If the young boy who was possessed by a spirit (Luke 9:37-39) in the sense that a sentient and independent entity seized the boy’s body and mind, as one would take one’s own property, there is little I can say in defense of such a thing, as far as God permitting it is concerned. Why would God do such a thing, and how would his permission be justified, according to how the Scriptures define God’s character? If God wants us to know him (and I believe he does – Philippians 3:10-15), then what he says about himself ought to be seen in what he does and what he allows to be done. If God views a man’s will to be of particular importance (cf. Job 1:6-12; 2:3-7), then how can he justify allowing a malevolent spirit taking full control of an infant boy, knowing the child could never develop a desire to know his Creator? If such a thing is wrong, then the only alternative is that what we believe about demonic activity **must**also be wrong.
The same Greek word used to point to an unclean spirit in Luke 9:39 is used of the Holy Spirit who is manifest in Jesus’ disciples through the word of wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, working miracles etc. (1Corinthians 12:7-11). Yet, the unclean spirit within the young boy was manifest by screams, convulsions and foaming at the mouth exhausting the lad (Luke 9:39). If we can conclude that what we think we know about demonic activity must be wrong, because it paints an unloving picture of God, then this spiritual phenomenon must be related to something wrong in man’s person. Something within the boy malfunctioned at birth. Something he inherited from Adam broke down, resulting in the boy’s destructive behavior. Knowing this we are now better able to understand what Jesus did.
Peter testified that the Transfiguration took place atop of the holy mount, and according to the Scriptures, there is only one holy mount (or mountain) in all Israel (and the world). That is Jerusalem, and specifically the mount or hill upon which the Temple was built (cf. Isaiah 27:13; 66:20; Daniel 9:16; Joel 3:17; Zechariah 8:3; Revelation 21:10). However, this doesn’t mean the Transfiguration had to have taken place on the Temple Mount. Rather, it took place atop of Mount Olives, because, as Ezekiel 43:12 tells us: “This is the law of the house (the Temple); upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house” (emphasis and parenthesis mine).
If Jesus was transfigured upon the holy mount, he had to have been within the city limits or suburbs of Jerusalem. Moses defined the city limits or suburbs of a city as 2000 cubits (or 3000 feet) on every side (Number 35:5). Mount Olives is within the 3000 foot limit of the Temple Mount. Therefore, Mount Olives is the only mountain in the world that Jesus could have been transfigured upon.
The next day for Luke 9:37 would not necessarily be the day portion of the same calendar day (the Transfiguration took place at night). Rather, the next day means the next calendar day after the Transfiguration. According to John 7:2, 10, Jesus celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem 6 months after the Passover season, in which he fed the five thousand (cf. John 6:4). Contextually, Jesus was transfigured (Luke 9:28) on the night portion of the Last Great Day, which was the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles and a Sabbath. On that Sabbath Holy Day Jesus healed a man who was born blind (John 9:1, 6-7, 14). Such a thing was unheard of in all human history (John 9:32)
Assuming the man’s son in Luke 9:38 was born in his then present condition (cf. Mark 9:21), this man may have been encouraged with the news of the healing of the man born blind on the previous day. Therefore, he came to Jesus to ask him to heal his son. He told Jesus that the spirit would often take hold of his son and convulse him, causing him to foam at the mouth, while he shook spasmodically, and this occurred so often that it completely wore the boy out.
As others brought him to Jesus (Mark 9:20) the boy began to have another seizure (Luke 9:42). This seizure may have been caused by the stress of the lad’s immediate surroundings,[1] the sudden attempt of people taking him to Jesus, and his not knowing what would happen etc. Seeing what was occurring and the fact that others coming to see what was going on (Mark 9:25), Jesus commanded the spirit to leave the boy immediately. Thus, another seizure was probably averted.[2]
We need to reconsider what we believe demoniac activity to be. What many Christians believe about this subject has more to do with paganism and witchcraft, than what the word of God actually says about the phenomenon. The love of God for mankind is denied in concluding that a living sentient, independent and wicked entity has the power to take hold of an infant, depriving him or her of his will and any opportunity to know and love his Creator and Lord. Why would God permit such a thing to occur. It simply doesn’t make sense. Why believe it?
__________________________________________
[1] See Triggers of Seizures concerning epilepsy.
[2] Ibid.
Smoodock's Blog 
9 responses to “Healing a Young Boy Possessed by Spirit”
PART THREE
6. Elijah and the Burnt Soldiers
You were very blunt and quick to tell me that the soldiers we not said to be innocent and I have to agree as far as explicit statement to that effect cannot be produced. You however went along to charge them with ill-will where no such explicit statement was made by the same passage. You even went further to suggest that their addressing Elijah as “man of God” was in mockery without any evidence. Why do you find these charges and suggestions of yours necessary? Simple! You are unconsciously or subconsciously trying to defend indefensible actions and make them reconcile with your view of what it means for God to be love. Something in you strongly believes that innocent people don’t suffer such fierce treatment. That thing somehow makes you feel that not finding a reason to justify these fierce executions in favor of God will make God look bad and you cannot stand it. So you search and search until you find one. This is my impression though.
For this thing you can’t even see that what is stated of the soldiers suggests they were just following the instructions of the King as duty binds them. Rather, they must all be charged with some misdeed so as to make their terrible fate look just and consistent with your view of love.
Even if we would assume that their commanders were rude in their communication of the king’s order to Elijah, is such rudeness really warranting of death – death by fire? What crime then would we say the squad soldiers committed other than following their commanders as bound by military law? I say they are innocent of disrespecting Elijah but you say no. Should they have refused their king’s orders or their commanders’ authority instead? Would they then have been innocent by doing that?
You even went so far as to charge them with certain intent to imprison Elijah, all in your effort to justify the extreme treatment they received when the most they ever said was that Elijah should come down by the King’s order? Yet, nothing of the likeness of imprisonment happened when Elijah eventually followed the last group of soldiers. All was your own reading into the passage to make sense of the act and reconcile it with your view of God as love.
As far as you are concerned, in all my cited situations, they were ALL (children and infants inclusive) judged for the “sin of rebellion, the first of its kind.” You are not just sure they are all guilty and none innocent, you also approve of the mode of judgement meted on them and find it consistent with your understanding of God’s nature of love. Your view of God’s love approves of him instructing that infants and children be killed along with their parents in judgement for sins they have not yet become aware of but disbelieves him permitting a child to be demon possessed by living, sentient beings under any reasonable situation. Hmmm… Okay.
Finally, you asked what my experience has to do with you. Well, I thought you could perhaps consider by it that there are some of God’s actions that need not be reconciled with love as we know and imperfectly assume it is. I hoped you would see that to uphold God’s love we need not be able to reconcile all his acts. Don’t get me wrong, God’s actions are always reconcilable with his love nature but they are not always reconcilable by us. He is the only one who can reconcile them always. There are and will always be some that are indefensible by us and must be accepted in faith even if it fails our logic and reason. We have come to know his heart and are products of it’s exceeding goodwill flowing towards us even when we did and do not deserve it. They may embarrass, confuse and even tempt us to deny him, but we should not. They may also make us think that we have the burden to understand and explain them but doing so would just lead us on the same path as Job’s friends. The path of trying to justify God by all means led them to court God’s wrath, for us it could be ending up with erroneous beliefs. This has been my point in engaging you thus far. I thought about your foundation for refusing demons as real beings, which you have acknowledged as your inability to reconcile the possession of this boy by a living, sentient demonic being with God’s nature of love, I thought that if I could show you that it is imperfect, that maybe I could help you thereby see the possibility of you having ended up with a false belief by it.
I am truly no judge of what is right or wrong, I only offer my perspective as God has given me grace. But since you say you do not see any merit in my arguments, I humbly accept you as you. I apologize again for the places where I clearly overreached.
I have no interest in winning this exchange, debate, or whatever it may be called. I just have a genuine concern for a brother. One wrong belief may actually not hurt, but if the foundation for that one belief is wrong, it can lead to many other wrong beliefs, the endpoint of which only God can tell when allowed to compound together and mature.
I close with Paul’s words:
“All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” Phil.3: 15 NIV
Grace and peace be multiplied to you.
Greetings Boluwade and welcome back. :-)
“I presume you know I never meant to do that and I apologize for it.”
I do, and I too apologize if my tone hurt you. I simply didn’t know how else to phrase it. If I have to question whether God answers my prayers, then I must also question whether or not I am his. But, please understand, no offense was taken on my part. I merely wanted us to be on the same page with that.
Concerning #1 – Sodom and Gomorrah…
The alternative to judgment would be to permit the people to continue in their sin. No one was safe in their cities. To do nothing is not an act of love. God judges and, when he does, he judges swiftly. He doesn’t torture people in his judgment; he slays them, and that’s it. Judgment wrapped up in mercy = a loving judge.
Concerning the collateral damage and the possessed infant, if it is a birth defect occurring through “time and chance” (Ecclesiastes 9:11), then it is collateral damage from Genesis 3. If it is permission given to a living, sentient, malevolent spirit, it is direct judgment against an innocent child—not a loving act.
Concerning saving the innocent, God saved Rahab and her family through a miracle. She and her family were absorbed into the nation of Israel. God also saved the women and children of Israel’s enemies in war by making them servants of the children of Israel. Exactly how would God save the babies or any other innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah? He may work a miracle like preserving part of a wall while all the rest crumbles and falls down, but how does he work a miracle to save perhaps 100 – 200 babies, more or less? Does he feed them himself, like he does the animals? There are no organizations set up at that time to care for the helpless like this, and God has chosen for the most part to work out his will through men—not through his miraculous power alone.
That God was willing to save these innocents is seen in the repentance of Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah. However, Lot had little or no effect upon these people. Men need to be held accountable for their families, and they need to see the far reaching effects of their sin. Love doesn’t hide that. Rather, love uncovers the ‘glory’ of men and exposes it for what it is—a sham that trades on the lives of innocent people, including one’s family.
Concerning #2 – Achan and Family…
Okay, so they were executed with stones, and destroyed with all their belongings with fire. How is this judgment mixed with mercy, showing a God of love? First of all, it doesn’t say any ‘infants’ were executed. Neither does it say how old his children were, but given Achan’s probable age of late forties or early fifties, depending upon his age when leaving Egypt, his sons and daughters were probably old enough to know better and all are presumed to have known what Achan had done. They protected him, and we know this in the fact that none came forward before Joshua finished casting the lots over all the families of Judah.
This was the first sin of its kind in Israel, and if it was to be an example for any who came afterward, it had to be executed in the manner in which it was. Swift and final! There are no other examples of similar judgments against people who commit sacrilege. God is merciful, and shows his mercy here for people who would come afterward and be tempted. As for Achan and his family, they were executed in a manner in which folks were executed in those days. There were other forms of execution for other crimes, but stoning fit this crime in the ancient Near East. However, if we compare what God did with what other nations at that time did under similar circumstances, I would be willing to bet (if I were a betting man – I’m not) that the nations included torture. God never does.
Lord bless you, my friend.
Greetings Boluwade…
Perhaps if you wish me to answer questions about specifics in the Scriptures you could give the address of the Scriptures you have in mind. I went to where I thought you meant but didn’t read what you wrote. I’m not trying to miss your point, but it is easier to do so, if I’m not at the correct address. I honestly couldn’t understand how you could be so wrong in so many Scriptures. Now I know you meant for me to look at ones I missed. :-)
Concerning # 3 – Canaan and Amalek…
“However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, DO NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHES.” Deut.20: 16 NIV
You will note that this Scripture is very different from: “And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee… By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land. And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee” (Exodus 23:28-29, 30-31) KJV
How can the two be reconciled? It seems to me that Deuteronomy 20:16 is speaking of walled cities, which were more like military outposts than unwalled cities, which I believe Exodus 23 is pointing to. While all warfare is a tragedy, it seems fairer when a military garrison is wiped out than a defenseless village, town or city. I am appalled with violent death, but I am able to understand our Pearl Harbor tragedy in 1941 much easier than our 9/11 tragedy in 2001. God didn’t command Israel to destroy anything that breathes throughout Canaan, which is what I thought you meant. Nevertheless, God judged Canaan and had mercy on the general public, but wiped out the military garrisons. That he would have even shown them mercy is evident in his saving Rahab alive. Consider the fact that Canaan knew Israel was coming. They knew their intent, and they heard what God had already done in Egypt. Rahab even told the spies that everyone feared them. Why didn’t they leave? Why did they continue to oppose God and what they knew was his judgment? They defied him by staying. He had a perfect right to judge them, but he was still merciful. Many could have been saved that weren’t, if they had either repented (like Rahab) or simply left the land.
Amalek is a different story entirely. Israel was not his enemy. Israel had no intention of taking Amalek’s land. Yet, Amalek made it a point to continue to plague Israel, both on their way to the Promised Land and after they were there. Amalek made it a point to be Israel’s enemy continually. There would be no peace as long as there was one Amalekite and one Israelite left standing. Saul was told to wipe them all out, including infants. Which he almost did. He saved the king and his family and the choice flocks etc. for booty. Because of this Saul was replaced by David. Why was God so ‘merciless’, as some might ask? Actually, he was very merciful in that he let them live as long as he did, but they refused to repent. Even after the nation was destroyed, except for the king and his family, they still had no repentance. How do we know? The name of the king was Agag (1Samuel 15:9). Centuries later his descendent, Haman, the Agagite, tried to wipe out all the Jews in captivity by influencing the King of Persia to destroy the Jewish nation living among the Persians (Esther 3:1, 8-10). Amalek’s hatred hadn’t changed, and God’s judgment hadn’t changed either. He had Mordecai, one of Saul’s descendants, issue the order to do what Saul didn’t do in 1Samuel 15. Because Saul refused to obey God, he endangered the whole nation later. Amalek hated Israel. Their children were probably taught to hate Israel from an early age. No doubt they carried a grudge concerning Jacob taking the inheritance away from their father Esau—my take on the reason for their incomprehensible hate.
Was God unjust or merciless? I don’t think so. Again, Amalek must see (in the judgment) the end of his hateful ways. We who have this record must see the end of our own hatred for others. It will destroy us and our families, if we continue to hate our brethren who hate us. It is not just **my** sin. My sin affects others, including my children. We are created to be images of God. If we don’t image God we will image error, hate or something else, but we will be unable to fulfill our purpose in life.
Concerning #4 – Aaron’s Burnt Sons…
You don’t like my word “instantaneous”. While it is true the word isn’t in the text, I believe it’s a matter of what one envisions took place. If you think the fire that came out from the Lord was like fire travelling a stream of gasoline and overtaking Aaron’s sons before they burnt alive, then they probably suffered for some time. How long does it take for people to burn up in a fire? I don’t know. On the other hand, if one envisions the fire came out from the Lord like a lightning bolt, I doubt they suffered long at all. The text doesn’t say what the fire was, but I have picked how I understand it. You must pick how you do. (By the way, their drunkenness is implied in Leviticus 10:8-9. It is the first time the prohibition has been made to Aaron, and it came immediately following the judgment of his sons. Was it coincidence? I suppose it is for the reader to decide).
Concerning # 5 – the 250 Rebels…
Again, it has to do with how one sees the fire coming from the Lord. The text doesn’t tell us what that looked like. I envision a very powerful God doing it, and if fire comes from him as suddenly as is implied in the text, I don’t think it trickles down to the one he judges. It comes suddenly—like lightening (in my opinion). Paul tells us that Jesus dwells in the Light ( whom I presume to be the Father – cf. John 1:18) in 1Timothy 6:16. No man is able to approach this Light or see it (cf. 1Kings 8:11). If the “Light” is unapproachable, meaning so glorious the priests of Israel couldn’t even stand in the Temple to minister, then I suppose any sudden ‘light’ or ‘fire’ coming from him would be very destructive and more immediate than being caught in a burning home—just my take.
May our Lord and Savior richly bless you, Boluwade, and your family.
Now we come to ‘Part Three’ of your reply, and, once more, let me say thank you for taking the time to discuss these things with me.
Concerning #6 – Elijah and the Burnt Soldiers…
I am uncertain how Christianity is viewed in your country. In mine, especially in recent decades, it has been made light of and labeled superstitious. That point of view is not only witnessed to but efforts are made to support it in our entertainment industry—whether TV or movies. The political doctrine of ‘political correctness’ has also done damage to how Christ is understood in these past two generations. So, yes, I do feel like I must apologize for my faith. I do feel like I must defend the Lord (who needs no defense for me), when folks in my country foam at the mouth in their fits of rage against the God I love. I have spent over a decade doing this online on two different discussion boards (now shut down). I spoke with atheists, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, cultic religious groups bearing the name ‘Christian’ and perhaps a few others I’ve forgotten. So, yes, speaking out **for** the God I love is something I take every opportunity to do. I don’t place you in the category of the above groups, but I told you this to put my present attitude in our present discussion in the light it should be seen—at least as I am able to understand myself and the things I do.
Concerning the captains and the soldiers, they were sent to seize and imprison Elijah (1Kings 18:10; cf. 22:27). The mockery is implied in as much as I am able to tell. Compare 1Kings 22:27-28 with 2Kings 1:9-10. Of course, you may read it differently, but, as I claimed above, I seek to read the Scriptures is such a way that God is seen as a just and merciful Judge—or a God of love. If God is love, and the Scriptures say he is, then I look for him to see him as he is when I read them, and I often find him there. This is not to say I can answer everything that looks contrary in the same manner as I do here, but I keep looking until I do, because I believe he is there. If that is wrong, then I am guilty of wrong doing, but I don’t see God telling me to read the Scriptures differently. Moreover, I am not told by the Scriptures how I must read them except to say that, if I see a contradiction, my understanding is in error (cf. John 10:35).
Concerning **all** the Scriptures you cited, yes, the people were judged for rebellion, and, in as much as I can tell (except for the Canaanites), the judgment was administered against sin, the first of its kind as recorded in the Bible. I have not claimed all were equally guilty of rebellion, but the nation is judged by its leaders. As the leaders go, so goes the nation, whether for good or for bad. The leaders (Canaan, Amalek, and the 250 rebels) are shown to be either leading the nation astray (deliberately walking away from God; or deliberately making oneself God’s enemy) or seeking to lead the nation astray (presuming to stand against and replace God’s appointed leaders). Individual judgments, such as Achan and family, Aaron’s sons and the captains and their 50 men were judged for sacrilege (seeking to seize and hide what had been dedicated to God; outright disrespect for God; blatant disrespect for the messenger God sent in his name). Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities were judged for indiscriminant violence (as much as I can tell). When people deliberately and with forethought rebel against God they need to understand that God sees them, and he will judge them, and often their families will suffer with them in their sin (similar to the families who suffer with their alcoholic or drug addicted parent or child). We don’t live alone, and our sins are not ours alone. No matter how hard we try otherwise, our sins affect others.
Concerning your perspective, I value your perspective no matter how it seems otherwise in this discussion. You have challenged me as a brother, not as an enemy, and because you have I must consider your words / argument more closely. While I don’t see the need to return to how I used to believe, things have been said here that I cannot simply forget or brush off as worthless. I must keep them in mind as I walk with the Lord in the understanding I embrace as truth. Something may later occur in my studies or experiences that will cause me to reflect upon your words / arguments in a different light. In that event I will have to decide again which is truth, as far as this subject is concerned, and yes, I trust that Scripture, “…And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” One like it is what Jesus told Peter as he washed his feet: “You don’t know what I do now, but afterward you will know.” Therein is my trust that God will lead me in the way I should go and won’t permit me to wander too far to the right or the left.
Concerning your personal experience and what God told you, I regret the words I used there. I don’t always choose my words wisely, no matter how hard I try. I felt uncomfortable making something God told you part of our discussion. I do see and did see its value. But its value, in as much as I can tell, is for you in your life and in the community in which you live. Would it be the same for me, in my life and in the community in which I live? I’m not so certain as you might be. I don’t mean to preach relativism here, but Jesus did tell his disciples concerning marrying (or not) that sometimes something is given by God to one person and not another (Matthew 19:10-12). I trust I can use that Scripture here, even though the subject isn’t marriage.
Lord bless you Boluwade in all you do for him—it is all good and I trust he’ll bless you in it all. I have certainly been blessed in this discussion, and please do not feel you have been discourteous or hurt me in any way. You haven’t and in nothing have I taken offense. I trust I haven’t hurt you with words that I have written, beyond making it seem that you have hurt me. I do regret and apologize for that.