2:26; 3:3; Tit 2:3. Roman and Jewish persecuting powers are also personified as “the devil” (1Pe 5:8,9; Rev 2:9,10; 12:3,9,17; cp Mat 2:16; Act 4:26,27).
6. The Bible nowhere refers to the origin of the devil, and those verses which are sometimes used to suggest that it does (like Isa 14:12 and Eze 28:13) plainly refer in picturesque language to arrogant human powers, in the first case Babylon, and the second Tyre. (NF)

An officer came up one day before the king of the land and presented the following:

“Sir, please decide with regard to the following case: There is a person who is horrendously evil. His name is Satan; he also goes by the name The Devil. He has prompted countless people to sin, enticing them with deception and lies. He opposes God, and even calls God a liar. Satan slanders God, and is not even interested in the welfare of those he supposedly cares for. He despises God’s laws, as they are too restrictive. He brings harm to others, and takes for himself glory which belongs to God. He offers as rewards for following him things which he does not have the authority to offer, and he is the father of all lies. Satan does not care for the interests of God or the interests of anyone but himself. God gave great gifts and power to this man, but he lifted up his heart in pride, and he has rebelled against God. Now, I ask you, should Satan be granted immortality? Should he be allowed to live forever in God’s kingdom?”

The king replied, “Of course not!” as he rose out of his throne, startling his servants. “There is only one thing that this man deserves: DEATH! It would be absurd to suppose that such a person deserves eternal life. Let us have Satan apprehended AT ONCE so that he can be executed as quickly as possible.” As the king retook his seat upon the throne he asked the officer, “Do you know where Satan is right now?”

“Why, yes.” the officer said.

“Well, why in the world haven’t you apprehended him?!”

“Well, sir. It’s because you are the man.”

“ME!!! Haven’t you read what the scriptures say? The scriptures say that Satan is a fallen angel. He rebelled against God and then enticed Adam and Eve into sinning.”

“So Satan fell before Adam did? How then can it be said that Adam introduced sin into the world?”

“Never mind that. Anyway, Satan took a third of the angels with him in his great rebellion, and these angels married the daughters of men, producing giants upon the earth.”

“So am I to understand that when these angels sinned like this, God became enraged with mankind and destroyed THEM? Is that fair?”

“Look, I’ll concede that God punished mankind in the flood, but don’t forget that he took those angels and confined them in chains of darkness, reserved for judgment.”

“So,” the officer again replied, “you say the rebellious angels were confined like that. How then did the giants live on the earth after the flood. Did some survive the flood, or were there more rebellious angels? Or were the angels who sinned and were confined in chains able to repeat their earlier sin? And if rebellious angels repeated this earlier sin, how come they later stopped? Why aren’t they doing the same thing today?”

“Well, I don’t know, but I do know that Satan himself approached God and was granted permission to strike at Job in a variety of ways. How could that possibly be me? ‘You are the man.’ What a ridiculous statement!”

“Sir, have you considered the logic of your own words? You are suggesting that Satan has openly led the world’s first and greatest rebellion against God, and yet he is still allowed to come into God’s presence and be granted explicit permission by God to inflict calamity upon others. Would you allow your number one enemy, who was rebellious against you, to come into your presence and ask for things from you? You wouldn’t even let him ask, and even if you did you certainly wouldn’t grant him his request! What king in his right mind would do that?”

“You know, maybe it does seem a little strange that God, whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and who cannot tolerate wrong, would allow Satan to come into His very presence like that. Regardless, it does not change the fact that I didn’t enter Judas, and I didn’t suggest to Jesus that he turn stones into bread. That wasn’t me, and so for you to say that I am Satan is just plain wrong. Was it me who hindered Paul from seeing the brethren in Thessalonica? The scriptures that speak about Satan make it very clear that we are dealing with an actual supernatural being.”

“Sir, please hear me out. Do you remember when the prophet Nathan confronted David regarding David’s sins following the murder of Uriah [2Sa 12:1-8]?”

“Yes, of course I remember what happened.”

“Nathan told David about a rich man, a poor man, and a traveler who stayed with the rich man. These people were not real. The story was a parable — keeping the true identity of the evil rich man hidden from David while he rendered judgment was necessary so that David would be unbiased in the judgment he rendered. Having rendered the proper judgment, then and only then was it appropriate for Nathan to confront David by saying, ‘You are the man.’ Had Nathan begun by talking point-blank about what David had done, David would have cut him off very quickly. Nathan’s method had a purpose. It allowed David to be confronted with the enormity of his sin, so that he might be motivated to repent. God in the Scriptures uses the same method with His descriptions concerning Satan. Nobody who reads about Satan would think for a second that he belongs in God’s kingdom. WE ARE EACH THE MAN! This is why ‘Satan’ is described as the result of human thinking both when Jesus rebuked Peter, and when Peter in turn some time later rebuked Ananias [Mat 16:23 = Mark 8:33; Acts 5:3,4]. ‘Human thinking’ and ‘conceiving this in your heart’ is where Satan is. But at the same time, Satan can be anything that is our adversary. This is why the Satan who hindered Paul from returning to Thessalonica [1Th 2:18] refers to the Jewish leaders of Thessalonica who persecuted him both in Thessalonica and also in Berea [Acts 17:5-9,13], why the Angel of Yahweh was Satan to Balaam’s donkey [Num 22:22], and Yahweh Himself was described as Satan to David at one point [1Ch 21:1; cf 2Sa 24:1]. And I’m not denying that there can be external tempters, even devious ones. But the root of the problem is within us. We are each Satan to ourselves — that is, we are each our own worst adversary.”

The king, now sitting on his throne deep in reflective thought, with his head resting upon his left hand, motioned with his right hand to the officer. “Go on.”

“The idea that Satan is a fallen angel is itself ludicrous. Angels cannot sin, and while we’re on the subject let me comment on two remarks the Lord Jesus Christ made. First, he said that in the days of Noah people were ‘marrying and being given in marriage’ [Mat 24:37-38 = Luke 17:26,27], which is an obvious reference to the sons of God who were marrying the daughters of men, as described in Gen 6. At the same point in his ministry, Jesus was stating that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage [Mat 22:30 = Mark 12:25 = Luke 20:34-36], which was his unequivocal comment about whether the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6 referred to angels. Your worst adversary is not someone else; it is your own proneness to sin. Jesus recognized this, and it is why he compared his own crucifixion to the serpent being raised up [John 3:14,15], and why Jesus in his death was able to destroy him who had the power of death over him, that is, the devil. Who was that devil? Who had the power of death over Jesus?”

“Continue,” the king said.

“It wasn’t Caiaphas or Pilate or any of the other leaders. They had no inherent power over Jesus, the only power they had was given them by God [John 19:10,11]. Besides, at most they could kill his body but they could not kill his soul [Matt 10:28].”

“Are you suggesting that God was the devil who had the power of death over Jesus? That because God alone is the one who can kill both body and soul in Gehenna, that God was him who had the power of death over Jesus? That in his death Jesus destroyed God??”

“No, your majesty. God raised Jesus up from death, since it was impossible that he should be held by its power [Acts 2:24]. That which had the power of death over Jesus was his own sin-prone nature. Even though he conquered sin, he was always mortal and thus was certain to die unless God miraculously intervened. And if he had given in to sin, then he was certain to die and to stay dead. Jesus’ sin-prone nature is what deserved death, and in his death and subsequent resurrection, he put to death that nature, which therefore no longer had power over him. Your majesty, as I said already, there are places in the Scriptures where the terms Devil or Satan refer to one person who is opposing or an adversary to someone else, in one way or another. But in many cases, The Devil or Satan is used to refer to someone’s own sin-prone thinking, acting as an adversary against them because it is enticing them away from God. In no case does either name refer to a rebellious fallen angel. When I came before you and described the wickedness of Satan and asked you what he deserved, you answered rightly. Then I pointed out that YOU ARE THAT MAN.’ When Jesus asked the Jews about where the authority for John’s baptism came from, they wouldn’t give him a straight answer, and we all know why [Matt 21:23-27 = Mark 11:27-33 = Luke 20:1-8]. Had I approached you directly about confronting your own sin-prone nature, you would just as surely have altered your answer.”

“That was a very wise thing you did. I would daresay that you are as wise as Solomon was. He couldn’t get a straight answer out of the mother of the dead baby, and so in his God-given wisdom he phrased the issue in such a way as to draw out from both women sincere expressions about whether they wanted the remaining baby to live or die. Their expressions clearly revealed who the real mother of the remaining child was. In like manner, you are to be commended for drawing out from me an untainted judgment against Satan, and then clearly revealing to me who that Satan really is. Indeed I am the man. And you are to be commended for following the example of using Nathan’s inspired teaching method in this instance.”

“Sir, may I be allowed one more comment?” the officer asked humbly.

“By all means, go ahead.”

“Nathan was not the first to use such a technique. Tamar used it also when she confronted Judah. Judah, upon hearing that Tamar was illicitly pregnant, ordered her to be put to death by burning. However, upon being confronted by her with irrefutable evidence that he was the man involved, he admitted that she was more righteous than he [Gen 38:26]. She had concealed his own identity from him, got him to admit the judgment that was necessary, and then revealed that he was the man. Later, Judah was in the same kind of situation again. When he and his brothers came before Joseph, son of Jacob by Rachel, Joseph was able to draw out from Judah an expression that he himself was willing to die so as to save the other son of Jacob by Rachel. Only then did Joseph reveal that he was the man they had earlier mistreated. So you see that Nathan was not the first one to use this technique. God uses this same technique throughout Scripture with regard to Satan’s identity. He isn’t trying to ultimately mislead us about who Satan is any more than Tamar or Joseph or Nathan was ultimately trying to mislead Judah or David. The answer is before us all the time if we are willing to think about it and receive it. Think about the case I brought before you today. Render honest judgment about what Satan deserves. And then recognize that ‘you are the man.’ It’s not an easy thing to do. Look at how hard it was for Job. But in the end, he recognized his true place before God, and despised himself and so he repented in dust and ashes [Job 42:6]. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful [James 5:11].”

The king was very pleased. “Now I see,” he said. “Whenever I look in the mirror, or whenever I examine my own mind and my own thinking, I must realize that I am looking at ‘Satan’. And I must be on guard, and careful to resist this great enemy — who is actually not outside, but inside my own ‘camp’. Thank you, trusted friend; you have taught me a valuable lesson!”

(DB).