Binding and Loosing
Binding and Loosing

When I get up in the morning, before heading out the door for work, I'm always sure to yell to my wife, "I kiss you, honey!" She yells back, "I kiss you too!" Sometimes she proclaims, "I make you breakfast!" I then go sit in the car and boldly say, "I drive to work!" Of course, my wife and I don't actually physically kiss each other. She doesn't actually cook breakfast and I don't literally drive to work. We proclaim it by faith, however.

Ok, I'm being facetious. Yet how often do we pray and boldly proclaim something like,
"I bind this sickness in the name of Jesus!" or "I bind the spirit of ...", etc. Where did this form of prayer come from?

Jesus rebuked sickness and demons, but to rebuke something it to tell it to stop. According to John Wimber (Power Evangelism, Power Healing), to rebuke someone or something is to simply say "Stop it!". Webster defines rebuke as to criticize sharply; to reprimand; to turn back or keep down. In the New Testament, we see Jesus rebuking wind and waves, sickness, demons and the disciples. In Luke 4:35, for example, Jesus rebukes a demon by saying, "Be quiet and come out of him!" Perhaps a modern way of saying it would be "Shut up and get out!"

We never see Jesus, or anyone else in the scriptures say "I bind you". In fact, every place the word "bind" appears in scripture, it means to attach or tie something to something else. The two exceptions are Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18-20:

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

The question is, is Jesus talking about either spiritual warfare or healing in these verses? The answer is no. If you read the verses in context, they have nothing to do with either demons or sickness. The topic is the authority of believers to lead the church, interpret scripture and apply discipline. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus is explaining how to deal with a brother who is in sin. If, after meeting individually and then meeting with two or three witnesses, the brother is still unrepentant, he is to be put out from the fellowship. This is the context of binding and loosing here. Verses 19 and 20 reiterate what Jesus said in verse 16 about taking witnesses along. This follows a well established precident (Deuteronomy 19:15).

"Binding and loosing" was a well-known rabbinical concept in Jesus day. It is believed to have dated back to the time when Moses, at the suggestion of his father-in-law Jethro, appointed men to serve as judges over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. These men were to apply the Law to settle disputes and only bring the difficult cases to Moses, thus saving him from burnout. Over time this developed into a tradition of rabbis (teachers) interpreting the Torah (Law). Eventually, their interpretations became as binding as the Torah itself.

Here's an idea of why these interpretations were viewed as necessary: The Law prohibited working on the Sabbath (Saturday), but what constituted work? Was cooking a meal work? Was gathering some firewood? What about feeding the livestock? What if a lamb fell into a crevice and needed to be pulled out?

Here's an example of how an interpretation was applied: The Law of Moses stated that on the Sabbath, no one could go outside of the camp (Exodus 16:29). How did that apply when the Israelites began to settle in town and cities, such as Jerusalem? At some point it was determined that the distance from the outer wall of Jerusalem to the edge of the pasture fields outside the city was 2000 meters. It was therefore determined that to not go further than the pasture fields was to remain "inside the camp", so travel up to 2000 meters was allowed on the Sabbath, but travel exceeding 2000 meters was forbidden. Later, this interpretation was amended and the allowable travel distance was doubled. Other revisions occurred throughout history. Even today, there are interpretations of Exodus 16:29 which advise conservative Jews how far they can drive their cars on the Sabbath and what to do if their synagogue is beyond the allowable driving distance.

With this and thousands of other scenarios, the rabbis would interpret what was "bound", in other words applicable under the Law, and what was "loosed", in other words, not applicable under the Law. A "bound" activity was prohibited by the Law. A "loosed" activity was permitted by the Law. So then, binding and loosing was an established rabbinical concept, which had to do with interpretation of the Torah.

Anyone who participated in making such interpretations was referred to as "sitting in the seat of Moses", in a similar way that the original judges had served as proxies for Moses. Another way to say it is that to "sit in the seat of Moses" was to have the authority to teach and interpret the Law and make scripturally-based judgments.

What Jesus was doing therefore, with His statements in Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18-20, was giving the authority of Moses and the rabbis to His disciples. They now sat in the seat of Moses and interpreted God's decrees. They laid the foundation of the New Testament church (Eph. 2:19-22). All authority in heaven and earth belonged to Jesus and he was, in turn, deputizing His disciples. We know that this authority extends to demons and sickness, but it goes far beyond that.

It's worth keeping in mind that Matthew's gospel, where the two references to "binding" and "loosing" occur, was initially intended for Jewish readers and was probably originally written in Hebrew. It contains a number of Jewish terms and idioms, which would have been immediately understood by the original hearers, but are foreign to us, unless we do some research.

An excellent example of the New Testament church leaders engaging in this "binding and loosing" activity is in Acts 15, when a council is held in Jerusalem to determine how to deal with the new phenomenon of Gentiles becoming Christians. How much of the Mosaic Law should they follow? Should they be circumcised? The heart of the issue was whether Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism in order to become followers of Jesus. After discussion by Peter, Barnabas, Paul, James and others, a decision was made and a letter drafted which read, in part:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." (Acts 15:28-29)

This is a case of the leaders of the 1st century church engaging in "binding" and "loosing". Another good example is Paul's determination on what should be done with the incestuous believer in 1 Cor. 5. The Book of Acts and the Epistles are actually filled with examples of the Apostles "binding and loosing", not by saying, "I bind you...", but by exercising authority and making judgments and decisions within the churches.

The idea of applying "binding" and "loosing" to spiritual warfare is a 20th century Charismatic interpretation of the texts in Matthew's gospel. It is a misinterpretation to think that Jesus was talking about "binding" demons and "loosing" angels. The way that this misunderstanding came about was by linking Matt. 16:19 and 18:18-20 to verses in Matthew 12, Mark 3 and Luke 11, where Jesus uses the analogy of overpowering and tying up a strong man in order to rob his house, as a way to explain His authority over demonic spirits (by the way, Luke's account doesn't mention tying up or "binding" the strong man). Additionally a connection was made to Revelation 20:1-3, where Satan is bound by an angel in the Abyss for 1,000 years.

Unfortunately, the links between these "strongman" passages, Rev. 20 and the "binding and loosing" passages of Matthew are artificial. They deal with entirely different subjects. The former are analogies describing Jesus' power and authority over demonic spirits. The latter are instructions about the authority of church elders (leaders) to interpret scripture and apply it to circumstances, as well as to prescribe discipline within the ekklesia.

If "binding" demons or "loosing" angels were to be standard practices of spiritual warfare, why are their no examples given in the Gospels, Acts or epistles? In fact, in Luke 13:10-13, Jesus seems to heal a crippled woman by "loosing" her ("setting her free") from her infirmity. This would seem to contradict "binding/loosing" teaching, which tells us to "bind" sickness.

How big a deal is this? Does God not heal people or free them from demonic affliction because we don't use the correct terminology? God knows what we mean, despite what we say and besides, He wants to heal and release people because of His unending mercy, compassion and grace. He doesn't act only if we use the correct formula. On the other hand, by misunderstanding the use of "binding and loosing", we've missed out on some biblical truths and added some confusion to our theology and practice. After all, "binding" and "loosing" are verbs; they imply action. When we say, "I bind you" we are speaking a verb. We're saying that we're doing something, but in actuality we're only speaking it - sort of like my example of saying, "I kiss you" to my wife. Perhaps we should follow the scriptural example of "rebuking" sickness and demons instead, which means issuing a command ("Stop it!", "Leave!"), by the authority of Christ.

One last thought: When confronted with an attitude or behavior (what some might call a "stronghold" or "spirit of ...") that we want to overcome, instead of speaking to it, why not act upon it. I'm not talking about demonic spirits here; I'm talking about attitudes, behaviors, habits, sins, etc. Oftentimes the best way to counteract something like this is to come in the opposite "spirit" or attitude or behavior. For example, if you're dealing with an exceedingly stingy person, instead of saying, "I bind the spirit of greed", why not display excessive grace and generosity to that person? What did Jesus say about turning the other cheek, giving your coat as well as your shirt, going an extra mile, loving those who hate you, praying for those who persecute you? Actions speak louder than words. As Francis of Assisi said, "Preach the gospel at all times; use words if necessary."

- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 12:37 PM

 
John 1:1 - Jesus is the Word


Jesus is the Word


Here are two little sayings about the bible that I really like:

“The New is in the Old concealed,
The Old is by the New revealed.”

“Our goal, in studying the book of the Lord, is to know the Lord of
the book.”


We've felt that the Lord has been prompting us to focus our bible study time on learning who He is. As a result, we're going to begin in John's gospel.

Read John 1:1-18

Our main text is John 1:1

“In the beginning…”

John 1:1 - “In the beginning…”
In Greek this is "en arche", which means above and/or before (BTW, arche is where we get words like archangel & arch-enemy)

Now look at Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning…” (In Hebrew, this is “reshiyth”, which means first in place, time, order & rank) – In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) it’s “en arche”.

John (by the Holy Spirit) is beginning his gospel with the exact words that Genesis begins with, only instead of saying "In the beginning God...", he says "In the beginning was the Word (thus equating the Word with God).

Both John's gospel and Genesis are saying: “Before creation began” or “Before the foundation of the world”.

“was”
This is in the Greek Imperfect tense, which means “always occurring without beginning or end.”

So an alternate reading could be: “Above all and before all, there has always been and always will be….”

“the Word”
Word = “Logos” - It's where we get words like logic, dialog, monolog, analog, logistics.
It makes me think of the beginning of every Star Trek episode, when Kirk would say,
"Captain's log..."

A quick definition of “Logos” would be: One’s thoughts & intentions, and the words that make known those thoughts & intentions.

But it’s much deeper than that…

Consider that John was probably living in Ephesus when he wrote his gospel. His initial readers would have been both Hebrew-thinkers (Jews) and Greek-thinkers (Gentiles). Ephesus was also a hot-bed for early Gnosticism. It’s been said that, in light of this environment, John’s choice of the word “Logos” is absolutely brilliant. In fact, it’s been stated over and over by scholars throughout the years that John’s gospel is a literary masterpiece. The fact that it was written by an uneducated Jewish fisherman proves either that John was a genius or that he was inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Back to “Logos”: In Hebrew thought, words were more than just vocal expressions. They were independent entities that had their own existence. Paradoxically, though, since the Jews viewed words as a tangible expression of our thoughts they were therefore a part of us and were inseparable from us. This is reflected in Matt. 12:36-37 where Jesus says that every careless word spoken by man will be accounted for at the Judgment (thank God that we're rescued from this Judgment through His blood!).

As a result of this “empowered” view about words, spoken curses or blessings had a great deal of power to Hebrew-thinkers. We see this throughout the Old Testament. The modern-day “Word of Faith” movement has taken this idea to an extreme.

In the Old Testament, when God’s prophets spoke the “word of God” it was treated as a personalization of God’s power. It was more than just a message from God; it was God’s will for humanity made manifest – given form.

In the Jewish creation account given in Genesis, God spoke things into existence. The act of God saying something, expressing His mind, had the effect of bringing it into being.

In the Septuagint the Greek word “Logos” is also used for the Hebrew word “Dabar”, which means both “word” and “the thought behind the word”. “Dabar” is closely linked to the Hebrew word for Wisdom. John’s use of “Logos”, therefore, would have evoked in the minds of his Jewish readers all kinds of references to well-known Wisdom Literature such as Proverbs 8 & 9, the Wisdom of Solomon (an apocryphal book from about 200 B.C.), and Ecclesiasticus/Sirach (another apocryphal book from about 200 B.C.), etc. One thing that these books have in common is that they contain portrayals of Wisdom as a character who exists independently from God, yet is immortal and is the agent of creation and the giving of life. This is an example of hypostasis: A literary device whereby an attribute of God is personified and given voice.

Paul makes this link between Wisdom and Christ in 1 Cor. 1:24-25, 30 where he writes of: “…Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” and “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.”

So then, by calling Jesus the “Logos”, John was saying that Jesus is the incarnation of God’s wisdom. Furthermore, that God has revealed and made manifest, in Jesus, His will and intention for humankind. As God, in Genesis, had spoken “Light, be!”, now He was speaking a new Light into the darkness of our world. But this Light is the very presence of God Himself – Emmanual – God with us.

In Jewish writings and commentaries of scripture from the time of Jesus and earlier, the expected Messiah is sometimes referred to in Hebrew as “memra” which, translated into English, is “word”. God is also sometimes referred to as “memra”. One example is a Targum (Aramaic paraphrase) on Deuteronomy from a bit before the first century, which says “You have appointed the Word of God a king over you this day, that He may be your God.”


Moving over to the Greek-thinking side of things, the word “logos” literally referred to both the inward thought and the outward expression of that thought.

Spiritually speaking, Greek philosophers dating back to 500 B.C., such as Heracletus, Plato and Aristotle, used “logos” to describe the “divine reason” or plan that holds the universe together and enables it to function. Sort of like “The Force” in Star Wars.

In philosophical terms then, “Logos” was viewed as the agent that linked the heavenly “Ideal” realm (the place of Idea and Perfection, according to Plato) to the material world (a place of imperfection, suffering and death).

A Greek-thinker then, would have understood John 1:1 as saying that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s perfect thoughts and plans, come into our material world as a man. In other words, Jesus is the connecting link between Heaven and Earth, humanity and God.

Paul touches on this in Colossians 1:15-20:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

Lastly, to both Greek and Jew, “Logos” implies dialog; two-way communication. After all, what’s the use of expressing your thoughts if there’s no one to listen and respond. Furthermore, dialog assumes relationship.

Jesus, as “Logos”, then, is the dialog between God and man. He is the mediator; the means of relationship.

“Let he who has ears to hear…”. Broken communication with God is equal to alienation from Him and is both the result of, and the cause of, sin. The Word (Logos), when listened to and obeyed, has the power to save, restore, heal, create. “The Word (Logos) became flesh and dwelt among us.” We have but to respond and enter into that dialog.


Next week(Lord willing): We'll continue looking at the second part of
John 1:1 ("...and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.")

- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 12:37 AM

 
You are a Worship Leader
Recently I heard a teaching on the topic of “worship”. In actuality, the subject of the teaching was “worship music”. It reminded me that one of the bad habits I need to break is referring to “worship music” as “worship”. Worship is so much more than music. Anyway, the message went on to discuss leading worship (in a music/church context) and being “called” to lead worship. At a certain point in the message, the following statement was made: “Not everyone is called to be a worship leader.” I found this assertion disturbing because it has no scriptural basis. In fact, scripture tells us that everyone is called to be a “worship leader”:

Eph. 5:19 – “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Col. 3:16 – “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish
one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”

1 Cor. 14:26 – “What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together
everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.”

The role of worship leader, as we know it today, has only existed for about 30 years. The modern concept of a worship leader is someone who sings well, typically plays guitar or keyboards, leads the worship band, puts together the worship song list, can “usher” people into the presence of God and, most importantly, is “called”. Nowadays worship leaders have their own magazine (Worship Leader Magazine – which I quite like, by the way), their own conferences, retreats, etc. Some seminaries are now offering degrees in Worship Leading. Worship music is the hot item in the Christian music industry right now and dozens of CD’s containing wonderful worship music are being released each month. Some worship leaders are becoming international celebrities (probably much to their chagrin).

Strangely enough though, the only scriptural examples I ever see given to justify the role of worship leaders are from the Old Testament. That’s because there aren’t any in the New Testament. The problem is, if one is going to use O.T. worship structures as a model, then that implies incorporating the tabernacle/temple, the priesthood and the sacrifices. But all of these were fulfilled in Jesus. He referred to His body as the temple and has now made us to be the temple where God’s presence resides. He became the sacrifice, once for all. He became the everlasting high priest and has made all of us to be His royal priesthood.

I’m not questioning whether the expressions of worship that are currently popular in our culture are valid. I’m questioning whether the concept of one person being a worship leader during a meeting is what Jesus intended for His church and, therefore, if we should emphasize it as much as we do. Paul did not seem to have any such concept. “Worship Leader” is not one of the 5-Fold gifts, or even the 8-Fold gifts (1 Cor 1:27-28). Of course worship is ultimately about the heart of the worshipper and any genuine worship of our awesome God and Savior is beautiful. I wonder though if our current cultural worship form of a leader (who picks all the songs) and a band on stage, with the church as audience (who sings along with whatever is played for them), is the most effective way to help people have a genuine worship encounter with God as a community. It seems like many of the church traditions we’ve inherited (the sermon is another example), actually end up fostering passivity in the people. Then we as leaders wonder how we can get people to take responsibility to walk in their gifting, when we are the ones that are doing everything for them and not giving them any responsibility.

Jean Vanier, the founder of L'Arche, once wrote that "we have to create structures which encourage everyone to participate, and especially the shy people. Those who have the most light to shed often dare not show it; they are afraid of appearing stupid. They do not recognize their own gift.. perhaps because others haven't recognized it either."

I wonder if by over-emphasizing this role of worship leader, in a sense we’re creating another clergy class. This becomes just one more thing that the “average” Christian can’t do. I’ve known people who wanted to start home fellowships, but didn’t because they couldn’t find a “worship leader”. It also begs the question, in a local church who makes the determination that someone is called to be a worship leader, and what are the criteria? Scripture gives us criteria for recognizing overseers and deacons, but not worship leaders.

I’ve had experiences where spontaneous musical worship occurred, where someone would just begin singing a song and everyone else would join in, then someone else would sing and on it would go. Each person was both worship leader and worship follower. If we get over our false reliance on musical instruments and just sing, this can happen very easily. I’ve also had rare experiences with musicians who were skilled and sensitive enough to follow one-another through this type of organic worship experience. It’s a powerful and humbling thing.

I’ve also seen some very unlikely worship leaders. Years ago, as part of a worship team, I accompanied a pastor/teacher who was visiting a church to teach at an evening service. It was a more traditional church and we were going to “knock their socks off” with some anointed Vineyard worship. Before we began however, the pastor of the church invited a little old lady from the congregation to come up and sing. She sat down at the church’s banged-up out-of-tune upright piano and began an off-key rendition of “Since Jesus Came into my Heart”. I must admit, at first I could barely suppress a condescending smirk. But as she continued, the presence of the Holy Spirit rushed into the place like a big wave. There have been few other times, before or since, that I’ve felt the presence of God that intensely. I was humbled and awed and I learned an important lesson about the heart of worship and the folly of looking at outward appearances or man’s criteria.

Now please don’t get me wrong in all this. I love worship music. I write, record and play worship music. I’ve played bass for a few well-known worship leaders. I buy and listen to worship CD’s. I certainly think there’s a time and place for having a band lead worship and it’s a wonderful thing. It’s just that I’m beginning to think that the heavy emphasis on worship music in our services, and especially worship music led by a designated worship leader, has become a double-edged sword. It’s awesome to come together for a special time of musical adoration towards our Lord, but the other side of it is we may have placed so much weight on musical worship that it creates a dichotomy: “Worship” comes to be seen as an emotional experience involving music, which is separate from our mundane work-week existence. Many Christians, I fear, have come to view worship as what occurs when the band is playing, when it is really supposed to be what we do with our entire lives: Heart, mind and body.

Man was created to worship God. That is our purpose: To give Him His “worth-ship”. To give Him His proper place, in everything we do. Worshipping with music, as wonderful as it is, is just a drop in the ocean of ways in which we can (and should) worship God. Really, we should all identify ourselves as Worship Leaders. And we should “lead” worship with our whole lives and entire selves.

I wonder sometimes if the Western church is in danger of turning worship music into the equivalent of gothic cathedrals. The cathedrals, masterpieces of creativity, were viewed as holy places; designed to inspire awe, reverence and a sense of entering into the presence of God. By their very architecture they elicited an emotional response. To the largely illiterate masses of medieval Europe, the cathedral was a tangible representation of the magnificence of God. It was the House of God, the Holy Place. The other side of the coin though, was that the rest of the world, or the time spent outside of the cathedral, was then viewed as being less holy; less in the presence of God. This undermined the believer’s sense of the ever-present reality of Emmanuel: God with us.

My point in all this is two-fold. First, that worship is so much more than singing worship songs. Secondly, when it comes to worship music, just as we don’t need a building or sermon or clergy to have church, we don’t need a worship leader to have worship. Because the truth is, in church everyone is called to be a worship leader! Here’s a challenge for you: Next time you’re gathered with a group of believers, start singing a worship song…and don’t stop until the others join in. Congratulations, you’re a worship leader! You just discovered your calling. Now go out and worship with everything you’ve got!





- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 5:44 PM

 
"The spirit of ..."
“She has a Jezebel spirit.”
“There’s a spirit of prayerlessness in this church.”
“You have a spirit of independence.”
“I was delivered from a spirit of anger and a spirit of laziness.”
“There is a spirit of greed over this region.”

These are statements that I’ve heard from friends and acquaintances in recent times. I’ve heard countless others like them in the 20 years that I’ve been a “Charismatic” Christian.

For some time now I’ve been wondering what exactly is meant by these types of statements. When someone speaks of a “spirit of …” are they speaking of a sentient, malevolent demonic being that specializes in a particular behavior or attitude? Have you ever been to a conference where they give you a stick-on nametag that says “Hi, my name is ______”? Is it that way with demons? “Hi, my name is Anger”. “Hi Anger, I’m Laziness.” “Hi Laziness. Hey, what do you say we team up and afflict that guy over there?” I know there are many books and teachings out there that promulgate this “specialist” view of demons.

On the other hand, could having a “spirit of …” also simply mean having an attitude or behavior, apart from any demonic influence? Is saying “spirit of laziness” simply a Christianese way of saying “That guy is lazy”? If so, why not just say “That guy is lazy”, so as not to create confusion about the source of the laziness?

Is using the terminology “spirit of …” perhaps a way that I can call you lazy (or angry, or independent, or you don’t pray enough, or you drink too much, etc.) without seeming to attack or judge you personally, but instead appear to be using my spiritual discernment? In this way, I can lend spiritual credence to my observations about your behavior. Maybe this will avoid me being confronted with having to remove the plank in my own eye before pointing out the splinter in your eye.

Likewise, if I acknowledge that I have a “spirit of …” something in myself , then does that get me off the hook of having to discipline myself to correct that behavior? After all, if the root of my behavior is a demonic being, then the solution is deliverance, not discipleship, right? Deliverance is (hopefully) quick and easy, whereas discipleship is hard and takes a long time (a lifetime, actually). Deliverance is done to me (sort of like going to the dentist), while discipleship requires that I ardently engage my entire being in changing my thoughts and behaviors. Deliverance is (typically) treated as an event, while discipleship is a process.

Do we perhaps like the ambiguity of what we mean when we say “spirit of …” because it frees us from a certain amount of personal responsibility for our own words and deeds, while at the same time adding weight and power to statements we make about others? There’s an acronym in the marketing business: FUD. It stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It’s been proven that a very effective way to sell a product is to instill Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about the effects of not using the product. By adding the phrase “spirit of …” to my assessment of your behavior, am I adding a FUD-factor?

The Greek word that is typically translated to “spirit” is pneuma. Pneuma is also sometimes translated as “breath” or “wind”. Essentially, pneuma speaks of the unseen force or motivation behind something. Pneuma is the wind that fills the sail that makes the sailboat move, or the breeze that bends the wheat. We see the effect, but not the cause. Pneuma is the cause. Pneuma would likewise be the attitude or emotion or disposition or motivation that causes a person to act (or react) a certain way.

I did a search through my bible software for examples of “spirit of …” in both Old and New Testaments. Here’s what I found:

A spirit of wisdom, a spirit of jealousy, a spirit of understanding, a spirit of judgment, a spirit of burning, a spirit of council and strength, a spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord, a spirit of distortion, a spirit of justice, a spirit of deep sleep, a spirit of fainting, a spirit of harlotry, a spirit of grace and supplication, a spirit of an unclean demon, a spirit of divination, a spirit of adoption, a spirit of stupor, a spirit of gentleness, a spirit of faith, a spirit of revelation and of wisdom, a spirit of timidity, a spirit of truth, a spirit of error, a spirit of prophecy…

Overall, a pretty mixed bag. In fact, the ratio of how “spirit of …” is used in scripture seems to be about 65% positive and 35% negative. Generally, the phrase is used to describe an “attitude of …” or a “motivation of …”. In only a handful of examples is the unseen motivator behind a person’s actions attributed to a demon.

It’s interesting that Paul, when addressing the Corinthian church deals with the problem of division, not by advising them to rebuke the “spirit of division”, but by appealing to them to agree with one another and be united in mind and thought (1 Cor 1:10). Paul doesn’t deal with the problem of incest in the Corinthian church by telling them to rebuke the “spirit of incest”, but instead by severely disciplining the offender (1 Cor 5:1-5). His solution to the problem of believers taking each other to court isn’t to come against the “spirit of strife” or the “spirit of litigation”, but to have the Corinthians settle their disputes inside the church and be less selfish (1 Cor 6:1-8). This pattern is consistent in all of Paul’s epistles and, in fact, throughout scripture. The emphasis is on repentance and discipleship and behavior. Not on rebuking behavioral spirits.

In fact, to take this a step further, there is not a great deal in the Old Testament about demons, and when an evil spirit (or Satan) does afflict a person in the OT, they seem to be sent from the Lord as a form of discipline! The spiritual warfare that occurs in the New Testament is almost entirely in the context of proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers and having to cast out demons during the process of spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom (Mark 5:1-20, Acts 16:16-18, etc.). When we see these demons in the New Testament, they manifest in individuals as the Gospel is being proclaimed and are summarily dealt with.

Also, nowhere in the Gospels or the Book of Acts do we see Jesus, Paul or anyone else identifying or addressing a territorial demonic spirit or teaching that “demonic strongholds” over a city or region need to be broken. This despite the fact that churches were planted in cities that were rife with idolatry and in the cases of Ephesus and Corinth, were actually centers of pagan worship. I’ll address this whole topic of “territorial spirits” in a separate message.

This sermon is not meant to be a denial of demonic activity. I believe that demons exist. I believe that people can be demonized (by the way, as per my Vineyard background, I prefer the term "demonized" to "possessed" because "demonized" seems to be a more accurate rendering of the Greek "daimonizomai" and doesn't carry all that "Exorcist" baggage). I believe that it’s possible that we can open doors into our lives for demonic deception and oppression through habitual, unrepentant sin. I also believe that we can have demonic deception and oppression in our lives due to deep woundings, such as childhood abuse and trauma. Both of these assertions however, are based primarily on experience and not on scripture and as such are very subject to error and revision. It’s interesting that none of the demonized people shown in the four Gospels or Acts are held personally responsible for their affliction. None of the victims of demons shown are criticized for allowing themselves to become demonized, nor is their demonization attributed to sin. That should give us pause.

I believe that when a demon is identified it needs to be cast out, and that behavioral issues may need to be dealt with so as to not provide an opportunity for its return (Luke 11:24-27). But by the same token, as Wayne Grudem points out in his Systematic Theology, “Not all evil and sin is from Satan and demons, but some is. If we think of the overall emphasis of the New Testament epistles, we realize that very little space is given to discussing demonic activity in the lives of believers or methods to resist and oppose such activity. The emphasis is on telling believers not to sin but to live lives of righteousness.”

Perhaps we ought to be more careful about how we use phrases like “spirit of …” and instead just say what we mean, without the pseudo-spiritual Christianese overtones. If you think I’m stubborn, don’t tell me I have a “spirit of stubbornness”. Just tell me I’m being stubborn. My wife does it all the time.

Lastly, if next time you see me, I appear to be jittery from too much caffeine, please don’t say that I have a “spirit of excessive caffeine”. The fault does not lie with a demon named “Caffeine”. The fault is Starbuck’s.



- posted by Daniel P. (Danny) Coleman @ 3:01 PM