research/md/demonology/Personal or Impersonal_ An Analysis of Karl Barth and Merrill Ungers Perspectives on the Demonic.md

# Personal or Impersonal_ An Analysis of Karl Barth and Merrill Ungers Perspectives on the Demonic

> Source: `Personal or Impersonal_ An Analysis of Karl Barth and Merrill Ungers Perspectives on the Demonic.pdf`

---

# **Personal or Impersonal? An Analysis of Karl Barth and Merrill** **Unger’s Perspectives on the Personhood of the Demonic**

by
Scott Douglas MacDonald


Supervisor: Dr. Gerrit Brand

Faculty of Theology


March 2013


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**Declaration**


By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained


therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly


otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not


infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it


for obtaining any qualification.


March 2013


Copyright © 2013 Stellenbosch University


All rights reserved


ii


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**Abstract**

Is the demonic personal or impersonal? The question is rarely treated in depth. This


thesis initially delves into the demonological offerings of a pair of twentieth century theologians,


Karl Barth and Merrill Unger, in order to discern their particular positions upon the subject.


Personhood itself is a divisive issue between the two theologians. Barth’s perspective on


personhood is not intrinsically linked to the physical nature. Persons are who they are because of


their relationship with the divine. In reference to the demonic, Unger briefly assesses


personhood by inseparably correlating it with ontological reality. Their disagreement continues


into the definition of “demon.” Barth prefers to see the demonic as uncreated yet derived from


God as a byproduct of His creative decree, and Unger opts for a famous classical construction


that they are created beings who rebelled against their Maker.


Yet, Barth and Unger are both found to not only adhere to personal language concerning


the demonic but also to posit demons as personal beings. According to Barth and Unger, demons


are real, personal, and malevolent. This unusual unity, even with their distinct theological


backgrounds, can only be properly understood as the result of their mutual profession to reflect


the biblical material.


Considering the dated nature of Barth and Unger’s writings, recent biblical scholarship is


examined in order to determine whether or not their attestation of a demonic personhood is borne


out by current studies. While a few exceptions are noted, the majority of scholars indicate that


the biblical material portrays personal intermediary players besides God and humanity, with the


category of “demon” becoming progressively prevalent as one chronologically journeys through


the divine revelation. Spurning a Bultmann-inspired demythologization, Barth and Unger simply


attempt to reflect the biblical material.


But how does Barth and Unger’s idea of demonic personhood hold up in light of the


multicultural context? As the globe hurriedly shrinks during our technologically connected age,


the boundaries between cultures have fallen, resulting in numerous contexts which contain two


or more cultures sharing the same space. How can Christianity navigate such turbulent times,


except by emphasizing the centrality of the God’s Word! It coheres God’s people, while


convicting and transforming every contacted culture. In the multicultural context, specifically


through the Western and African worldviews, Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic


speaks admonition and affirmation to the Christian masses. Unhealthy superstition is challenged,


iii


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


and dismissive skepticism is chastised. Caution is upheld, and the openness of the African


worldview is vindicated. Thus, in light of the multicultural context, a biblical personhood of the


demonic realm is plausible, and as a revelation-centric position, it surpasses current ethnocentric


expressions of the topic.


As we turned toward constructing some conclusions, Barth and Unger’s strengths and


weaknesses were assessed. Karl Barth claims that conveying the biblical testimony is his first


concern, but on the subject of the demonic, he entertains a confusing philosophy which


unpredictably maintains personhood. Merrill Unger paints with broad brush strokes, failing to


discuss or respond to the progressive way in which the demonic is unveiled throughout the


biblical text. One of the strengths of Barth’s demonological presentation, which includes


demonic personhood, is that he highlights the activity of the demonic before the ontology of the


demonic. Though interacting with scholars and theologians, Unger’s clear emphasis and strength


is on recapitulating the biblical text, linking nearly every point to numerous texts.


Finally, if we accept the reality of a personal demonic, our response to the demonic


should reflect it. Theologically, it should spur us onward toward a truly personal view of


redemption. Practically, it means that we should critically analyze and carefully consider the


constructive works of counselors, pastors, and deliverance practitioners that we may cautiously


adapt our ecclesiological practices to reflect biblical realities.


iv


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**Opsomming**


Is die demoniese persoonlik of onpersoonlik? Die vraag word selde in diepte behandel.


Hierdie tesis beskou aanvanklik die demonologiese aanbiedinge van twee twintigste-eeuse


teoloë, Karl Barth en Merril Unger, om hulle spesifieke standpunte oor die onderwerp te


onderskei.


Persoonskap self is 'n verdelende kwessie tussen die twee teoloë. Barth se perspektief op


persoonskap is nie intrinsiek aan hulle fisiese aard gekoppel nie. Persone is wie hulle is weens


hul verhouding met die goddelike. Met verwysing na die demoniese evalueer Unger


kortliks persoonskap deur dit onlosmaaklik met die ontologiese werklikheid te korreleer. Hul


meningsverskil strek tot in hul definisie van die "demoon". Barth verkies om die demoniese as


ongeskape, tog afgelei van God as 'n byproduk van Sy skeppingsverordening te sien, en Unger


verkies 'n bekende klassieke voorstel dat hulle geskape wesens is wat in opstand gekom het teen


hulle Maker.


Tog word daar gevind dat Barth en Unger beide nie persoonlike taal betreffende die


demoniese aanhang nie, maar demone ook as persoonlike wesens poneer. Volgens Barth en


Unger is demone werklik, persoonlik en kwaadwillig. Hierdie ongewone eensgesindheid, selfs


met hul verskillende teologiese agtergronde, kan slegs behoorlik verstaan word as die gevolg van


hul gedeelde aanspraak dat hulle die Bybelse stof weerspieël.


Die verouderde aard van Barth en Unger se geskrifte in ag geneem, word onlangse


Bybelwetenskap ondersoek om te bepaal of hulle bevestiging van 'n demoniese persoonskap deur


huidige studies beaam word. Hoewel 'n paar uitsonderings waargeneem word, dui die


meerderheid geleerdes daarop dat die Bybelse stof persoonlike tussengangers buiten God en die


mensdom uitbeeld, met die kategorie van die "demoon" wat toenemend voorkom soos wat 'n


mens chronologies deur die goddelike openbaring reis. In veragting van 'n Bultmann

geïnspireerde ontmitologisering probeer Barth en Unger eenvoudig die Bybelse stof weerspieël.


Maar hoe hou Barth en Unger se idee van demoniese persoonskap stand in die lig van die


multikulturele konteks? Soos die wêreld haastig krimp tydens ons tegnologies-verbinde tydperk,


het die grense tussen kulture verval, wat gelei het tot verskeie kontekste waarin twee of meer


kulture dieselfde ruimte deel. Hoe kan die Christendom sulke onstuimige tye navigeer, behalwe


deur die sentraliteit van Gods Woord te benadruk! Dit verenig God se volk, onderwyl dit elke


kultuur waarmee ons in verbinding tree oortuig en transformeer. In die multikulturele konteks,


v


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


veral deur die Westerse en Afrika se wêreldbeelde, spreek Barth en Unger se persoonlikheid van


die demoniese van vermaning en bekragtiging aan die Christenmassas. Ongesonde bygeloof


word uitgedaag, en afwysende skeptisisme word gekasty. Omsigtigheid word gehandhaaf, en die


oopheid van Afrika se wêreldbeskouing word geregverdig. Dus, in die lig van die multikulturele


konteks, is 'n Bybelse persoonskap van 'n persoonlike demoniese realm geloofwaardig, en as


openbaringsgesentreerde standpunt oortref dit huidige etnosentriese uitdrukkings van die


onderwerp.


Soos wat ons 'n paar gevolgtrekkings begin maak het, is Barth en Unger se sterk- en


swakpunte geassesseer. Karl Barth beweer dat die oordra van die Bybelse getuienis sy eerste


belang is, maar betreffende die onderwerp van die demoniese koester hy 'n verwarrende filosofie


wat onvoorspelbaar persoonskap handhaaf. Merrill Unger verf met breë kwashale, en versuim


om die progressiewe wyse waarop die demoniese dwarsdeur die Bybelse teks ontsluier word te


bespreek of daarop te reageer. Een van die sterk punte van Barth se demonologiese voorstelling,


wat demoniese persoonskap insluit, is dat hy die aktiwiteit van die demoniese bó die ontologie


beklemtoon. Hoewel hy in gesprek is met geleerdes en teoloë, lê Unger se duidelike klem en


krag in sy samevatting van die Bybelse teks, met die koppeling van byna elke punt aan talle


tekste.


Laastens, as ons die werklikheid van 'n persoonlike demoniese aanvaar, moet ons reaksie


daarop dit weerspieël. Teologies moet dit ons aanspoor om verder in die rigting van 'n waarlik


persoonlike siening van verlossing. Prakties beteken dit dat ons die konstruktiewe werke van


verlossingspraktisyns, pastore, en raadgewers krities moet ontleed en versigtig moet oorweeg


sodat ons versigtig ons ekklesiologiese praktyke kan aanpas om Bybelse werklikhede te


weerspieël.


vi


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**Acknowledgements**


I would first like to recognize my parents, for their ceaseless desire to raise up biblically

grounded children, who would employ a bold mouth to proclaim the Word of God in a world


blinded by the deceiver, who would wield a sharp mind to defend biblical wisdom in an age


captivated by skepticism and pluralism, and who would nurture a noble heart to display the


gracious compassion of Christ in our global context. My prayer is that by the empowering


presence of the Spirit I would live up to but a fraction of their hopes.


I thank God for those, especially Dr. Bryan Litfin, who have continued to spur me


onward in theological pursuits, for the strength of the church and the glory of Christ.


I thank God for those, especially Dr. Gerrit Brand, who have faithfully supported and


graciously guided me as I have constructed this thesis.


I thank God for His church, specifically South Loop Community Church in Chicago and


St. Paul’s Evangelical Anglican Church in Stellenbosch, which continues to enrich me with


fellowship, leadership, sacraments, prayer, and sound doctrine. My prayer is that I have served


you while you have served me.


Finally, I must thank the Lord Himself, who saw fit to dispense His immeasurable riches


of grace and love upon me, even when I was His enemy. My Stronghold, my Conqueror, He has


proven more than capable in every storm and battle. _soli Deo gloria_


Scott MacDonald


“…in this place ought those men to be refuted who babble of devils as nothing else than evil


emotion or perturbations which come upon us from our flesh... But it was worth-while to touch


upon this point, also, lest any persons, entangled in that error, while thinking themselves without


an enemy, become more slack and heedless about resisting.”


John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, 1, XIV, 19.


“Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.”


James 4:7 (NASB)


vii


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**Table of Contents**


**1.** **Demonic Personhood in the Theologies of Karl Barth and Merrill Unger**

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Personal Background 3
1.3 Research Methodology 4
1.4 Hermeneutical Principles 5
1.5 Terminology 10
1.5.1 “Personhood” 10
1.5.2 “Demon” 13
1.6 Karl Barth’s Perspective on the Personhood of the Demonic in _Church Dogmatics_ 16
1.6.1 Personhood in Barth’s Demonology 17
1.7 Merrill Unger’s Perspective on the Personhood of the Demonic in _Biblical_ 20

_Demonology_

1.7.1 Personhood in Unger’s Demonology 21
1.8 Similarities and Distinctions 24
1.9 Conclusion 26


**2.** **An Evaluation of Barth and Unger’s Perspectives on the Personhood of the Demonic**
**in Light of Contemporary Influential Biblical Studies on Demonology**

2.1 Introduction 27
2.2 The Scope of Interaction 27
2.3 Central Biblical Texts in Barth’s Personhood of the Demonic 28
2.4 Central Biblical Texts in Unger’s Personhood of the Demonic 29
2.5 Contemporary Influential Biblical Scholarship and the Personhood of the Demonic 30
2.5.1 The Development of Demonic Personhood 31
2.5.2 Old Testament Thought and Demonic Personhood 32
2.5.3 New Testament Thought and Demonic Personhood 36
2.5.4 Central Texts in Barth and Unger’s Perspective on Demonic Personhood in 41

light of Modern Influential Biblical Commentaries



2.6 The Demythological Theme in Contemporary Influential Biblical Scholarship in

Relation to Barth and Unger’s Perspectives on the Personhood of the Demonic



44



2.7 Conclusion 47


**3.** **A Critical Analysis of Barth and Unger’s Perspective on the Personhood of the**
**Demonic from a Multicultural Perspective**

3.1 Introduction 49
3.2 A Definition of Culture 50
3.3 Multiculturalism and a Multicultural Hermeneutic 55
3.4 Reflections on Barth in the Context of Theology and Culture 60
3.5 Reflections on Unger in the Context of Theology and Culture 63


viii


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


3.6 Multiculturalism and the Personhood of the Demonic 65
3.7 Conclusion 74


**4.** **The Strengths and Weaknesses of Barth and Unger’s Positions toward a Defensible**
**Account of the Personal Nature of the Demonic**

4.1 Introduction 76
4.2 Karl Barth’s Strengths with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic 76
4.3 Karl Barth’s Weaknesses with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic 78
4.4 Merrill Unger’s Strengths with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic 79
4.5 Merrill Unger’s Weaknesses with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic 82
4.6 Conclusion 84


**5.** **Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Study**

5.1 Introduction 85
5.2 Theological Consequences of a Personhood of the Demonic 86
5.3 Practical Consequences of a Personhood of the Demonic 88
5.4 Suggestions for Further Study 91
5.5 Conclusion 92

Bibliography 93


ix


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**1.** **Demonic Personhood in the Theologies of Karl Barth and Merrill Unger**


**1.1** **Introduction**


Why demonology? Why study something that dredges the darkness and exposes its filth?


While the topic lay fallow for centuries in the universities, it has been resurrected since the


middle of the twentieth century. Seized by academics, pastors, and ordinary church-goers,


demonological studies have shaken off the supposedly enlightened taboos of the past and


returned to the theological discourse of our time. Even with notable theologians like Walter


Wink and Daniel Migliore spearheading this new generation of studies, numerous issues in the


realm of demonology have remained insufficiently addressed.


Across Christianity, one often overlooked or assumed element arises. When we discuss


demonology, are we discussing a “what” or a “who?” Should our demonological studies be


conceptually crafted upon an impersonal demonic power or upon a realm of individual, personal


demons? That particular question will be explored in the writings of Karl Barth and Merrill


Unger.


Dismissive perspectives are aplenty with respect to this question. One of the most telling


arenas for this attitude is the “powers.” Theologies concerning the “powers” have become a


significant field since demonology’s twentieth century resurrection. Led by Hendrikus Berkhof


and others, these studies often attempt to reshape the historic angel imagery which is connected


to Paul’s theology. Berkhof says, “One can even doubt whether Paul conceived of the Powers as


personal beings. In any case this aspect is so secondary that it makes little difference whether he

did or not. He may be using personifications.” [1] Personhood is exiled as an unfitting subject for


extended scrutiny. Walter Wink exhibits this as well when he says regarding personhood, “As


long as these Powers were thought of personalistically… reduced to the categories of


individualism… belief in the demonic had no political consequences. But once we recognize


that these spiritual forces are the interiority of earthly institutions or structures or systems, then

the social dimension of the gospel becomes immediately evident.” [2] Especially in _Engaging the_


1 Berkhof, Hendrikus. _Christ and the Powers_, Page 24.
2 Wink, Walter. _Engaging the Powers_, Pages 77-78.


1


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_Powers_, he consistently treats angels and demons as myth, avoiding a detailed look into the

possibility of personhood. [3]


Another common response to the question of personhood is one of “openness.” For


instance, this vagueness surfaces in Daniel Migliore’s writing on the “powers.” He remarks,


“Traditionally, these powers have been understood as supernatural beings like angels and


demons, but they can also be viewed as powerful forces and structures of our common human

life – nations, institutions, systems of law and order, forms of culture.” [4] With this short


statement, Migliore opens this subject to multiple “views” with no obvious desire to investigate

and resolve the ambiguity, though he prefers impersonality. [5]


This introductory chapter will analyze the issue of demonic personhood in the theologies


of Karl Barth and Merrill Unger. In order to assess the topic properly, research methodologies


will be clarified, and terminological parameters will be set. Flowing out of these definitions, a


survey of each author’s particular view of the personhood of the demonic will be provided.


Afterward, distinctions and similarities will be detailed in order that their positions may be fully


understood.


I maintain that demonology must be a topic of critical, well-researched analysis. If the


demonic realm is indeed impersonal, we can clearly observe that theologians like Walter Wink


seriously and accurately consider the subject, though some might relegate it to a mere ingredient

in liturgical practice. [6] Perhaps then our current academic treatment of the subject is appropriate,


but if the demonic realm is better interpreted as personal with a disposition of malevolence, a


lack of concentrated reflection would be unwise.


What this thesis is not is almost as crucial as what it is. Whenever a conversation nears


the topic of evil, familiar controversies reassert themselves. The origin of evil’s existence has


been a gigantic topic throughout the history of theological thought, and the reality of the demonic


in general has surfaced as a controversial debate as well. For the purpose of this study, these


controversies will be kept to the periphery and skirted altogether whenever possible. Thus,


neither evil’s origins nor the reality of the demonic are our central theme.


3 Wink, Walter. _Engaging the Powers_, Pages 65-85. For more on myth and demythologization, see section 2.6.
4 Migliore, Daniel. _The Power of God and the gods of Power_, Page 5.
5 Ibid.
6 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, _The Christian Faith_, Pages 169-170.


2


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Before we delve into the topic at hand, the personhood of the demonic, another point of


clarity is necessary. While the reality of the demonic is not a primary theme or issue of


discussion, this thesis will display an underlying and occasionally overt bias toward the reality of


the demonic. Because theological preconceptions are inevitable, stating them up front is a


beneficial point. The perspective of this thesis is that the writers of the Old and New Testaments


were speaking carefully not superstitiously concerning the reality of the demonic. Evil is indeed

real, and it wields a powerful influence, a weighty rule over the created realm. [7] The demonic, a

“sinister matter,” is “in its own way very real.” [8] With this as a starting point, the question then


follows, “Is this demonic power impersonal or personal?”


It should also be mentioned that Barth and Unger’s perspective on the personhood of the


demonic should not be considered the academic norm. While the two authors take divergent


paths to a similar conclusion, their advocacy for the personal agency of the demonic world adds


important vigor to the rarely entertained debate surrounding the personhood of the demonic. As


such, this thesis wishes to explore their particular perspectives in assisting this discussion. Let us


cautiously attempt to mine an orderly response to the question of personhood from the


demonology of Barth and Unger.


**1.2** **Personal Background**


The topic of this thesis is “Impersonal or Personal? An Analysis of Karl Barth and


Merrill Unger’s Perspectives on the Personhood of the Demonic.” I arrived at this thesis due to


my experiences since the beginning of 2011. I was hired as a media representative for a

worldwide Christian radio program headquartered at a large Evangelical church. [9] Equipped with


a modest theological background, I was often tasked to receive phone calls from dedicated


listeners who asked biblical and theological questions stemming from their circumstances. In


this context, I would often seek to assist them as best as possible over the telephone.


Occasionally this led to conversations where I counseled Christians under apparent demonic


7 Ephesians 2:2, 6:11-12; Revelation 12:7-9. Chapter 2 addresses the particular relationship of these passages to
biblical scholarship.
8 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 519.
9 Throughout this thesis, the terms “Evangelical” and “Evangelicalism” will consistently refer to “The movement in
modern Christianity, transcending denominational and confessional boundaries, that emphasizes conformity to the
basic tenets of the faith and a missionary outreach of compassion and urgency.” Thus, this thesis is choosing to use
the terms in accordance with their contemporary theological meaning in the global church. Pierard, R. V. and W. A.
Elwell. “Evangelicalism” in _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology_, Pages 405-409.


3


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


attack. These attacks sometimes involved the visual appearance or the audible voice of a


supposed demon wishing to harass and intimidate. In addition to these counseling instances, a


number of coworkers and myself all experienced unusual events firsthand.


I also specifically raise the topic of multiculturalism in my third chapter due to my past as


well. As a resident of Chicago for six years, I attended and became a member of a church


community which contained an eclectic gathering of cultural backgrounds. In this church


context, it was easy to discern that cultural background guided one’s view of the demonic. Some


members spoke openly about the demonic while others generally preferred to ignore the topic.


These differences usually manifested along cultural lines. Hence, my theological aim in this


thesis is not to serve myself but the church, with all its diversity in view. “Dogmatics is not a

‘free’ science, but is bound to the Church, inside which only it has place and meaning.” [10]


**1.3** **Research Methodology**


In order to approach the question concerning the personal or impersonal nature of the


demonic, this thesis raises the theological contributions of Karl Barth and Merrill Unger,


focusing on Barth’s _Church Dogmatics: Volume III, 3_ and Unger’s _Biblical Demonology: A_

_Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest_ . [11] These works have been


selected as they offer Barth and Unger’s most comprehensive assessments of demonology.


Other works by these particular authors will be occasionally introduced if they are relevant to the


theme at hand. Structured as a literature review, both authors’ demonologies are analyzed, while


engaging related works by other contributors.


These two conversation partners are selected with a particular intent. Academia rarely


reaches conclusions which posit the possibility that demons are real, personal beings. This thesis


finds that these two scholars hold this particular view and determines that their positions merit


further reflection. With academic training, Unger epitomizes the Evangelical yearning for


radical biblicism.  Barth bears a few similarities having “articulated a theological identity


formed out of biblical and dogmatic habits of thought with rigorous consistency and with a


10 McConnachie, John. _The Barthian Theology and the Man of Today_, Pages 40-41.
11 As this thesis is composed in English, Geoffrey Bromiley and R. J. Ehrlich’s English translation from the original
German will be relied upon for the purpose of this study. Also, Unger’s work will henceforth be referred to as
_Biblical Demonology_ for brevity’s sake.


4


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


certain exclusivism.” [12] But inevitably, it is impossible “to fit Barth… into any known scheme of

theology, orthodox or liberal.” [13] The interaction and input of these two voices is a dynamic and


unique avenue by which we can instigate this demonological project.


Furthermore, the research included in this study will not strive to address Satanology


itself, though it will be considered in passing as it is definitively related to demonology. Due to


the selected texts and the stated goal, we are not explicitly concerned with the identification and

possible personhood of Satan. The broader category of the demonic is our target. [14]


**1.4** **Hermeneutical Principles**


When investigations toward truth and conclusion occur, hermeneutical standards and


practices are pushed to the forefront. To be clear, principles of interpretation are integral to the


systematic endeavor, but, in this context, we cannot descend too deeply, lest we blither about


“how” and never “do.” A detailed investigation on the Barthian and Ungerian hermeneutics


involved in this project would entail an entire thesis. Our task lies in their theology, in their


demonology, confined to the debate of demonic personhood. As we proceed, hermeneutics will


serve the theological process as this thesis seeks God’s truth through “the true meaning of the

biblical text” and aims to systematically express it. [15]


By setting our goal in the systematics field, we automatically have to extend the project


beyond the context of one particular verse, pericope, book, or authorial collection. Biblical


theology must serve the systematic endeavor. Although each book is specifically written by a


particular human author in time and space, this systematic study must also concurrently treat the


sixty-six books of the Scriptures as divine revelation and discourse, as numerous biblical authors

testify. [16] Thus, clarity of biblical interpretation is primarily found via two avenues, the


12 Webster, John. “Introducing Barth” in _The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth_, Page 5. His mention of Barth’s
consistency is likely an overstatement, as we will we see throughout this thesis.
13 McConnachie, John. _The Significance of Karl Barth_, Page 242.
14 As Satanology and demonology are inseparably linked, the question then follows, “What is their relationship?” In
this thesis, Satanology is subjugated to the broader demonological category. Since we are talking about personhood
in general, addressing the personhood of Satan alone would fail to adequately answer our thesis question concerning
the demonic. If Satan were to be declared personal, we may or may not declare that a personal demonic realm
exists, but if we reach a decision concerning the demonic as a whole, then Satanology would be consequently
affected. Therefore, Satanology will function in a supplementary manner throughout this thesis.
15 Klein, William. “Evangelical Hermeneutics” in _Initiation into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and_
_Hermeneutics_, Page 325.
16 Isaiah 6:8-13, Jeremiah 1:4, Amos 1:1-3, Haggai 1:1-3, Zechariah 1:1-3, Malachi 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2
Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21. This is obviously not a comprehensive list considering the very phrase “says the


5


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


immediate context of the book in question and the broader context of God’s whole counsel.


Scripture interprets itself far better than any other.


Though many scholars respectfully appreciate the Scriptures and simultaneously maintain


that it is not completely faultless, this thesis advocates a different avenue. Due to the divine


direction behind the biblical text, optimism should be placed upon the Scriptures with pessimism


resting upon the reader. When the two are reversed, even with a respectful attitude, the seat of


judgment rests upon the sinful and corrupt rather than the Spirit-guided witnesses. We should be


wary of ourselves and our reading, not the Word and its intended meaning. Who are we to


contend that we can comprehensively grasp and detail the unity of divine thought in human


terms? A disposition of humility is a theologian’s highest virtue. However, this perspective


understandably raises objections which cannot be exhaustively repudiated without a separate

work of significant length. [17]


That being said, God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures through the styles and words

of men. [18] The books of the Bible contain numerous forms of literature, and depending on the


methodology and material utilized, the intention should be read through the lens of that particular


style of writing. For instance, a detailing of King Manasseh’s life should not be casually read as

moral prescription for the modern Christian. [19] Instead, the author’s descriptive work on


Manasseh should be understood as a contribution to an overarching theological purpose


throughout the larger work. In turn, the theological intention of that larger work supports the


redemptive (essentially Christological) theme of the canon.


As the Scriptures are divinely wrought by the hands of men, our attitude of humility then


leads us to subjugate ourselves to them; the Word of God has authority. But where exactly does


this authority lie, in God, in the individual authors, in the original autographs, or in the text’s


reproclamation in a contemporary event? To some degree, we must respond in the affirmative to


Lord” is used in 25 times in the NASB translation of Malachi alone. The utilization of many of these texts to reach
these theological conclusions is not uncommon. (E.g., Henry, C. F. H. “Bible, Inspiration of” and “Revelation,
Special” in _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,_ Pages 159-193, 1021-1023.)
17 Apparent contradictions are often raised in an attempt to lower our qualitative expectations regarding the
Scriptures, but may I suggest that our reading and framing of so-called contradictions creates confrontations,
especially when we are open to accept intrabiblical conflict.
18 Upon a survey of the incarnation of Christ, we need not be excessively pessimistic regarding the divine and
human nature of Scriptures. If the perfect God can become thoroughly man, one with humanity yet one with the
Holy Trinity; the composition of a book that is one with human words yet one with the eternal Word appears to be a
simple task in comparison.
19 2 Kings 21:1-18.


6


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


each. God’s _exousia_ ultimately resides in Himself, as the Creator of the finite, but God


frequently bestows authority upon others. Angelic and prophetic messengers were repeatedly

deputized for the exertion of God’s will and word on earth. [20] This act is the result of the volition


of God alone; “…the person … must have been deputized to do so; he can’t just undertake to do

so.” [21] Deputized by God and then superintended by the Spirit, the authors bore God’s


authoritative message and poured it into the autographs, which then retain the authority of God


Himself.


Furthermore, if we consider the authority of God, does not God’s authority rest over all


His creation, regardless of whether they know God or acknowledge God? In the same way, the

authority of the divine words stands, regardless of our level of reflection upon them. [22] So


authority also rests in the words themselves. But they come to bear and exert authority in our


lives not in their silence but in their audible and examined recapitulation. Therefore, God’s


biblical witness is an authoritative work on every level.


Through the Scriptures, God speaks. As theologians, we, of all persons, must carefully


avoid the arrogance that supposes we know better than the Omniscient. When God utters but a


word, we must listen, and we must be slow to respond for fear that we might “darken [God’s]

counsel with words without knowledge.” [23] Meaning, value, and purpose flow from the Spring,


the Source of all truth, God. God’s revelation, as found in the writings of the Old and New


Testaments, stand as the ultimate authority. All other contributions must be crafted and directed


by this singular reality.


Stemming from this reality, Scriptures are granted preeminence as the first voice, for the


Bible is our reliable source for direction, meaning, and hermeneutical clarity. By this assertion,


this thesis does not ignore that we apprehend the biblical material in our context with our culture


as a guide and our mind as a compass. The “hermeneutical inquiry” is inherently marked by


20 Isaiah 6 is a dramatic instance of such deputation.
21 Wolterstorff, Nicholas. _Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks_, Page 43. I
prefer to broaden his thought on deputation from the biblically-recorded deputized to the authors of the texts
themselves. The authority of the contents hinges first upon the proper deputation of the authors who penned the
container.
22 On an ethical level, if the Scriptures say that adultery is wrong, it is still wrong for those who are not aware of the
command. The validity of the command is not contingent upon God’s thorough communication of it. God is under
no obligation to dispense a particular truth to absolutely everyone. Thus the impetus for knowledge and truth is
upon us and our acquisition of it, and the Spirit assists us in this.
23 Job 38:2. This verse “makes clear the limits of Job’s understanding…” Balentine, Samuel E. _Smyth & Helwys_
_Bible Commentary: Job_, Page 642.


7


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


“particularity, contingency, and temporality.” [24] We are not “innocent readers without


presuppositions… Our presuppositions about these texts mediate our experience of them. And


our presuppositions about these texts have been formed by historical, social, and cultural

processes.” [25]

Other contexts are not devoid of truth. [26] As a result of God’s creative goodness, cultures,


inherently not synonymous with the biblical information, can and do possess true family values


and other truths, just as a godless mathematician can possess veracious conclusions. One could


propose an equality of input and authority, balancing revelation, context, and reason for


theological formation, but if revelation is not primary, this thesis suggests that it is always


subjugated. While our context does inform our interpretative method, the authoritarian river


primarily flows from revelation.


If we attempt to raise the authoritarian value of our context, innumerable sources with


their competing claims of “truth” risk destroying our Christian identity and force us to assume


arbitrary lines for when and where Scripture, context, and reason may or may not speak. As


many academic theologians continue to elevate the truth claims of the polyphony of cultures and


contexts, religious pluralism has become an intellectual norm, forging a “Christianity” for which


no apostle would have perished.


Hermeneutics not only controls the identity of Christianity but also the identity of a


Christian.


_The failure to focus on identity has created enormous problems. The gospel in_
_our time is an unimportant item in peoples’ lives… Christ is not an accessory to_
_our identity, as if one were choosing an option for a car. He takes over identity_
_so that everything else becomes an accessory, which is precisely what “Jesus is_
_Lord” means._ _[27]_

If we abandon the primacy and centrality of the Scriptures - the words of Christ, His prophets,


and His apostles, we, including the academy and the church, will descend to a Christianity none


of them knew, empowered by a hermeneutical method fueling our perilous voyage.


24 Thiselton, Anthony C. _The Hermeneutics of Doctrine,_ Page 63.
25 Smit, Dirk J. “Reading the Bible and the (Un)official Interpretive Culture” in _Neotestimentica_ . 28:2, Page 309.
26 The issue of multiculturalism is central to this thesis, as it is an emerging contextual reality. A more complete
discussion of multiculturalism’s impact on hermeneutics will be provided in the corresponding chapter.
27 Snodgrass, Klyne R. “An Introduction to a Hermeneutics of Identity” in _Bibliotheca Sacra_, 168, Jan-Mar 2011,
Page 8.


8


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


This thesis also recognizes the role that meaning (and the search for it) plays in a

theologian’s hermeneutic. But meaning should not be equated with value or worth. [28] Too often,


such attitudes of theological self-service which scream “It suits my needs” or “It is meaningful to

me” continues to foster the “the age of cafeteria religion” which we currently navigate. [29]


Remember! A bottle means something to a drunk, and a woman means something to a rapist.


What we value should not be immediately correlated with proper meaning. We must avoid


turning theology into anthropology by the glorification of our conscious feelings and


subjectivity. Instead, T. F. Torrance comments regarding a Barthian perspective of revelation

that “God actively reveals Himself… revelation is and ever remains a pure act…” [30] We are

revelation receivers, prone to obfuscations. The problem is us, not revelation. [31]


Therefore, meaning, value, and identity must ultimately be rooted in revelation, even if


we struggle to ascertain it through our numerous biases and perspectives. When approaching the


topic of meaning, this thesis will cautiously evaluate its value through a revelatory filter.


Without this lens, we would easily slip into contextually demanded values without any directing


revelatory agency to correct wrongs. Indeed, ethics and hermeneutics are related in a


“complicated” manner, and as Christians in the historical tradition of the apostles, we ultimately

obey God before people. [32] Thankfully, we are accompanied by the illuminative work of the


Holy Spirit throughout the difficult hermeneutical journey abounding in pitfalls.


Finally, as we are addressing what may be deemed an abstract concept, it may be asked if


we can even use literal language regarding the demonic. For instance, whenever we discuss


God, we are automatically limited by analogous and metaphorical language. This complicates


every discussion regarding the personhood of the God. Only in the humiliation and


condescension of God in Christ do we glimpse the personhood of God unveiled. Brümmer


comments:


28 “It meets my needs” should also not be confused with value. In this age of theological consumerism, one’s
“needs” is often the driving force behind why someone adheres to a perspective, a theology, or even a religion. But
who made us the judge of our needs? When was a particular person, family, or culture ordained as the arbiter of
what we require and where we should find meaning? Lest we reject God from the conversation, can we not first
listen to what He teaches as our needs, to where He directs us to find meaning, and to what He calls right?
29 Dalferth, Ingolf U. “’I DETERMINE WHAT GOD IS!’ Theology in the Age of ‘Cafeteria Religion’” in
_Theology Today_, Vol. 57, Num. 1, Page 6.
30 Torrence, T.F _. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian_, Page 42.
31 For this reason, hermeneutics are necessarily a community process. Grasping our frailty and subtle self-service,
we must submit ourselves before the Spirit-commissioned community of faith for guidance, perspective, and rebuke.
No theology should be divorced from the church.
32 Smit, Dirk J. “Ethics and Interpretation: New Voices from the USA” in _Scriptura_, 33, Page 19.


9


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_…since God is not like other people, the personal terms used to talk about God_
_cannot have the same meaning that they have with reference to other people and_
_our relations with them. Our language about God is therefore metaphorical in the_
_sense that not all the implications that this language has with reference to other_
_people can be carried over to our talk about God._ _[33]_

But the demonic is not God; they should hardly be uttered at the same time. As they are not


divine and infinite but rather created and finite, they are not bound to metaphorical language.


Like other finite subjects, the Scriptures speak about who they actually are and what they


actually do. With this in mind, we can approach demonology in the biblical text in a similar


manner to anthropology. The Scriptures do not claim to exhaustively detail the nature and


activity of humanity or demons, but the text offers us what God decided as sufficient. This thesis


is not primarily concerned with dominant metaphor identifiers but with the rational and


comprehensible identification of what demons are – personal or impersonal. We are more


focused upon reality rather than language, though the two are inseparably linked.


**1.5** **Terminology**


Pursuing terms in the realm of demonology has its perils. The idea of “demon” is


perceived differently by many people, depending on culture, age, and faith. What makes


someone a “person” is perhaps even more debated. Should we use definitions of personhood that


are commonly applied to humanity (or even God)? By endeavoring to search for definitions, this


thesis is conceptually arguing that revelatory definitions are inherently tied to humankind’s


perception and perspective. In other words, a person constructs the definition of personhood and


the demonic with one’s self as a lens, though continually pursuing revelatory adherence.


In this chapter, the particular terms will be presented in light of each author’s particular


position toward them. Then using that information, we can assess whether their ideas concerning


the “demonic” and “personhood” carry a particular perspective.


**1.5.1** **“Personhood”**


Even apart from demonology, forming a proper understanding of personhood is a


difficult proposition. What defines a person? Obviously, one’s cultural context dictates and


33 Brümmer, Vincent. “Spirituality and the Hermeneutics of Faith” in _HTS Theological Studies,_ 66(1), Article
#891.


10


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


directs one’s perspective. For the sake of this evaluation, determining Barth and Unger’s


definitions from their works is analytically prioritized. Then we can effectively assess whether


their treatment of demonology leads us to believe whether they are propagating a demonology

bearing an impersonal nature or a personal ontology. [34]

Can someone or something that does not have a body be called a person? [35] Within the


anthropological arena, the question is heavily debated, often framed within the philosophical

“Mind and Body problem.” [36] Some like Guus Labooy assume “an intimate union between mind


and body” which leads to “a concept of person to which… both corporeal and mental predicates

can be prescribed.” [37] Furthermore, he argues that God “created humans as persons, as a bi-unity


of body and soul. For our created reality, personhood is primary, and God will raise the person,

rather than the body or soul.” [38] Adopting an idea of personhood which results from both the


physical and psychical would certainly direct one away from accepting a personhood of the

demonic. [39] In the context of our death and eventual resurrection, others like Anthony Flew


prefer the more Platonic approach which ties humankind’s personhood primarily to the

incorporeal substance of the soul. [40]


Though conversation exists regarding whether or not certain demons can take physical

forms, [41] the vast majority of biblical references to the demonic appear to be non-corporeal and

pneumatological, but it is unfair to paint the demonic as unsubstantial from such descriptions. [42]


But Barth himself indicates that the non-physical can be personal with his treatment of God the


Holy Spirit. He consistently refers to the Holy Spirit as a “Whom” or “He” rather than


34 The word “ontology” is being used loosely here; perhaps demons have an undetectable physical being of some
sort? No strict ontological correlation is implied between humans and demons.
35 One could also question whether or not the demons have bodies of some sort. Reckoning that demons are fallen
angels, Aquinas says regarding angels, “The incorporeal substances are midway between God and corporeal things,
and the point midway between extremes appears extreme with respect to either; the tepid, compared with the hot,
seems cold. Hence the angels might be called material and bodily as compared with God, without implying that
they are so intrinsically.” Aquinas, St. Thomas _. Summa Theologiæ_, Vol. 9, Question 50, Article 1, Page 7.
36 Labooy, Guus. _Freedom and Dispositions_, Page 21.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid, Page 235.
39 Ibid, Pages 278-279. Though God’s personhood, except in the Son, might then be in question as well.
40 Flew, Anthony. _Body, Mind, and Death_, Pages 5-9.
41 During the temptation of Christ in wilderness, has Satan taken a physical form for the conversation? Also,
Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15 give rise to the possibility of so-called “goat demons.” Historically speaking,
Jewish superstition maintained that demons could manifest in three forms - animals, humans, and angels.
Ferguson, Everett. _Demonology of the Early Christian World_, Page 88.
42 Especially among New Testament writers, the ideas of “evil spirit” and “demon” are synonymous. Luke (8:2)
actually employs both terms in one verse to refer to the same phenomena.


11


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


employing a more generic “it,” and at one point Barth discusses the Trinity saying, “God is God

the Spirit as He is God the Father and God the Son.” [43] This is no small admission for Barth,

because this sweeping statement does in some way equate the personal nature of each. [44] To


equate the God-man Jesus with the Holy Spirit in that way greatly elucidates his perspective on


the Holy Spirit’s personal ontology.


Anthropological personhood in Barth’s _Church Dogmatics_ is a different matter. While


not directly commenting on humanity’s personhood and the composition of personhood, true

humanity is controversially located in one’s attitude toward God and His attitude toward us. [45]


Determining humanity’s nature through scientific and autonomous resources is an incomplete


errand. According to Barth, these methods only describe the “phenomena of man” and neglect to

discover the “real man.” [46] Humankind’s ontology and personal nature are derived from a


relationship with God, from whom all life and existence emanate. He is the ultimate Person.


Thus, as we attempt to address the personhood of the demonic in Barth’s writings, the


relationship of the divine to the demonic takes center stage.


Merrill Unger, a twentieth century American Evangelical theologian, analyzes the topic


of demonology as a subject demanding reflection and study. Intentionally committing to


demonological study, details are specifically provided concerning demonology. An entire

chapter of his book _Biblical Demonology_ postulates the reality and identity of demons. [47]


In Unger’s chapter regarding demonic identity and reality, the issue of personhood is


scarcely raised, save for one short section.


_Men in the church and out of it, blatantly assert that there is no personal devil,_
_that the devil is only evil personified, and that whatever devil there is, is in man_
_himself, and there is enough of that variety to answer all theological_
_requirements. It is also confidently declared that no longer can a respectable_
_scholar be found anywhere who believes in a personal devil or demons. Thus this_


43 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, I, 1, Pages 532-533.
44 “Barth was motivated by his reaction to the limitations of the modernized psychological understanding of _person_ .
Barth challenged the tritheistic idea of the Trinity as three distinct, personal centers of consciousness and will that
stand apart from each other. He emphasized that the one God simultaneously exists in three self-differentiated
‘repetitions” or ways of being: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Grenz, Stanley J., David Gurentzki, and Cherith Fee
Nordling. “Modes of Being” in _Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms_, Page 80. The complexities of Barth’s
Trinitarian studies are obviously not able to be entertained at this time.
45 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 2, Page 121. While this position harmonizes well with his Christo-centric
theology, it does raise peculiar questions regarding whether non-Christians are somewhat less “real” or less
“human.”
46 Ibid, Page 122.
47 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 35ff.


12


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_aggressive skepticism and militant attacks demand an apologetic approach to the_
_problem. For it is obvious that if demons be imaginary and non-existent, then the_
_whole subject belongs to the realm of fairy-tale and folklore, and not to the sphere_
_of Christian theology._ _[48]_

With this pericope as Unger’s impetus, he then constructs an argument for the existence of


demons from Scripture, physical nature, human nature, and human experience. In this simplistic


manner, the personhood and reality of demons is amalgamated.


The fusion of the two concepts is important to Unger. As we can observe above, in


Unger’s ontology, no biblical demons truly exist unless they are personal beings. Personhood as


a point of critique is bypassed, and his pro-belief, anti-skepticism theological construction takes


shape. He does momentarily reference the topic of personhood again in other chapters, but those


will be addressed at length later.


Therefore, we can conclude that with no clear reference to the personhood of the


demonic, Barth’s concept concerning personhood in general is not tied to the presence of flesh.


Instead, humanity’s realness, who he is and his personhood, is directly tied to a relationship with


the divine. Unger approaches the issue of personhood treating it as synonymous with the


ontological reality of the demonic. If we may paint with a broad brush, if there are no personal


demons, no demons exist in Unger’s theology.


**1.5.2** **“Demon”**


When formulating the meaning of the term “demon,” one’s temptation is to simply


describe the opposite of an angel. After writing about angels for over forty pages, Barth


immediately ushers in a discussion concerning their opponents with an urgent clarification.


_We are forced to do this because a primitive and fatal association has always_
_brought together these two spheres of angels and demons from the days of the_
_Fathers to those of Neo-Protestantism. We shall not bring them into the same_
_close relationship as formerly._ _[49]_

In this manner, his aside into the realm of the demonic is inaugurated. [50] Demons are not to be

considered similar to angels in “origin or nature.” [51] God and His angels have virtually nothing in


48 Ibid, Pages 35-36.
49 Ibid, III, 3, Page 519.
50 Ibid. In fact, Barth would disagree with this thesis’ very composition. He strongly advocates that demons are
basically hoping to be the subject of “systematic attention.”
51 Ibid, Pages 520-521.


13


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


common with the demonic. Barth elaborates by adding that “God is the Lord of the demonic


sphere, and it derives from Him, just as in a wholly different way He is Lord of the angelic

sphere and it too derives from Him.” [52] From this adamant theological posturing, we can deduce


that his angelology will not assist us in discerning his position regarding the personhood of the


demonic.


Originating from his consternation with earlier (patristic and medieval) writings on the


demonic, Barth’s use of the term “demon” diverges from the traditional usage in a number of


critical ways. As we already observed, demons are disassociated with the angelic realm. But


Barth adventures further. He asserts their existence but says that they are neither divine nor

creature. [53] They are the necessary result of God’s affirmation. This is a direct result of his

theology of “nothingness.” [54] Before we can truly address Barth’s position toward the


personhood of the demonic, we must understand this key literary context which shapes his


demonological writings.


After Barth’s extensive discussion concerning the nature of God’s Lordship over the

created realm, he identifies something which is out of place. He calls this an “alien factor.” [55]


While he still places it under God’s providential vision, he elaborates saying, “This opposition


and resistance, this stubborn element and alien factor, may be provisionally defined as

nothingness.” [56] As this term is not self-explanatory, “nothingness” is fleshed out. It is not

merely negation or absence. [57] It is “utterly distinct from both Creator and creation, the adversary


with which no compromise is possible, the negative which is more than the mere complement of

an antithetical positive…” [58] While God is indeed Lord over it as well, “nothingness is that from


which God separates Himself and in face of which He asserts Himself and exerts His positive


52 Ibid.
53 Ibid, Page 523.
54 Nothingness is the result of Barth’s Christo-centricism.  “…the theology of Barth is avowedly Christo-centric.
For Barth, at least, that does not mean that the topics of theology are limited to a study of the person and work of
Christ but rather that all theology finds its focal center in Christ and that all knowledge of God is obtainable only
through Christ.” Kantzer, Kenneth. “The Christology of Karl Barth” in _The Bulletin of Evangelical Theological_
_Society_, Page 25. However, “Logocentricism” is probably the preferable description of Barth’s theological thrust.
Ward, Graham. _Barth, Derrida and the Language of Theology_, Page 13ff.
55 Barth, Karl. _Christian Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 289.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid, Page 349.
58 Ibid, Page 302.


14


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


will.” [59] With this philosophy underpinning his view of evil, Barth’s conclusion concerning

demons is straightforward: “They themselves are always nothingness.” [60]


As his book title conveys, Unger primarily seeks the definition of “demon” from a


biblical directive. Concerning their origins, the traditional theology is advocated. Satan revolted

against God and spread rebellion amongst the angels. [61] Demons are created beings that were


once in God’s service and presence. He cautiously advocates for this view as overwhelming


biblical clarity on the matter does not exist, politely disagreeing with those who speculate about a

pre-Adam creation or an ante-diluvian reproductive origin of the demons. [62]


After a loose sketch concerning their origin, Unger offers a three-fold understanding of


the nature of a demon, which assists us in discerning exactly how he defines the term. A demon’s

nature is spiritual, intellectual, and moral. [63] To evidence their incorporeal nature, passages from


the gospels are utilized which use demon ( _daimon_ ) synonymously with spirit ( _pneuma_ ). After


citing five references, he concludes “Demons and evil spirits are therefore one and the same

thing.” [64] Building on his citations of the gospel narratives, Ephesians is drawn into his argument


for the spiritual nature of the demons, believing that these “powers” and “spiritual forces” are to

be interpreted as demons. [65]


A demon is also a being of expansive intellect. This intelligence takes many forms.


Prominently, they possess cosmic knowledge, recognizing Jesus, knowing His Sonship, obeying

Him, and corrupting doctrine. [66] Unger is quick to illuminate this argument. Even though they


are intellectually capable and understand their own doom, their knowledge is in no way salvific.


59 Ibid, Page 351.
60 Ibid, Page 523. By attributing the demonic’s origin and nature to nothingness, Barth is refusing to challenge the
pure identity and creative quality of God. The utilization of nothingness as a philosophical prop further illuminates
the character of God. The Lord’s creation is not tarnished. This is further clarified by a 1957 chapel message.
Barth said, “Bad, ugly, and evil, and dangerous things exist. The world is full of them. But what is bad was
certainly not created by God. It is the nature of what is bad, ugly, and evil not to have been willed or created by
God. It may be known because it has nothing whatever to do with Jesus Christ and his grace. It is alien to the
structure and meaning of the Father’s house. It can come forth only from our corrupt hearts and understandings. It
can derive only from the devil, who is not a second creator. Being rejected and denied by God, and set on his left
hand, it is something that we can reject, avoid, fear, and flee. The fact that there are bad things – many, many bad
things – does not alter the truth that God’s creation is good. Neither we nor the devil can alter this.” Erler, Rolf
Joachim, Reiner Marquard, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. _A Karl Barth Reader_, Pages 90-91.
61 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology,_ Pages 15-16.
62 It is likely that Unger understands Adam as a literal historical figure.
63 Ibid, Pages 62-68.
64 Ibid, Page 63.
65 This subject is debated heavily; what or who are these powers? See section 2.5.3 for more information.
66 Ibid, Page 66.


15


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


“They have a distinct realization that Jesus is Lord of the spirit-world, but their confession does

not involve a saving trust, or a willing submission.” [67] Demonic knowledge is vast but inherently

steeped in rebellion. [68]


This leads us to Unger’s last category concerning his description of the demons – their


moral nature. He writes concerning their consistently depraved nature, highlighting their

perpetual desire to disseminate spiritual maladies and physical afflictions. [69] By formulating and

spreading pernicious teachings, men are lead “not only to unmoral, but to immoral conduct.” [70]


In addition to the moral degradation they perpetuate and accelerate, their ability to enter a being

or “demonize” someone often causes psychological problems and bodily injury. [71]


In sum, Barth crafts the term “demon” as something which is independent of the created


order yet under God’s rule as a hostile and substantial nothingness. Unger’s position argues that


a demon is a created being, a fallen angel, in permanent, irreconcilable rebellion against God.


From a rigid reflection upon the texts of Scripture, Unger, as he perceives the text, discerns that


demons are inherently immaterial, intelligent, and immoral.


**1.6** **Karl Barth’s Perspective on the Personhood of the Demonic in** _**Church Dogmatics**_


Karl Barth, a preeminent Christian theologian of the twentieth century, serves as a unique


and insightful contributor to the field of demonology. Barth’s proportional brevity in relation to


the length of his _Church Dogmatics_ does not necessarily translate to a lack of importance placed


upon the subject. It is not a cursory treatment of the topic, and his perspective stands out due to


the particular path by which he accesses the often ignored topic.


Before we begin our analysis, we should proceed further than merely mentioning Barth’s


succinctness concerning this topic. As we pursue this topic further, we must concede that Barth


disagrees with the very nature of this study. Delving into demonology is a dangerous matter, and


67 Ibid.
68 This is in keeping with Aquinas when he said, “… we must firmly maintain, in keeping with Catholic faith, that
the will of good angels is established in goodness and the will of the devils fixed in evil.” Aquinas, St. Thomas.
_Summa Theologiæ_, Volume 9, Question 64, Article 2, Page 289.
69 Ibid, Page 67.
70 Ibid.
71 While the traditional term “possession” is still commonly used in many Christian circles, “demonize” or
“demonization” will be utilized throughout this thesis, in an effort to avoid any confusion regarding demonic
“ownership.”


16


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Barth even mentions the negative effects it had on Martin Luther. As we begin, we should


recount a portion of Barth’s warning.


_Why must our glance be brief? Because we have to do at this point with a sinister_
_matter about which the Christian and the theologian must know but in which he_
_must not linger or become too deeply engrossed, devoting too much attention to it_
_in an exposition like our own._ _[72]_

One of the few to address Barth’s demonology, G. C. Berkouwer clarifies Barth’s statement,


saying, “[Demonology] could again receive the appearance of great power only if we were to

give much attention to it and treat it as a matter still deserving of respect.” [73]


Though Barth is emphatically warning us against reviewing demonology in excess, have


we gone too far in the other direction? From Barth’s perspective, the doctrine concerning


demons is something necessary. Have we left demonological studies as an ignored topic graced


with little to no reflection whatsoever? Let us revisit the topic today, reflecting on the issue of


personhood.


**1.6.1** **Personhood in Barth’s Demonology**


Since Barth understands personhood through the lens of one’s relationship to God and


since he describes demons as something hostile and independent of creation though under God’s


dominion, is he predominantly implying that demons are personal or impersonal?


As we previously established according to Barth’s theology, we cannot point to the


angelic beings. He vehemently argues that angels are a different category, unrelated to demons


ontologically. They only relate in that they oppose one another. Angels are God’s ambassadors,

never independent of God’s work and presence. [74] Due to this strict relationship, angels “have no

profile or character, no mind or will of their own.” [75] Yet, angels are “creatures” not

“emanations.” [76] This information cannot be distilled into a theological form to which we can


relate demons. In Barth’s theology, his writings concerning angels only serve to distinguish how


the identity and personhood of an individual is formed. One’s relationship to God is the defining


point for assessment.


72 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 519.
73 Berkouwer, G. C. _The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth_, Page 376.
74 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 479.
75 Ibid, Page 480. To those who would deny the existence of angels, Barth polarizes the issue saying, “To deny the
angels is to deny God Himself.” (Page 486)
76 Ibid, Page 480.


17


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


What exactly is the demonic realm’s relationship to God? First, “God is the Lord of the

demonic sphere.” [77] It is perhaps an uncomfortable notion, but Barth does not turn back from his


Augustinian/Calvinistic fervor for God’s sovereignty. All is under His domain. Barth builds on

God’s supremacy by insisting that the demonic “derives from Him” as well. [78] Of course, this


derivation is completely distinct from creation.


Second, though demons are derived from God, they are not His creation.


_God has not created them, and therefore they are not creaturely. They are only_
_as God affirms Himself and the creature and thus pronounces a necessary No._
_They exists in virtue of the fact that His turning to involves a turning from, His_
_election a rejection, His grace a judgment._ _[79]_

Essentially, they are a byproduct of the creative process. They find their ultimate derivation


from God in His ultimate No, but they do not receive the care that He bestows upon His


creaturely realm. They are always rejected, always evil, as they have no access to God’s eternal

Yes of love and redemption. [80] Demons can “only exist in the attempt to rage against God and to

spoil His creation.” [81]


Third, because of their existential rebellion, Barth paints a demonic sphere that is always


opposed by God and His angels. Even though it still submits to His will, it “does not cease to be


the demonic sphere and therefore a sphere of contradiction and opposition which as such can

only be overthrown and hasten to destruction.” [82] His judgment is ever upon them.


If that is the demonic’s relationship to God, what is their relationship to nothingness, as


Barth has consistently linked the two topics? After arguing that demons are derived from God, he

reminds us that demons are derived from nothingness. [83] Nothingness is basically equated with


God’s creative No. Nothingness is derived from God; thus demons can be said to both be


derived from nothingness and God. But Barth goes further, saying, “They are nothingness in its


77 Ibid, Page 520.
78 Ibid.
79 Ibid, Page 523.
80 Perhaps this is an advantageous place to return to an earlier question: if we rejected Barth’s doctrine of an
uncreated demonic, to whom do the demons bear more resemblance - God, angels, or humanity? By far, we must
conclude that fallen humanity, rebellious to the core and antinomian by nature, remains the demons’ closest relative.
We are linked by rebellion. While humankind’s relationship with the divine is always metaphorical except in the
person of Jesus Christ, perhaps demons should be considered as finite creatures that are relatable and
comprehensible?
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid, Page 521.
83 Ibid, Page 523.


18


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


dynamic, to the extent that it has form and power and movement and activity.” [84] In itself,


nothingness is amorphous, powerless, without direction or aim. Demons are nothingness

enabled, and they are the “exponents” of the kingdom of falsehood. [85]


In fact, because of their relationship to nothingness and their inherently rebellious nature,


demons are more independent and “free” than angels. Briefly evoking a comparison that he


disparages, Barth mentions the loyal conduct of the angels in that they never act contrary to the


direct command and pleasure of God, and writes,


_He would be a lying spirit, a demon, a being which deceives both itself and others_
_in respect of its heavenly character, if he were to try to profit from his nature and_
_position, deriving any personal benefit, cutting an individual figure, playing an_
_independent role, pursuing his own ends and achieving his own results. A true_
_and orderly angel does not do this._ _[86]_

The implication of this statement is that demons actually have personal, selfish, individualistic


ends, while angels only behave in accordance with the Lord’s purposes.


Barth’s position, as conveyed in _Church Dogmatics_, assumes and indicates a personal


demonic ontology. These uncreated beings are directly derived from nothingness, which is


directly derived from God. Underlying his personal demonology, Barth’s receptive attitude


toward the text, even in the midst of his overriding philosophy of nothingness, guides his


outcome. Having criticized Rudolph Bultmann for arbitrarily selecting what to demythologize


from the biblical witness, Barth parts ways with traditional demonology where the biblical

material is sparse and advocates a strong philosophy of nothingness. [87]


This somewhat surprising conclusion seems to mirror Berkhof’s interactions with Barth.


Barth apparently had once accused Berkhof of “mythologizing” the topic of the powers. Berkhof


notes that Barth must not be “bothered” by that anymore, saying, “[Barth] is now combating the


modern spirit whose rational-scientific world view has no eye left for the power of the

Powers.” [88]


To conclude that Barth, a central theological figure in Protestant thought, implied the


reality of personal demons is a controversial conclusion, but if we look to other assessments of


the topic, we find similar hypotheses. Vernon Mallow, who composed a riveting analysis of the


84 Ibid.
85 Ibid, Page 527.
86 Ibid, Page 481.
87 Barth, Karl. “Barth on Bultmann and Demythologizing” in _Modern Theology: Karl Barth_, Pages 86-87.
88 Berkhof, Hendrikus. _Christ and the Powers_, Page 10.


19


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


demonic theme in Edwin Lewis, Karl Barth, and Paul Tillich’s theologies, unfortunately does not


tackle the Barthian issue of demonic personhood directly, but he summarily submits that “Barth

does not hesitate to state that there is a real devil with his legion of demons.” [89] Also, Paul Jones,


an associate professor at the University of Virginia who specializes in Barthian theology, allows


for the possibility that Barth aligns himself with a personhood of the demonic. He says, “…if the


devil is ever a ‘person’ for [Barth], it’s a macabre distortion of what personhood truly is -- as

conceived in light of God's being…” [90] But he would prefer to lean toward the idea that the “talk


of demonic personhood” may be a “domestication of evil -- a way of downsizing just how

threatening that which opposes God truly is…” [91] While Jones’ conclusion is intriguing, it is


flawed to an extent, considering that it does not account for Barth’s attribution of the

theologically heavy word “being” to the demonic realm, on top of other personal indicators. [92]


However, from Jones’ assessment, this thesis’ conclusion which argues that Barth expressed a


demonic personhood is not unfounded or academically implausible. Instead, a careful digestion

of Barth’s demonology outlines a demonic that is personal in being. [93] This conclusion will be


further supported as we continue.


**1.7** **Merrill Unger’s Perspective on the Personhood of the Demonic in** _**Biblical Demonology**_


Merrill Unger, an Evangelical theologian with doctorate degrees from both Dallas


Theological Seminary and Johns Hopkins University, has composed a number of works on the

subject of demonology. [94] As evidenced by his three demonological works, he places a fair deal


of importance in incorporating demonology’s presence into the twentieth century’s systematic


and practical theologies. Unger states,


_Biblically considered, it looms large on the sacred page, and especially in the_
_New Testament [it is] accorded remarkable prominence. It forms, together with_


89 Mallow, Vernon R. _The Demonic: A Selected Theological Study: An Examination into the Theology of Edwin_
_Lewis, Karl Barth, and Paul Tillich_, Page 83.
90 Jones, David. Personal correspondence, July 25, 2012.
91 Ibid.
92 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 481.
93 Throughout the research process, substantial disagreement with this conclusion was unable to be located, likely
because the topic of demonic personhood is not a common study.  Mallow fails to look into the issue in any depth,
and Jones briefly addresses the issue because I directly inquired.
94 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology._ Unger, Merrill. _Demons in the World Today: A Study of Occultism in the_
_Light of God’s Word._ Unger, Merrill. _What Demons Can Do to Saints._ Our focus rests upon _Biblical Demonology,_
per section 1.3 _._ As Unger both studied and taught at Dallas Theological Seminary, his background is rooted in the
dispensational heritage of C. I. Scofield and John Darby.


20


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_angelology and Satanology, an indispensable branch of systematic theology,_
_dealing with the realm of evil supernaturalism._ _[95]_

“Evil supernaturalism” is the fulcrum for Unger’s analysis of the demonic.


**1.7.1** **Personhood in Unger’s Demonology**


Enlightening the worldwide phenomenon of supernatural evil and its related practices is


Unger’s ultimate goal. His systematic engagement with biblical demonology serves to undergird


the reality of demonization, Satanism, divination, necromancy, and other forms of dark ritualism.


The issues of government, heresy, and eschatology are also informed by his studies. Though


“demonological phenomenon have been found to be almost universally prevalent,” Unger does


admit that the innumerable supernatural practices present a problem of abounding confusion and


complexity, but as such, we should have a “discriminating grasp” concerning biblical

demonology, being careful to allow for faulty research and inaccurate conclusions. [96]


Unger is eager to preclude argumentation against the very nature of addressing the


demonic. As they appropriately apply to the issue of personhood in _Biblical Demonology_, let us


briefly review his short apologies. He addresses four “problems” - the silence of revelation, the

accuracy of interpretation, the prevalence of superstition, and the preponderance of doubt. [97]


In response to the supposed silence of revelation, Unger argues that the problem is falsely


portrayed. While some phases of demonology lack biblical content, the overall topic is robustly


represented throughout Scripture. In other words, we cannot approach concrete biblical


conclusions concerning the origins of the demonic and a few other subtopics, but “this is no

barrier to a comprehensive presentation of the subject (of demonology).” [98]


A more substantial problem in Unger’s perspective is the accuracy of interpretation.


Though neglect has somewhat stalled and destabilized the topic’s analysis, the main culprit is

extreme interpretations, rooted in “ultra-rationalism” and “extravagant superstition.” [99] He


advises that further research is essential, as demonology’s “treatment in the average systematic

theology is exceedingly sketchy, if it is given any space at all.” [100]


95 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 1.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid, Pages 2-8.
98 Ibid, Page 2.
99 Ibid, Page 3.
100 Ibid.


21


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Accepting Scripture as the revealed truth, the prevalence of superstition, with its endless


rituals and chthonic imagery, is also a pressing problem. Unger argues that too many people


“have lived and died in the clutches of appalling fear and absurd superstition, under thralldom of

evil supernaturalism.” [101] Such distortion has not been limited to the educationally deprived; it is


also replete among the leaders of society, with Talmudic writers being some of the worst

offenders. [102] These overwhelming excesses which are weaved throughout the fabric of humanity

add further frustration to the Christian systematic endeavor. [103]


Finally, Unger opines an obvious problem concerning a theology of demons. A


preponderance of doubt exists regarding the demonic. Most difficulties originate from the


unnatural nature of evil supernaturalism. No independent test or naturalistic observation can


construct a comprehensive scientific conclusion. “Knowledge of the supernatural can only come

through supernatural revelation, since it is above and beyond natural law.” [104] The problem is

only further conflated by the Spiritless attitude in which most skeptics approach the subject. [105]


Flowing out of these problems, when Unger develops his brief discussion regarding the


personhood of the demonic, his perspective integrates these four issues. The answer to each


concern is plainly a well-researched biblical demonology, which he tries to deliver in an

intellectual yet approachable manner. [106] Thus, we will look at his argumentation.


As we previously mentioned, in Unger’s theology, demonic reality and demonic


personhood are equated. No “demon” exists apart from their conception as sinful, immaterial,


personal beings. When Unger begins his section on the nature of demons, he comments,


101 Ibid.
102 Ibid, Pages 32-34.
103 Ibid, Page 29. “Without the chart of revealed truth to guide, it would be an impossible and hopeless task to try to
steer a straight course through the intricacies and complexities of heathen thought and practice. With such amazing
complication of detail, and often with such refined and subtle intermixture of truth and error, the student of religion
proceeding on mere naturalistic hypotheses, without the infallible guide of revelation, is like a vessel without chart,
rudder, or compass, tempest-tossed on a reef-strewn sea.”
104 Ibid, Page 7.
105 1 Corinthians 2:14. In this text, Paul divides the Corinthians into two groups. “The spiritual person has achieved
a level of spiritual maturity, but the merely psychic person is still in an infantile phase of development, unable to
know the gifts (things) of God’s spirit because such ethereal matters can be discerned only spiritually.” While to
firmly posit that skeptical endeavors are “infantile” in the demonological field would be overly harsh, to admit that
spiritual perceptivity is a methodological necessity in this realm would not be ridiculous. Without the Holy Spirit,
how can we expect to comprehend the truth into which He guides us?  Horsley, Richard A. _Abingdon New_
_Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians_, Page 61.
106 Unger’s book _Biblical Demonology_ is derived from his Th.D. dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary.
Ibid, Page vii.


22


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_But it must not be supposed that because spirits are immaterial, they are any less_
_personal. Demons, as well as all other created spiritual beings, possess_
_personality, and are everywhere represented as intelligent and voluntary agents_
_(Mark 5:10; Luke 4:34)._ _[107]_

Within his ontological conversation concerning the immaterial nature of the demonic, he slips in


this terse statement where demons are bluntly portrayed as personal beings. In his later work


_Demons in the World Today_, he elaborates on his occasional references to demonic personhood


in _Biblical Demonology_ . In three short paragraphs, he explains that demons have “all the

elements of personality such as will, feelings, and intellect.” [108] As referenced in _Biblical_


_Demonology_, this thought is built upon the Synoptic thought of Mark and Luke.


The Gerasene demoniac narrative is one of the iconic New Testament passages


concerning the demonic. In _Biblical Demonology_, it is cited at least seventeen times. Unger


references Mark 5:10 in particular, “And Legion asked Jesus many times not to send them out of

the area.” [109] Presumably, he selects this as a proof text in this instance as Legion is a persistent


negotiator. Furthermore, Legion and the rest of the demons he represents are not mere mental


aberrations as they somehow transferred into and demonstrably affected the nearby herd of

pigs. [110]


Much like Mark, Luke 5:34 records the words of a demon who apparently knew Jesus of


Nazareth as the “Holy One of God.” This unusual display of superior knowledge is quoted, not


as the testimony of a lunatic, but as the spirit world’s admission of Jesus’ special nature. Unger


accepts these passages as written with no qualification. He does not suppose or entertain that the


author fabricated or falsely interpreted the situation. His biblicism voids the questions.


Unger avoids all attempts at demythologization; instead, he wishes to convey the biblical


material as received. Demons are real, personal beings irreparably bent upon destruction and

rebellion, though subservient to the command of God. [111] The Bible is not silent concerning their


being, and it consistently distinguishes them as independent agents. While religions and cultures


107 Ibid, Page 65.
108 Unger, Merrill. _Demons in the World Today_, Page 23.
109 Author’s translation.
110 Mark 5:11-13.
111 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 74. “Although granted a large sphere of activity, and exercising a
powerful and malignant ministry, demons, like their leader Satan, are nevertheless strictly under divine control and
have a definite part in the divine plan. The span of their evil machinations is strictly determined, the sphere of their
wicked operations is definitely set, and their doom is inexorably sealed. There is no unhealthy dualism in Biblical
demonology.” See pages 67-68 for more on their “depravity and complete moral turpitude…”


23


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


offer superstitious accounts and descriptions, the Scriptures avoid fantastical and outlandish

superstitions. [112] Doubt about their being and personality remains only for those who do not


properly discern the content and consistency of the biblical accounts of the demonic.


**1.8** **Similarities and Distinctions**


When we compare Karl Barth and Merrill Unger’s contributions to demonological


studies, the distinctions are many. An entire chapter might begin to catalogue their


methodological and contextual differences. But concerning the personhood of the demonic, a


couple points move to the forefront.


The major distinction is the means by which personhood is conferred. Is it indirectly


derived from God, or is it a direct creative work of God? Barth posits three statements which


lead us to conclude that he favors indirect derivation. He confirms that the demonic finds its

source in God. “God is the Lord of the demonic sphere, and it derives from Him…” [113] This


statement is later broadened with an affirmation that demons “derive from [nothingness]. They

themselves are always nothingness.” [114] Finally, _Church Dogmatics_ also mentions that demons

are not God’s creation. [115]


The strongest relationship mentioned is the tie of the demonic to nothingness. Demons


are not only derived from nothingness, but they actually are nothingness, in personal form.


Nothingness itself is derived from God but not like His creatures which exude and bear His


affirmation and presence. Therefore, Barth directs us toward an understanding of the demonic


(including its personhood) which is indirectly derived from God.


In contrast, Unger’s theology maintains that Satan and his angels were a direct creation of

God before they rebelled. [116] Possessing a conceptual conflation of ontological reality and


personhood, Unger views the demonic as having its original root in the divine, though it has been


112 His assessment of superstition is found in pages 3-6. With their ridiculous stories, Unger essentially designates
the elaborate demon management systems of ancient and modern times as superstition. Yes, the biblical tone is
different, but Unger does not seem to sense the utter insensibility of the biblical tone as well. People perceive the
biblical narratives as ridiculous too! If Jesus were to exorcize the demonized in the streets of a Western city today,
it would be seen as bizarre to most. Thus, his label of “superstition” merely describes the diverse demonological
perceptions and practices that have propagated throughout the world, in contrast to the significantly distinct biblical
portrait.
113 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, Page 523.
114 Ibid.
115 Ibid.
116 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 16.


24


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


ostracized and exorcised from God’s acceptance. Demons (as fallen angels) are the result of a


direct creative work of God, though their eventual rebellious state is not condoned.


The demon’s relationship to God is dramatically different. Unger’s “demon” is a


carefully crafted creature of God who has deviated toward destruction. Barth’s “demon” is the


thoroughly corrupt byproduct of God’s good creative activity. These “demons’” personhoods


differ accordingly. One has received a good personhood from God and warped it by following


Satan’s folly. The other has come into being as an uncreated person forged out of evil, derived


from God but not rooted in Him.


While other points could be compiled, the central similarity is their agreement on the


personal ontology of demons, flowing from a receptive attitude toward biblical revelation.


Unger is upfront about his biblical adherence. He reads the text, reasons that demons are

portrayed as intelligent individual spirits, and concludes that they are such. [117] In response to


those who suggest that spirits are literary personifications of physical afflictions, Unger retorts,


“This ingenious, but false, theory is completely incompatible with the simple and direct


attribution of personality to the demons (as much as to men, angels, or God), and, if carried out

in principle, must subvert the truth and integrity of the Holy Scripture itself.” [118] But he does not


address those who would perceive the demonic as a significant reality yet impersonal.


Barth is more subtle, but he too primarily accepts the reality and personhood of demons


because of the biblical material. Though Barth is deeply affected and directed by philosophical


currents, D. F. Ford comments, “The criterion by which Barth wants to be judged is that of

fidelity to the Bible.” [119] Concerning the demonic, he interacts with revelation, especially in his

footnotes. [120] After one lengthier discourse on how the truth of God unmasks the practices of the


demonic, Barth offers, “This, then, is what Holy Scripture has to tell us concerning demons. It


certainly does not say that they do not exist or have no power or do not constitute a threat. It is

quite evident that their existence and nature are very definitely taken into account…” [121] As we


already postulated, their nature is indeed personal in his demonology. Where does this


117 This reasoned conclusion is reached amongst the influences of Unger’s theological heritage in the Evangelical
community. He is not a hermeneutical island; he quotes other scholars frequently.
118 Ibid, Page 91. Unger then specifically references Mark 5 as one passage that loses coherence if such a theory is
applied.
119 Ford, D. F. “Conclusion: Assessing Barth” in _Karl Barth – Studies of His Theological Methods_, Page 199.
120 His limited rationalism which George Hunsinger describes as “reason within the limits of revelation alone”
appears to not be so limited concerning the demonic. Hunsinger, George. _How to Read Karl Barth_, Page 49.
121 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, Pages 528-529.


25


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


ultimately originate? It courses from the Scriptures, though dressed and shaped by philosophical


inflows.


**1.9** **Conclusion**


In this chapter, we have laid out a considerable base of literature review by which an


analysis of the personhood of the demonic can occur. Within the commonly bypassed question


regarding whether we should view demons as impersonal or personal, this thesis specifically


designated two particular conversation partners, Karl Barth and Merrill Unger. After selecting


these two primary interlocutors, terminology was defined through their particular paradigms,


emphasizing their understandings of “demon” and “personhood.” Barth defines “personhood”


through one’s relationship to the divine and a “demon” as something real which is both hostile


toward and independent of God’s created realm. In contrast, Unger correlates his concept of


personhood to the issue of reality, and a “demon” is a fallen incorporeal being of profound


intelligence and unfathomable wickedness.


We then turned to the personhood of the demonic itself. Though disagreeing on major


background issues concerning the origin and nature of the demonic, both authors ultimately


affirmed the personhood of the demonic. Though not a primary subject of their systematic


endeavors, Barth and Unger nearly treated the subject of personhood as an assumed element.


We concluded that their greatest similarity lie in their receptive attitude toward the biblical


material which played a fundamental role in their overall demonological contribution.


Therefore, as we carefully move forward following the close of this introductory chapter,


a pressing question arises from Barth and Unger’s agreement on the personhood of the demonic.


Since biblical studies played such a central role in forming their conclusions, how does recent


biblical scholarship relate and engage with their writings? Is there any substantial support for


their position?


26


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**2.** **An Evaluation of Barth and Unger’s Perspectives on the Personhood of the Demonic**


**in Light of Contemporary Influential Biblical Studies on Demonology**


**2.1** **Introduction**


In the last chapter, we sought to define “personhood” and “demon” through a literature


survey of Karl Barth’s _Church Dogmatics_ and Merrill Unger’s _Biblical Demonology_ . After


exploring their definitions, we assessed their positions regarding the personhood of the demonic,


as to whether they preferred an impersonal or personal perspective. Subsequently, both Barth


and Unger were found to advocate for the reality of demons as personal agents, due to their


reading of the biblical material.


Since their demonologies rely heavily upon biblical studies, what does contemporary


influential biblical scholarship have to contribute to this analysis of Barth and Unger’s view of


demonic personhood? Does this scholarship lead us to conclude that the biblical material


advocates the existence of personal demonic beings? What role does the popular hermeneutic of


demythologization play? Due to this standing wealth of interrogatives, we must venture to seek


answers which will further our analysis of Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic.


Therefore, we will first address the stated primary authority of Barth and Unger’s


position. We will briefly introduce the revelatory material they utilize in order to construct their


personhood of the demonic. Following this, tracing the issue of demonic personhood in


contemporary influential biblical scholarship becomes our primary concern. After discerning the


overall attitude toward the issue of demonic personhood, Barth and Unger’s primary texts will


then be reassessed, along with interaction with the topic of demythologization. Finally, we will


offer support and criticism for Barth and Unger from that recent scholarship, while also allowing


Barth and Unger’s works to defend their hypotheses.


**2.2** **The Scope of Interaction**


In order to achieve our stated ends, we must narrow the scope of the biblical scholarship


which we will pair as interlocutors with Barth and Unger. The first criterion we will utilize is


“contemporary.” This thesis will primarily engage recent biblical and theological works, penned


subsequently to the publication of _Church Dogmatics_ and _Biblical Demonology_ . Also, another


criterion is that the commentaries, articles, and books quoted must be of considerable influence


27


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


in contemporary studies, widely read or academically published. But it should not be


misconstrued that this chapter is a complete compilation of every contribution to the


demonological field that could possibly relate to this thesis. Rather, these articles, dictionary


offerings, and critical commentary materials are selected as representative of the greater whole


within the academic realm.


Finally, while demonological/spiritism studies exists in numerous religious and


sociological contexts, the scholarship assessed in this chapter will be Christian and biblical,


intentionally including more than a single strand of Christian thought. By choosing Christian


biblical scholarship for the analysis of Barth and Unger’s demonological ontology, this thesis is


not asserting that other religious contributions are unworthy of study. Thus, let us first glean but


a few of the central texts from Barth and Unger’s demonologies as we begin to delve into


contemporary biblical scholarship’s contribution on the matter of demonic personhood.


**2.3** **Central Biblical Texts in Barth’s Personhood of the Demonic**


As we engage biblical scholarship with Karl Barth’s demonology, it is crucial that we


grasp the biblical material which undergirds his theology. This is a daunting task due to the path


by which he arrives at his perspective. Barth does not simply state a theological position and


then proof text his point with a list of biblical references (as an Evangelical, Merrill Unger is


much more affiliated with this style of theological composition). While Barth states that his


demonology is staunchly rooted in Scripture, the reality is that his argumentation is logically tied

the biblical text, not directly linked. [122]


Why does Barth write about demons? He declares their reality but also their drastic


dissimilarity from the angels, saying, “The two spheres do not belong together either by origin or

nature.” [123] But then he mentions that the demonic horde and the angelic host do intersect


concerning their activity! This operation-oriented opposition leads us to Barth’s direct citing of


biblical information. After trying to dismiss the pandemonium of problems surrounding the


usage of “angel” to describe Satan’s servants in Matthew 25:41, Revelation 12:7, and 2


Corinthians 12:7; he still seeks to disassociate the two parties yet admits,


_In the few biblical passages in which angels and demons are seen together at all_
_(as in the “war in heaven” of Rev. 12:7f. or the brief encounter at the temptation_


122 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 529.
123 Ibid, Pages 519-520.


28


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_in Mk. 1:12), they are always understood to be in radical conflict. This radical_
_conflict ought to have been regarded as a radical and essential determination on_
_both sides. The devil and demons ought never to have been seen or understood_
_otherwise than in this essential conflict._ _[124]_

Ergo, it is clear, methodologically speaking, that the Bible speaks powerfully into his theological

formation. [125]


As we previously established, Barth thinks that demons are indirectly derived from God,


almost as an eddy formed by a passing ship. Demons are a consequence of God’s creative work,


and “they are nothingness in its dynamic, to the extent that it has form and power and movement

and activity.” [126] What texts shall we examine to correlate such statements? Barth’s next

sentence says, “This is how Holy Scripture understands this alien element.” [127] But we are left on


our own to discern exactly how he arrived at such a “biblical” conclusion. It may be better said,


“This is how Barth understands this alien element in Holy Scripture.”


We can conclude that having a robust understanding of demonic personhood does clarify


and support his biblical conclusions concerning angelic and demonic activity. But he does not


overtly support his argument from a biblical passage that personhood is derived from one’s


relationship to the Creator and that demons are uncreated offspring, derived from God.


However, in general, his brief treatments of biblical texts concerning demonology distinguish the


implication that he accepts the texts’ basic ontological implications. Demons exist but should


not be associated with angels, except in the context of conflict.


**2.4** **Central Biblical Texts in Unger’s Personhood of the Demonic**


Merrill Unger’s _Biblical Demonology_, as evidenced by the title, is littered with scriptural

references in order to support his theses. [128] His strict biblically-founded style is briefly


expounded in his defense of the reality of the demonic. He argues,


_The evidence of revelation is put first, not because it is expected more effectively_
_to impress the skeptic (he seems unimpressed by any Scriptural declaration), but_


124 Ibid, Page 520.
125 Barth additionally cites Romans 8:38 and John 8:44 during his treatment of the demonic (Pages 520, 531).
Genesis 6:1-14, Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2:4 are only mentioned in order that he might dismiss them as “uncertain and
obscure.” Ibid, Page 530.
126 Ibid, Page 523.
127 Ibid.
128 His Scripture index spans pages 245-250. He cites over two thirds of the sixty-six canonical books throughout
his composition.


29


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_because intrinsically it is the most important witness. Demons do exist, first and_
_foremost, for God in His Word says they exist._ _[129]_

This priority continues to permeate his argumentation. He later comments, “When Luke writes


that ‘Satan entered into Judas’ (Luke 22:3), he most certainly implies that the dynamic of his


crime and suicide was Satan or demonic agency. The burden of proof, therefore, rests upon the


skeptics…” Scripture speaks, and he demands others to elucidate otherwise.


In Unger’s most direct statement concerning the personhood of the demonic, he loosely


corroborates his conclusion with a pair of biblical references. Obviously, no particular text in the


revelatory witness amounts to a systematic demonology. The behavioral descriptions of


narratives serve as his verification. He says, “Demons… possess personality, and are

everywhere represented as intelligent and voluntary agents (Mark 5:10, Luke 4:34).” [130]


Throughout his demonology, the Synoptic testimony is centrally featured, though well supported


through Old Testament literature and epistolary theology. But what does recent influential


biblical scholarship have to offer to the issue of the personhood of the demonic?


**2.5** **Contemporary Influential Biblical Scholarship and the Personhood of the Demonic**


The personhood of the demonic is not treated as an important theme in biblical

scholarship. [131] Perhaps certain interpretive, demythologization exercises are thought to best suit


the demonological field, but too often, the topic remains an assumed element, either with


demythologization or literalism previously accepted. Thankfully, biblical scholarship does offer


information which shapes and aids the subject. Thus, we will begin by assessing the


development of the idea of “demons” and then navigate Old and New Testament scholarship


through the lens of demonic personhood. Lastly, we will engage a number of prominent


scholar’s commentaries on the specific texts referenced by Barth and Unger in support of their


demonologies.


129 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 36.
130 Ibid, Page 64.
131 It could be argued that via the discussion concerning Satan, which has been set outside the limits of this particular
study, demonological personhood is frequently discussed, but it is the opinion of this thesis that demons and their
personhood remain underdeveloped. But even after an examination of Breytenbach and Day’s article on Satan, the
identity of Satan (or “the _satan_ ” depending on the textual construction of the passage they are examining) is
questioned. Personhood is less of an issue, especially since Day links the meaning of the Satan with ancient
Akkadian terms which denote “a human legal opponent” or “a deity acting as an accuser in a legal context.”
Breytenbach, C. and P. L. Day. “Satan” in _The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD)_, Page 727.


30


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


While it is a topic of importance, this thesis cannot address at length the hermeneutical


disparity which exists in demonological studies resulting from diverse paradigm affiliations. We


recognize that some authors, believing in the reality of a personal demonic realm, prefer to


harmonize the varying contributions to demonological thought by the numerous biblical genres


and texts. In such cases, a canonical and cohesive demonology is sought. In other cases, authors


prefer to cite the subject’s diversity with the biblical testimony as evidence of mythical inclusion,


advocating that numerous cultural manifestations of demonology are present in the canon rather


than one divine cosmological thought. Essentially, some prefer to highlight biblical unity, and


some prefer to emphasize biblical diversity.


**2.5.1** **The Development of Demonic Personhood**


Since the conception of the word “demon” (from the Greek _daimon_, _daimonion_ ),

personhood was implied. [132] In classical Greek thought, the imagery conveyed by “demon”


conjured up thoughts of full-fledged deities, capricious demigods, or souls of the deceased “who

now invisibly watch over human affairs.” [133] They were an unseen reality which dwelled in


chthonic lairs or heavenly abodes. More “persons” existed than empirical observation could


indicate, though myths and religious annals varied in the description of their power and number.


It would be an egregious error to not mention that _daimon_ and _daimonion_ had an impersonal


cacophony of usages as well. Alongside their reference to gods and eventually “personal


intermediary beings,” _daimon_ could occasionally depicted stars, consciences, or simply a divine

portion of the anthropological. [134]


Though the framework of personhood is implied in the concept of the demonic (when


referring to beings), the moral nature of those beings was often ambiguous. “The word


translated ‘demon’ in the literature preceding and contemporary with Scripture is not always

negative.” [135] After Homer and others maintained an essentially neutral understanding of the


word, it is best understood that “the exclusively ‘negative’ charge associated with demons


doubtless represents a secondary development reflecting an understanding that opposes them to


132 Twelftree, Graham. “Demon” in _The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible_, Volume 2, Page 91.
133 Riley, G. C. “Demon” in _The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD)_, Page 235.
134 Foerster, Werner. “ _Daimon_ ” in _The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_, Pages 2-3.
135 _Dictionary of Biblical Imagery_, Page 202.


31


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


the gods.” [136] Throughout the Ancient Near East, moral qualifiers were still commonplace in


order to denote that a particular demon was “evil.” Zoroastrianism was the prominent exception,

and this Persian dualism became more prevalent throughout the intertestamental period. [137] Even

as late as Luke’s authorship of Acts, neutral uses of “demon” were acceptable. [138] But let us

specifically focus on the personhood of the demonic in each testament. [139]


**2.5.2** **Old Testament Thought and Demonic Personhood**


Before we begin to interact with the biblical scholarship concerning the Old and New


Testaments, a canonical perspective is essential. While we can delve into the particular


complexities of each individual author and genera in relationship to demonic personhood, the


nature of revelation itself dictates that a particular level of divulged information results in a


particular level of clarity. With further revelation, a topical theology is increasingly clarified.


Hence, the author of Hebrews offers insight into Old Testament mysteries and ambiguities. It is


no surprise that demonic personhood continues to be increasingly illuminated throughout the

progressing revelations of the Old and New Testament. [140]


The issue of demonic personhood in the Old Testament is multi-faceted. “The Hebrew of


the OT, as the other Semitic languages of the ancient Near East, had no single, comprehensive

term for demonic figures as did the ancient Greeks.” [141] Due to this issue, the identification of


“demons” has proved more problematic. Joanne Kuemmerlin-McLean admits that this has


resulted in inconsistency and adds, “The most generally accepted understanding is of demons as


‘evil spirits’ who live in ruins and the desert and are responsible for illness and natural

disasters.” [142] But scholarship remains fragmented as to the exact amount of demons or demonic


figures in the OT. With some having historically opted for an Old Testament demonology


136 Hutter, Manfred. “Demons and Spirits: I. History of Religion (Ancient Near East and Antiquity)” in _Religion_
_Past & Present_, Page 747.
137 Ibid. See section 4.5 for more on Zoroastrianism.
138 Pervo says that Acts 17:18 is the only instance in the New Testament where _daimonia_ is “in a nonpejorative
sense.” Pervo, Richard I. _Acts: A Commentary_, Page 428.
139 As we proceed, we will interact not only with articles related to our task but also with critical commentaries. No
effort was exerted to selected favorable commentaries; rather, the primary prerequisite was their academic quality, in
that they engaged with other scholars, the original languages, and cognates.
140 Barth also remarks about the progressive clarity of the demonic from the Old to the New Testaments. He
strongly argues that this is a result of God’s continuing triumph and the “kingdom of God coming from heaven to
earth.” All that opposes the Christ is “driven from the field” and exposed more clearly as it flees. Barth, Karl.
_Church Dogmatics_ . III, 3, Page 529.
141 Aune, D. E. “Demon” in _The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_, Page 919.
142 Kuemmerlin-McLean, Joanne K. “Demon” in _The Anchor Bible Commentary_, Volume 2, Page 139.


32


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


trifurcated between angelic, animalistic, and human type demons; such endeavors seems


ambitious when there appears to be no clear overarching OT perspective accessible for easy

systemization. [143] A bifurcation does not appear helpful either. [144] This thesis posits that it is only


by the fruition of the New Testament that we ascertain enough insight for an adequate


demonology and a proper response to it. A survey of a few major demonic terms identified in


the Old Testament (bringing to light any specific material regarding their personhood) is in


order, but we must try to avoid ambitious systematic conclusions.


Demonic personas do present as animal-like creatures throughout the Old Testament.


Spirits of the wilderness and deserted places are described as goat demons ( _seirim_ ) and wild

beasts (Isaiah 13:21, 34:14). [145] Apparently, cultic worship grew up around these figures


(Leviticus 17:7, 2 Chronicles 11:15). Strangely enough, this imagery continues into the


Apocalypse (18:2). Understood as beings, their presence is the direct result of divine judgment


in Isaiah and the subject of condemnation of false worship in Leviticus, but it would be


presumptuous to align such beings as personal manifestations of evil from the Old Testament


text alone.

The worship of other gods is often considered demonic. [146] Psalms 106:37 says, “They

even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons ( _shedhim_ ).” [147] In other instances


like Deuteronomy 32:17, this concept of false worship sets up these gods as actual demons.


However, like the animalistic demons of the OT, these references do little to elucidate a

particular personhood attributable to demons. They are beings but vaguely so. [148]


Perhaps the most intriguing Old Testament texts involve various spirits ( _ruach_ ). In 1


Kings 22, Micaiah recounts a vision of a heavenly scene to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, wherein God


is determining Ahab’s end. In this instance, a “deceiving spirit” agrees to trick Ahab to his


appointed death through the mouths of prophets. Then God guarantees the spirit that his mission


will prove successful! While bearing some resemblance to the throne room scene of Job, we are


143 Ferguson, Everett. _Demonology of the Early Christian World_, Page 88.
144 Kuemmerlin-McLean, Joanne K. “Demon” in _The Anchor Bible Commentary_, Volume 2, Page 139
145 Riley, G. C. “Demon” in _The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD)_, Page 237.
146 Eshel, Esther, and Daniel C. Harlow. “Demons and Exorcism” in _The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism_,
Page 531. This OT thought became increasingly pronounced through the interpretive nature of the Septuagint.
147 New American Standard Bible (NASB).
148 Dickason, C. Fred. _Angels: Elect and Evil_, Page 152. By no means does this section comprehensively categorize
every possible reference to the demonic in the Old Testament literature. Dickason offers a number of others, but we
must be careful to accept the original text without overvaluing the interpretation of the LXX translators.


33


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


at a loss to exactly determine this spirit’s origin and nature, but the spirit’s activity is well
defined, shaped by its verbal abilities, immoral qualifications, and locational specificity. [149]


In another text where a spirit is commissioned by God for His purposes, Saul is troubled


by an evil spirit.


_Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from_
_the Lord terrorized him. Saul’s servants then said to him, “Behold now, an evil_
_spirit from God is terrorizing you” … So it came about whenever the evil spirit_
_from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and_
_Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him._ _[150]_

Confirming the absence of dualistic influence in the Tanahk, this evil spirit is again present as an


aspect of God’s judgment against the reign of Saul. Because of the reaction of Saul’s advisors,


the removal of the Spirit of God and the arrival of the evil spirit left little doubt that something

was wrong, which they correctly diagnosed as an evil spirit. [151] This spirit is then temporally


affected by the audible influence of David’s harp; the apotropaic music furnished relief to Saul.


Personhood is not a remarkable feature of this particular incident, nor can we discern a direct


link to the demonic without integrating the testimony of other canonical works.


One other instance involving a spirit is even more unusual and difficult to interpret. In


Job 4:12-21, the author records Eliphaz’ encounter with the supernatural (v12-16) and the


message delivered by the spirit (v17-21). The encounter is especially dramatic.


_Now a word was brought to me stealthily,_
_And my ear received a whisper of it._
_Amid disquieting thoughts from the visions of the night,_
_When deep sleep falls on men._
_Dread came upon me, and trembling,_
_And made_ _all my bones shake._
_Then a spirit passed by my face;_
_The hair of my flesh bristled up._
_It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance;_
_A form was before my eyes;_
_There was silence, then I heard a voice..._ _[152]_


149 By “locational specificity,” it is meant that the spirit was present before God, and then it was not. The text does
not convey it as a general rule, law, or force which is metaphorically omnipresent, ambiguously present, or absent.
Instead, the text conveys that this deceiving spirit was locationally before God, commanded by God, and eventually
brought about the fulfillment of its earthly task, considering Ahab’s death at the end of the passage.
150 1 Samuel 16:14-15, 23; NASB.
151 The relationship of rulers and the supernatural is an unusually common theme throughout Scripture.
152 Job 4:12-16, NASB.


34


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


In his opening salvo against Job, Eliphaz recapitulates a horrific nighttime visitation as the


primary content of his response. He “claims a privileged revelation that gives him special insight

concerning the nature of humankind.” [153] But is this frightening exchange from God? While


Eliphaz evidently considers the event to have divine origins, the context of God’s eventual


rebuke of Eliphaz in Job 42:7 opens the possibility that this spirit was acting deceptively, thus

explaining the terrifying circumstances. [154] This unique instance does not by any means define a


spirit as a person, but it is peculiar that while “spirit… is never used of an apparition in the OT…

here the spirit is given a semblance of form.” [155]


Due to the demythological currents in modern theology, depersonalization of such


“demon-like” figures in the OT is common practice. For instance, Adrian Hastings submits, “In


particular, there is no reason internal to Genesis for thinking the serpent in the Garden of Eden

(3:1-15) was a spiritual being in disguise…” and he concludes, “it was simply a snake.” [156]


While he himself understands the text as conveying a mere snake, it would be unwise to


conclude that the text itself is arguing that point, especially considering the snake’s role in the


_protoevangelium_, the radical inbreaking of deception, the snake’s unusual ability to speak, and

the subsequent interpretation of this text in Jewish thought. [157]


In conclusion, the OT text does not advocate nor deny a personhood of the demonic per


se, but it does describe other persons. The existence of personal entities beside God and


humanity is a given, but to declare a “personhood of the demonic” in the OT would be

presumptuous. [158] The passages themselves do not demonstrate an overarching demonological


theme to which we could attribute personhood, though the LXX and other writings translate and


interpret one. The OT is content to display a variety of beings/spirits which manifest as powerful

153 Balentine, Samuel E. _Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Job_, Page 110.
154 Note Eliphaz’ use of “breath/spirit” in verses 9 and 15 in chapter 4.
155 Pope, Marvin H. _The Anchor Bible: Job_, Page 37.
156 Hastings, Adrian. “Devil” in _The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought_, Page 164.
157 Outside of Genesis, another instance of an animal speaking is found in Numbers 22. That conversation between
Balaam and his donkey also originated with supernatural intervention.
158 In the theological arena, this conclusion is not without dissenters.  In an attempt to “write off” the reality of
demons and intermediate beings of any kind, Labooy states, “I conclude that it runs counter to the ethical-religious
intentions of the OT to fill the space between God and man with ‘intermediaries.’ Nevertheless, in the NT, these
syncretistic figures acquire power over people, _in spite of_ Moses and the prophets. From this perspective, we can
say that the (syncretistic) demons constitute a category that is primarily relevant for the people in question in a
mythical and psychological sense, but then only in _their_ understanding and experience. _Therefore_, they are the ideal
‘extra’s’ in the final scene. However, none of this implies real existence. Seen in this way, the OT can then be
allowed to speak the last word: In the OT perspective, which should be accepted as normative, they do not exist.”
He then unreservedly demythologizes the demonic realm, with virtually no interaction with the biblical text or
scholars. Labooy, Guus. _Freedom and Dispositions_, Pages 277-278.


35


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


malevolencies which sit under the authority of the one God, directed by His command and


indicative of His judgment. Classifying them under one heading as “demons” is not plausible


given the scholarship in this field.


**2.5.3** **New Testament Thought and Demonic Personhood**


The New Testament witness toward the personhood of the demonic shares a strong


affinity and similarity with the previous demonological thought of the Jewish Scriptures, though


sharply devoid of their wealth of ritualistic superstition commonplace by the time of the NT.


The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament links their demonological structures


consistently, saying, “The demonology assumed by Jesus and the Synoptics is clearly that of


Ancient Judaism… the Catholic epistles reflect the ancient Jewish mythological theme… all

strata of the NT are in agreement in adopting the structures of ancient Jewish demonology.” [159]


Utilizing Greek terms, “they presuppose the ideas about demons that were current in the Jewish


world of their day. For them, demons stand between God and humans; they are the opponents of

the former and harmful to the latter.” [160] This establishes that the authors of the New Testament


were indeed grounded in ancient Jewish didactic currents, but does this link the testaments?


In the shadow of an OT demonology lacking a “tidy development,” the NT thought on


the subject is surprisingly helpful and cohesive, offering clarity and substance in the context of

demonology’s “soteriological implications.” [161] G. F. Twelftree says concerning spiritual powers


in the Bible, “While the NT picture is more developed than that of the OT, there is significant

continuity between the Testaments.” [162] Simply put, the witness of the Christian writers describes


a demonology which preserves and expands upon the OT demonological vaguenesses without


imposing harsh conflict. As the text of the NT speaks openly about the demonic, let us peruse


through recent scholarship regarding each major authorial grouping and investigate their view


toward the personhood of the demonic.


The Synoptics gospels speak repeatedly and clearly about the demonic. Jesus’ ministry


reportedly supersedes the exorcism norms from that time. Avoiding the use of apotropaic


methodologies, “Jesus simply orders the demons to leave their victims. This picture stands in


159 Böcher, O. “ _Daimonion_ ” in _The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament_, Pages 272-274.
160 Röhl, Wolfgang G. “Demons” in _The Encyclopedia of Christianity_, Pages 794-795.
161 Twelftree, G. F. “Spiritual Powers” in _New Dictionary of Biblical Theology_, Pages 796-797.
162 Ibid, Page 796.


36


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


stark contrast to the exorcisms of the world of antiquity…” [163] How often did Jesus perform such


unusual exorcisms? While we cannot know for sure, it does seem to be a central feature of His


ministry as “the first three gospels relate seven distinct instances of Jesus’ performance of an

exorcism.” [164] This significant portion of biblical material grants a particularly robust offering of


information concerning demons themselves. They are “thought of in thoroughly personal terms:


they know secrets such as the identity of Jesus; they know their fate, give an account of


themselves, and can be brought to silence (Mark 1:24, 34 par. Luke 4:34, 41; Mark 3:11; 5:7;

par.; cf. Jas 2:19).” [165] Even the violent movement of the demonized in Mark 1/Luke 4 is directly


linked to the demon.


In a sense, the exorcism narratives of the Synoptics portray demons as if they are

“animating a puppet from the inside.” [166] Evidenced by a myriad of physical and mental


maladies, the authors definitively identify demons/spirits as the source of the ills. They are the


invisible cause to the visible effects. The unseen evil spiritual world directly disturbs the


tangible realm. Additionally, pericopes like Mark 5’s account of Jesus’ conversation with


Legion lend credence to the argument that the original authors intended demons to be understood


as powerful personal beings.


Luke’s letter to Theophilus, the book of Acts, carries on many of the same traits and


descriptions of the Synoptics, though exorcisms are only described with relation to _pneumata_ not

_daimonia_ . [167] As a further development of the Synoptic recordings of public recognitions of


Jesus by demons; the knowledge, authority, and identity of Jesus now serves the Christian


leadership in the book of Acts. Not only Paul (16:18) but numerous disciples “heal and exorcise

successfully in the name of Jesus (3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 30)…” [168] The phrase “in the name of Jesus”


is also illuminated as being more than a mere exorcism formula by the sons of Sceva who


received a rude response and a physical beating from a demonized man. The verbal exchange


163 Guelich, Robert A. “Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul and Peretti” in _PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for_
_Pentecostal Studies_, Vol. 13, Num. 1, Page 39. Apotropiac items do not frequent the biblical page with regularity,
but Acts 19:11 does detail one unusual instance where objects related to Paul were empowered and causing
miraculous results.
164 Emmrich, Martin. “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy” in _Westminster Theological Journal_, 62,
Page 268.
165 Böcher, O. “ _Daimonion_ ” in _The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament_, Page 272.
166 Riley, G. C. “Demon” in _The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD)_, Page 239.
167 _Daimonion_ is used once by the Athenians in Acts 17:18, but it appears to be a neutral use of the word.
168 Böcher, O. “ _Daimonion_ ” in _The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament_, Page 273.


37


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


between the sons of Sceva and the evil spirit continues to convey a demonic realm which is


knowledgeable and personal.


The Pauline corpus provides a wrinkle in the NT demonological fabric. Though replete


with references to Satan, the devil, spirits, and angels; _daimonion_ only shows up in 1 Corinthians


10 concerning idol worship and 1 Timothy 4 concerning deceitful doctrine. Unlike the Synoptics


and Acts which record narratives, Paul lends the demonic no voice. Instead, demons are


portrayed within the didactic nature of his epistles. Thus, as a subject matter, Paul’s works


illuminate them as the party ultimately “responsible for false teaching…” because “competing

gods are demons.” [169]


Paul’s theology builds a framework of cosmic powers, rulers, and authorities upon this


“demon/competing god” thought. Aside from God and humanity, Paul’s worldview “is also

disturbingly full of other personal agents of power who work harm against us…” [170] Avoiding a

dualistic worldview, these powers are fragile and have been disarmed by the cross. [171] While

they continue to exist under the authority and victory of Christ, their destruction is certain. [172] As


for why this Pauline theological thread is not more prominent in popular preaching, some


suggest that “the gods of this world have blinded the Church to its own scriptures with respect to

the ‘principalities and powers.’” [173]


With writers who are comfortable and committed to discussing demonology, it is


commonplace to see these powers equated with demonic realities on a one to one basis. “Paul’s


mature doctrine interpreted demonic opposition to the gospel in terms of angelic Principalities,


Authorities and Powers… Throne and Dominations… These personal and cosmic forces had,

however, been brought under subjection by God…” [174] Along those lines, the Pauline “elements”


( _stoicheia_ ) of Galatians 4 are also occasionally correlated with demonic forces. Indeed, extra

biblical writings from before Paul’s time, such as the Testament of Solomon, further these


169 Kollmann, Bernd. “Demons and Spirit: III. New Testament” in _Religion Past and Present: Encyclopedia of_
_Theology and Religion_, Page 749.
Riley, G. C. “Demon” in _The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD)_, Page 240.
170 Neyrey, Jerome H. “Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology” in _The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_,
Page 88.
171 Colossians 2:15. In Wilson’s summary of this brief section of the letter to Colossae, he summarizes, “The ‘bond‘
that stood against them has been canceled, through the cross of Christ, who has triumphed over all the powers that
once brought fear into their lives.” Wilson, R. McL. _Colossians and Philemon_, Page 214.
172 1 Corinthians 15:24-27.
173 Wylie-Kellermann, Bill. “Not Vice Versa. Reading the Powers Biblically: Stringfellow, Hermeneutics, and the
Principalities” in _Anglican Theological Review_, Vol. LXXXI, Num. 4, Page 668.
174 Woods, Richard. “Demons” in _The New Dictionary of Theology_, Pages 275-276.


38


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


arguments as they use “elements” and “demons” to refer to the same entities. [175] In sum, a power


or element is a demonic person, so to speak.


But when we assess the biblical material itself, a more sustainable conclusion, especially


considering the lack of personal indicators, might be that these powers are actually structures and


forces completely controlled or merely manipulated by the personal demonic realm. Romans


8:38-39, which contains both demons and powers in the same list, directs us toward a more


nuanced definition than simple equation. For instance, if we consider the relationship of the


demonic to heresy, Paul did not insist that false teaching is a demon in 1 Timothy 4, but rather,


he indicates that heresy originates from demonic sources and is sustained through demonic


oversight. A firm conclusion would be hasty, but Paul’s theology of the powers could finger a


demonic scheme rather than a demonic agent (though Ephesians 6:11-12 does require special


attention). The powers are vaguely set up as “spiritual powers in the heavenlies who [stand]

behind human activity and institutions.” [176] But further study into this matter is merited.


The book of James has one passage which references the _daimonia_ . James 2:19 reads,


“You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” In the


Anchor Commentary series, Luke Johnson links this passage to the gospel narratives in which

the demons recognize and identify Christ. [177] It is even proposed that the text alludes to the


practices recorded in Jewish literature and the corresponding items which cause demons to

shudder. [178] But the shuddering itself is likely the result of fear.


Concerning the personhood of the demonic, this passage does appear to equate the ability


of belief in a human capacity with the demonic ability to believe. Obviously, one is redemptive


in nature and the other is simple admission. But the resulting fearful shuddering evidences


something like personal behavior.


The Johannine writings confirm the demonological contributions of the rest of the NT.


First John 4:1-4 identifies false prophets as originating from spirits, presumably evil since they


are set up in contrast to the divine. The gospel of John grants insight into unusual circumstances.


In chapters seven through ten, Jesus has to repeatedly defend His nature, for they accuse him of


having a _daimonion_ . While the other gospels select narratives which highlight His miraculous


175 Arnold, Clinton E. “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: _Stoicheia_ as Evil Spirits In Galatians 4:3, 9” in
_Novum Testamentum_, Vol. XXXVIII, Num. 1, Page 58.
176 _New Dictionary of Biblical Theology_, Page 801.
177 Johnson, Luke Timothy. _The Anchor Bible: the Letter of James_, Page 241.
178 Dibelius, Martin. _James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James_, Page 160.


39


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


repudiation of evil, Jesus in the book of John responds with doctrine and dialogue. Regardless,

Jesus is rejected, as “the pneuma of Jesus is suspected of being of diabolical origin…” [179]


Through these passages, it presumably confirms that false teachers and less reputable miracle


workers were associated with demonization.


Revelation confirms earlier demonological thought, though it is translated into the


imagery-driven apocalyptic genre. We observe standard biblical themes regarding the demonic,

such as 9:20, in which the text “designates pagan gods as _daimonia_ …” [180] The text says, “The


rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands,


so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of

wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk…” [181] In context, demons are listed as having


stolen worship. The exact relationship between demons and idols is not distinguished, as the

“works of their hands” clearly refers to the idols of various substances. [182]


Also, the ancient theme of demons haunting ruins and desolate places, recapitulated by


Jesus in Matthew 12:43, resurfaces again in Revelation 18:2 regarding the ruins of Babylon.


Overall, the plethora of demonic mentions in Revelation does little to develop the concept of


demonic personhood, due to the wealth of vision-related anthropomorphisms and other figurative


methodologies. The genre itself is not advantageous or conducive for establishing ontological


realities, but constructing an argument that Revelation detracts from a personhood of the


demonic is difficult.


One final theme that surfaces in the remainder of the Catholic Epistles is the disobedient


angels. In keeping with Genesis 6:1-4 and the Jewish tradition concerning angelic interference


in the ancient world; the imprisoned spirits of 1 Peter 3:19 “are probably fallen, malevolent

angels.” [183] Combined with Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4, a case for NT continuity with the Genesis


6:1-4 text can be made. Though we can conclude that spiritual forces are the oratory audience


and the recipients of divine chastisement (by some sort of divine condescension) like personal


179 Böcher, O. “ _Daimonion_ ” in _The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament_, Page 273.
180 Ibid.
181 NASB.
182 One could read this and conclude that demons are the result of human construction, but since it is a vague text,
one could just as easily argue that demons have seized upon the opportunity created through idolatry or fostered the
growth of idolatry altogether. However, the latter explanation seems to fit with conceptual picture of the demonic in
Revelation.
183 _New Dictionary of Biblical Theology_, Page 800.


40


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


beings, the trouble which demands further study is to whether these disobedient angels should be


conflated with the pernicious demons, but this issue lies outside our task.


In the NT writings, we observed a clear category of personal, spiritual beings labeled as


demons. The majority of the NT contributors not only mention demons, but they describe them

in personal terms. Recent biblical scholarship largely acknowledged this biblical reality. [184]


Having surveyed biblical texts and corresponding scholarship concerning the personhood of the


demonic, let us now turn to the specific texts utilized by Barth and Unger.


**2.5.4** **Central Texts in Barth and Unger’s Perspective on Demonic Personhood in light of**


**Modern Influential Biblical Commentaries**


Earlier, we asserted that Barth and Unger develop their theology of demons from their


receptive attitude toward the biblical text. Following that assertion, we briefly included a few


texts which underpin their perspective. In this section, we will examine the opinions of a few


scholars on those particular verses.


In Barth’s _Church Dogmatics_, Revelation 12 is cited more than once as a proof text to


further his logical reasoning. Barth is undeterred in his biblical acceptance, as he cites epistles,


gospels, and the apocalypse with espoused realism. In response to the demythologization


project, Barth argues, “It would no doubt suit [demons] very well to be grouped with the


angels… and in this exalted company to be ‘demythologised,’ to have their reality denied, to be

interpreted away.” [185]


In contrast, the text itself, in its descriptive vision-relaying manner, does little to imply


personhood to the dragon/Satan and his angels, and commentators offer little as well. David


Aune, in the _Word Biblical Commentary_, directs his attention to the origin of this “mythic

narrative in vv 7-9…” [186] Jürgen Roloff’s commentary on chapter 12 advocates that “Revelation


sees here in Satan the mysterious power that from the beginning of human history personified

resistance against God…” [187] Ergo, the text regurgitates the mythical battle between good and


evil, and Satan, though presented in personal terms, is not a personal being but a representation


184 E.g., Woods, Richard. “Demons” in _The New Dictionary of Theology_, Pages 275-276. Neyrey, Jerome H.
“Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology” in _The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_, Page 88. Böcher, O.
“ _Daimonion_ ” in _The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament_, Page 272.
185 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_ . III, 3, Page 521.
186 Aune, D. E. _Word Biblical Commentary: Revelation 6-16_, Page 663.
187 Roloff, Jürgen. _Revelation: A Continental Commentary_, Page 148.


41


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


of rebellion in the created order. But problems with this conclusion exist in the text. Let us


examine it a little more closely.


A great deal of interpretive direction is implicit in Revelation 12. Verse 5 ushers us into


understanding the male child as being the person of Jesus, the victorious King and Messiah.


Though debate continues as to the exact identity of the woman, verse 17 does lend itself to the


idea that the woman and her offspring represent actual persons (whether corporate or individual


is insignificant for this discussion). Is it not then possible that the other participants in this


cosmic drama amount to personal beings as well? No theologian should argue that God is


symbolic for something other than Himself in this passage. So God, the woman, and the child


are clearly symbolic for persons. What grounds exist in the text itself to lend credibility to an


impersonal interpretation for any of the participants? In response to Roloff and Aune, perhaps


Revelation does not exemplify the figurative nature of Satan and intermediary beings throughout


Scripture. Perhaps Revelation affirms cosmic realities, including God, through the veil of


apocalyptic literature.


Alvin Plantinga provides a suitable excursus at this point. He remarks:


_Many philosophers… have complained that it is extremely implausible, in our_
_enlightened day and age, to suppose that there is such a thing as Satan, let alone_
_his cohorts… Whether or not one finds the view in question plausible or_
_implausible will of course depend on what else one believes; the theist already_
_believes in the existence of at least one non-human person who is active in_
_history: God. Accordingly the suggestion that there are other such persons – that_
_human beings aren’t the only sorts of persons God has created – may not seem at_
_all implausible to him._ _[188]_

In other words, as theists, we have no reason to rashly dismiss the interpretation that these texts


portray unseen persons. They remain plausible.


In Unger’s _Biblical Demonology_, Luke 4 and Mark 5 feature prominently. In Luke 4:33

37, we observe Jesus casting out a demonic spirit. Introduced as a spirit of an unclean demon,


Luke might be “establishing… his basic vocabulary for demon possession” so he can use these

words interchangeably in a negative manner. [189] Darrell Bock paints the scene as a “personal


188 Plantinga, Alvin. Quoted in Keith Ferdinando’s _Triumph of Christ in an African Perspective: A Study of_
_Demonology and Redemption in the African Context_, Page 373. Originally from J. Tomberlin and P. van Inwagen’s
(editors) _Alvin Plantinga Profiles 5_, Page 43. (Dordrecht; D. Reidel, 1985.)
189 Nolland, John. _Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 1-9:20_, Page 206. With Luke’s one neutral use of _daimonion_
in Acts 17:18, Nolland’s suggestion makes sense.


42


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


confrontation.” [190] Citing the early church father Clement and others, Bock finds that the

situation paints the demon as feeling “opposed and threatened.” [191] The remarks made by the

demon reveal an emotion of “surprise and/or displeasure.” [192] The demon apparently knew who


Jesus was, unusually identifying Him as the “Holy One of God.” The New American


Commentary deduces, “We are not told how the demon knew Jesus’ identity, but the assumption

is that they possessed supernatural knowledge and thus recognized him.” [193] But the crux of the


narrative lies in the restoration and freedom that Jesus – “the Holy One of God” – offers


humanity in His authority over the demon. The result of the encounter depicts the awe of the


crowd in light of Christ’s words, and “the demon openly admits defeat by throwing the liberated

man into the midst of the crowd as it leaves him, and by doing this without hurting the man.” [194]


Mark 5:1-20 is often reflected upon as the prototypical deliverance passage. Subtly


mocking contemporary Western theology’s aversion toward this story, Donald Juel of Princeton


University comments that he “never heard it read in church... probably because there are all sorts


of uncomfortable things about the story – unclean spirits who talk, drowned pigs, and people

who respond to miracles by asking Jesus to leave. [195] ” Yet he continues onward, retelling the


passage without demythologizing in this instance.


Though categorically classified as a “tale” or as a “miracle story,” the biblical exegesis is


fairly straightforward (even with Morna Hooker’s assertion that it is the combination of two

stories). [196] Not alluding to the Gentile background of the demonized or the spatial proximity to

the tombs, Adela Collins remarks that the demon “is unclean because of its origin.” [197] She adds


that when the man kneels before Jesus, “the reverential gesture is probably an act initiated by the

unclean spirit.” [198] The demon is recognizing Jesus’ power and status. [199]


In her comments on the text, Dr. Collins continues to highlight personal characteristics


concerning the demons involved. Further into her analysis of Jesus and the demons’


conversation, the demons’ plea for mercy from torment also indicates “that exorcism is painful


190 Bock, Darrell. _Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke 1:1 – 9:50_, Page 431.
191 Ibid.
192 Ibid.
193 Stein, Robert H. _New American Commentary_ : _Luke_, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database.
194 Bovon, François. _Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50_, Page 163.
195 Juel, Donald H. “Plundering Satan’s House: Mark 5:1-20” in _Word &World_, Vol. XVII, Num. 3, Summer 1997.
196 Hooker, Morna. _Black’s New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to St Mark_, Page 143.
197 Collins, Adela Yarbro. _Mark: A Commentary_, Pages 266-267.
198 Ibid, Page 267.
199 Ibid.


43


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


or at least distressing for the spirit.” [200] When Jesus permits their relocation into the nearby


swine, He apparently wins the war of wits with ease, as the demons who wished to remain in the

area were instead plunged into the Galilean lake. [201]


Of course, she is not arguing that she believes in personal demonic beings; she is simply


acknowledging that the text is framed in the context of a personal encounter. Other writers


would prefer to further distance themselves from the notion of a personal demonic ontology.


Thus, Robert Guelich says regarding Legion’s lack of resistance, “The ‘demon’ has abandoned

all attempts to use his own power to gain control.” [202]


While some commentators advocate that this passage demonstrates the supernatural


nature of these demons, others take another route. Building upon the “possession” motif, it can


be argued that no distinction can be made between the demons and the inhabited man. Henry


Turlington leans this direction and comments concerning the conversation chronicled in Mark 5,

“The response of the man and the unclean spirit are not separable.” [203] This allows the reader to


arrive at psychological explanations of the demonic rather than supernatural and personal


definitions.


Overall, Barth and Unger are not ostracized through the lens of recent scholarship.


Instead, they read the passages as is, and they indirectly (Barth) or directly (Unger) form there


theological perspectives concerning the demonic and their personhood. They maintain that the


personal exchanges of the Scriptures are informative concerning our understanding of reality,


unlike some contemporary scholars who have no problem admitting that the text conveys


personal exchanges but then disconnect the text from our understanding of reality through


demythologization.


**2.6** **The Demythological Theme in Contemporary Influential Biblical Scholarship in**


**Relation to Barth and Unger’s Perspectives on the Personhood of the Demonic**


From the scholarship presented over the past paragraphs, common themes arise. While a


spectrum of theological perspectives exists regarding the ontological reality and independent


personhood of the demonic, the analysis of the biblical texts themselves provides a fairly


200 Ibid, Page 268.
201 Ibid, Page 271.
202 Guelich, Robert A. _Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 1-8:26_, Page 279.
203 Turlington, Henry. _The Broadman Bible Commentary_, Page 308.


44


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


coherent and consistent consensus concerning exactly what the text aims to indicate. On a


whole, scholars generally have no problem admitting that the Bible conveys a world view which


increasingly includes personal beings (described as demons or other synonymous designations)


who stand as malevolent toward God and His created order, though submissive to divine rule.


However, that admission is then couched in the need for demythologization, disconnecting the


portrayal of personhood from ontological reality.


Formally originating with Rudolph Bultmann in 1941, “the task of demythologization


is... the elimination of the illusion of objectivity through the translation of myths into the

appropriate language of existential participation…” [204] But has this “translation” rendered the


angelic and demonic figures of the Old and New Testaments to the ontological category of


unicorns and every other imaginary creature? Who is qualified to unilaterally draw the


mythological lines?


Karl Barth reacted strongly in his _Church Dogmatics_ concerning the rise of


demythologization, even as he felt pressure in academic circles against being too

“mythological.” [205] He rejects the value of demythologization in relegating the demonic world


into a non-existent entity. Barth thinks the demons would appreciate such a perspective. Yet


demonology, according to Barth, does require demythologization, but he defines it differently.


Barth says:


_The demythologisation which will really hurt [demons] as required cannot consist_
_in questioning their existence. Theological exorcism must be an act of the_
_unbelief which is grounded in faith. It must consist in the fact that in the light, not_
_of a world-outlook but of Christian truth, they are seen to be a myth, the myth_
_which lurks in all myths, the lie which is the basis [of] all other lies, so that a_
_positive relationship to them, an attitude of respect and reverence and obedience,_
_is quite impossible._ _[206]_

This theological exorcism is a part of Barth’s program to dissuade the Christian from having any


relationship with the demonic. Demons are not supposed to be viewed positively in any way,


and a belief in them similar to our relationship toward God and His angels is unbefitting. Thus,


204 Fergusson, David. “Demythologization” in _Religion Past & Present_, Page 754.
205 Berkhof, Hendrikus. _Christ and The Powers_, Page 9. Berkhof’s work on the powers was nearly published in
_Theologische Studien_ due to the wishes of Karl Barth’s secretary. She later had to inform Berkhof that Barth “had
reasons not to let this text appear in the series.” Barth eventually apologized for the rejection, explaining that “He
felt that [Berkhof] was ‘mythologizing’ the Powers too much, and that he could not approve of such a publication at
a time when his own theology was under the crossfire of Bultmann and his disciples.”
206 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, Pages 521-522.


45


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


even though he mentions the reality of demons and describes them as personal beings, Barth


reminds us “that the realism of the Bible in this respect consists exclusively in the clarity and


vigor with which we are comforted and warned and set on our guard against this sphere, but

called away from it rather than to it...” [207]


Merrill Unger also repudiates the undergirding philosophy beneath the academically


prevalent hermeneutic of demythologization. Accepting the existence of a supernatural realm,


Unger argues for the inadequacy of natural, scientific investigation on the subject, for “the


supernatural realm is above natural laws of the physical universe and involves a sphere of reality

beyond the control of scientific experimentation and strictly scientific inquiry.” [208] Branding


those who attempt to guide and source their demonological studies without a revelatory


foundation as “handicapped” and “unqualified,” the biblical worldview of the supernatural


“furnishes the only true criteria for understanding and evaluating the diverse and perplexing

phenomena in this field.” [209] Naturalistic pursuit without the Holy Spirit is “inevitably

foredoomed to failure and deception.” [210]


Addressing the issue of biblical criticism and exegesis in a brief article, Unger poses a

question, “Is there a valid scientific approach to biblical criticism?” [211] He says “yes,” and


qualifies, “But it must not attempt to foist the purely naturalistic methods and presuppositions of


physical or mathematical science upon the higher realm of personality and spirit where the Bible

operates.” [212] Unger consistently seeks the inclusion of the supernatural in our approach to the


biblical material. When we skip this valuable ingredient, the repercussions are obvious –

“…spiritual barrenness, empty intellectualism, and endless confusion…” [213] One can see this


attitude in Unger’s response to Friedrich Strauss.


Unfortunately, Unger does not directly interact with Bultmann and the concept of


demythologization, but Strauss is mentioned. In the context of Merrill Unger’s defense of the


reality of demonization, he speaks of “Strauss and the mythical school” which attest “that the


whole narrative of Jesus’ expulsions of demons is merely symbolic, without actual foundation of


207 Ibid, Page 522.
208 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 6.
209 Ibid. Pages 6-7.
210 Ibid, Page 7. His reasoning here depends heavily upon 1 Corinthians 2:14.
211 Unger, Merrill. “Scientific Biblical Criticism and Exegesis” in _Bibliotheca Sacra_, January 1964, Page 61.
212 Ibid, Pages 61-62.
213 Ibid, Page 62.


46


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


fact.” [214] To this widespread thought, Unger responds, “…in the Gospel accounts, the plain


prosaic narration of the incidents as facts, regardless of what might be considered as possible in


highly poetical and avowedly figurative passages, would make their statement here, in pure

prose, not a figure or a symbol, but a lie.” [215] Demanding widespread symbolism where realism


is apparently intended leads us to the conclusion that the writer speaks mistruth, not figurative


didactics.


With specific reference to demonology and the personhood of the demonic, Barth and


Unger, with varying levels of emphasis, accept the revelation concerning malicious spirits as


conveying reality, avoiding theological and philosophical imposition upon the text. Indeed,


many Western theologies have accepted this philosophical concept from Bultmann and done

what Barth warned every demon wanted. [216]


**2.7** **Conclusion**


In this chapter, we sought to analyze Karl Barth and Merrill Unger’s surprisingly united


position regarding the personhood of the demonic, in light of biblical scholarship. In order to


achieve these ends, we first clarified the scope of the scholarship utilized as interlocutors. After


narrowing our scope to contemporary and influential sources, an identification and brief sketch


of central biblical texts in Barth’s _Church Dogmatics_ and Unger’s _Biblical Demonology_ helped


provide a platform to engage with biblical scholarship. In our discussion with biblical


scholarship, we specifically approached the topic of demonic personhood in Old and New


Testament scholarship, concluding with a narrow analysis of the particular texts which feature in


Barth and Unger’s demonology. Arising from biblical scholarship’s moderate affirmation of


demonic personhood, we addressed the hermeneutical prevalence of demythologization,


including Barth’s redefinition and Unger’s dismissal of it. We finally observed that Barth and


Unger, though faced with a few criticisms, stand with the weight of a great deal of recent

scholarship behind them. [217]


Through this study, we have again confirmed that Barth and Unger rely heavily upon


revelatory material to support their conclusions. Upon examining contemporary biblical


214 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 90.
215 Ibid.
216 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, Page 521.
217 The strengths and weaknesses of their positions will be discussed in chapter four.


47


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


scholarship, most authors either advocated that the biblical material suggested a demonic


personhood or described demons in the revelatory text as personal beings. Through the writings


of Barth and Unger, we also raised the possibility that Western scholarship’s interpretive


practices may benefit the demonic realm and cause critics to doubt biblical value and veracity


altogether. In the following chapter, we will pursue Barth and Unger’s theology of demonic


personhood with specific reference to a multicultural context.


48


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**3.** **A Critical Analysis of Barth and Unger’s Perspective on the Personhood of the**


**Demonic from a Multicultural Perspective**


**3.1** **Introduction**


In the last chapter, we sought to engage biblical scholarship regarding the personhood of


the demonic. Through the lens of Barth and Unger’s demonologies, we examined recent


influential scholarship on the Old and New Testaments’ depiction of demons. A conclusion was


reached that biblical studies generally confirmed that the intention of the revelatory material was


to convey a worldview which included malevolent personal supernatural beings.


This chapter will aim to analyze Barth and Unger’s perspectives regarding the


personhood of the demonic in light of a multicultural context and hermeneutic. Why introduce


multiculturalism? Why embark on such a perilous road? As it will be argued throughout this


chapter, the multicultural dynamic is a nearly unavoidable aspect of human existence in this age.


Then let us, as bearers of God’s revelation, understand our audience, ponder the hermeneutical


complexities of communicating in a multicultural context, and finally offer a well-rounded,


biblically-consistent theology of demonic personhood attuned to the intricacies of the world we


inhabit.


We begin this journey by first defining culture itself, followed by a lengthy explanation


of multiculturalism and the hermeneutical results of a multicultural world. Utilizing the


multicultural perspective, Barth and Unger’s demonologies, specifically considering demonic


personhood, will be sifted for Western impositions upon the biblical worldview. In response, a


multicultural perspective, a way forward, will be proposed. Support and criticism of Barth and


Unger will be provided as needed.


The topic of multiculturalism is of particular interest to me. Formerly a six-year resident


of Chicago, I attended and became a member of a church community which contained an eclectic


gathering of cultural backgrounds. The church was located near large communities of Chinese

Americans, African-Americans, and Caucasians. This demographic diversity translated into our


church context, with no single group forming a majority in our fellowship. While such diversity


proved to enhance our unity in Christ and further our appreciation for one another’s heritage, it


was easy to discern that cultural background influenced one’s view of the demonic. Some


members spoke openly about the demonic while others generally preferred to ignore the topic.


49


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


These differences often manifested along cultural lines. Furthermore, these ecclesiological


experiences were further duplicated through multicultural contexts during my undergraduate


studies.


**3.2** **A Definition of Culture**


As we tackle the issue of multiculturalism, particularly concerning its hermeneutical


implications with regard to Barth and Unger’s perspective on the personhood of the demonic, we


must first define “culture” itself. Mercy Oduyoye and Hendrik Vroom attest, “Cultures are


patterns of meaning, value and normativity: ways in which social life is structured, both in

respect to freedom and lack of freedom, communion and hierarchy.” [218] Byang Kato simplifies


that definition, saying, “Culture is the whole system of living made up of what society knows

and does.” [219]


Throughout this chapter, a particular emphasis will be placed upon the African


manifestation of cultural studies, simply because culture has proven to be an issue of interest and


emphasis in African theological circles. Due to the missionary heritage accrued over the past


centuries, Kwame Bediako and others have lamented the history of “European value-setting for

African Christianity.” [220] Now that the African theological movement has taken great strides to


throw this off, “the theological meaning of the pre-Christian past becomes an unavoidable

element in all major African theological discussion.” [221] But does this “unavoidable element” of


African religious background create a proclivity toward certain errors?


Kato signals a few of these common “pitfalls.” As African Christian theologians have


tirelessly wrought theologies which diverge from past “European value-setting,” it is easy to

agree with Kato that “Africa has come of age.” [222] But what is the result? “Now the temptation


is to magnify all that is African, especially in cultural and religious heritage. It is felt that as the


West boasts of modern technology, Africa can boast of a long-standing history. It is even


wrongly held that as Christianity is a religion of the West, Africa should be proud of her


218 Oduyoye, Mercy Amba, and Hendrik M. Vroom. _One Gospel - Many Cultures: Case Studies and Reflections on_
_Cross Cultural Theology_, Page 4.
219 Kato, Byang. _African Cultural Revolution and Christian Faith_, Page 7.
220 Bediako, Kwame. _Theology and Identity_, Page 237.
221 Ibid.
222 Kato, Byang. _Theological Pitfalls in Africa_, Page 12.


50


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


religious heritage. [This] tends to universalism.” [223] While culture helps form the contextual


bridge by which the gospel can be communicated, we cannot permit culture – ancient or modern,


African or Western – to dictate the reshaping of the biblical material, specifically the news and


work of Christ.


For clarity’s sake, the term “gospel,” as used throughout this thesis, refers to the biblical


definition of “gospel” set down by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. The gospel is (1) Received, (2)


Exclusive, and (3) Supernatural – transcendent and immanent in the Person of Christ alone. One


possesses the gospel upon the reception of and reliance upon Christ Himself by faith, while


acknowledging the sin He exposes, the redemption He offers, and the judgment and vindication


He will one day bring. The historical nature of Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection are


inseparable from this. Because He was raised in history, our coming story includes our literal


resurrection as well. Indeed, if the dead are not eschatologically raised, if our salvation is not


defined by actual events in space/time, then we should recapitulate Paul’s cry and live out our


meaningless days as Epicureans (v32). The gospel is factually grounded in past, present, and


soon-to-be consummated realities and contextually bound to historical and locative events.


Holding the gospel high, we can proclaim, “It is not neo-colonialism to plead the uniqueness of


finality of Jesus Christ. It is not arrogance to herald the fact that all who are not ‘in Christ’ are

lost. It is merely articulating what the Scriptures say.” [224]


Let us return to the issue of culture. What role does culture play in the hermeneutical and


theological process? We cannot avoid the question. Culture’s relationship with hermeneutics is


nearly indistinguishable. “We all apply _hermeneutics_ - that is principles of interpretation –


whenever we engage in any communication process… we employ hermeneutics, even though in


our own culture and in familiar surroundings we are usually completely unaware of the process.

We decode what we hear and settle on its meaning.” [225] Because of our cultural context, we have


particular hermeneutical presuppositions with which we operate. These are inherently engaged


when we enter the theological arena.


This is where we must resist the temptation to dilute theology into a merely sociological


and anthropological activity. Leaning heavily upon Gordon Kaufman, Kathryn Tanner argues


223 Ibid, Pages 12-13.
224 Ibid, Page 16.
225 Klein, William. “Evangelical Hermeneutics” in _Initiation into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and_
_Hermeneutics_, Page 320.


51


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


that “Theology is a particular version of this search for meaning, for a pattern of fundamental


categories that will, as cultures do, orient, guide, and order human life. The adequacy of

theology can therefore be judged by how well it performs these general cultural tasks.” [226] This


completely neglects theology’s necessary relationship with revelation. Without that relationship,


theology becomes anthropocentric instead of theocentric, virtually social anthropology.


Commenting on the relationship of theology and secular knowledge, T. F. Torrance says:


_…because theology has problems that overlap with philosophy and other sciences_
(including cultural studies) _, it must subject itself to rigorous control and the_
_discipline of self-critical revision in order to ensure that it is really being good_
_theology, and not some debased brand of theology that confuses its task and its_
_subject-matter with those of philosophy and or some science of nature. Thus,_
_while recognizing its own peculiar nature, and pursuing it with unceasing_
_vigilance and exacting criticism, it must think out its relation with philosophy and_
_natural science and make clear its distinction from them._ _[227]_

In pursuing this “self-critical revision” our primary source ought to be the biblical canon.  All


searches for meaning without “good theology,” wherein God speaks to us, become a grasping at


air – desiring to cling to something and never attaining a grip. Unless our meaning and purpose


is connected to something heavenly, something eternal; all meaning is temporal and fleeting. We


have no grounds for a certain hope, the faith which has signified God’s people.


Theology is the reception of revelatory information and its reasonable and accessible


translation into a cultural context(s), not to “tickle the ears” of the hearer but to accurately


divulge the needs and purposes of God. In Jesus and His cause, we find objective purpose,


meaning, and hope. Theology’s adequacy is not primarily judged upon our reception and the


fulfillment of cultural tasks but upon its faithful contextualization of the Revelator’s intention


and the successful communication of His truth, containing His perspective and tasks. The


benefits of anthropological purpose and meaning are a derivative of this communication.


Current hermeneutical thought, embodied by Tanner and others, is seemingly obsessed with


flipping the object of theology (from God to humanity) by focusing the theological endeavor


upon our search for meaning. Yes, this does have its place, but first and foremost, we must chase


after God and His revelation that He may be honored. In God, we obtain meaning.


226 Tanner, Kathryn. _Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology_, Page 64.
227 Torrance, Thomas F. _Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian_, Page 51. Clarification added.


52


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Though the agents involved in revelation’s original transmission were indeed human,

within a particular context, the Holy Spirit preserved the words of God in the prophetic office. [228]


In the same way, we should be careful to not exclude His influence even now. Does the Spirit no


longer work? In fact, we recognize that the Spirit’s relationship to us and the Word of God has

not eroded. [229] Yet we must continue to be vigilant, for spirits which do not guide us into truth

are many. [230]


As we consider culture, we must also clarify that it is not morally removed. Though


humanity was originally crafted in a perfect cultural context, corruption is introduced. “…


Because humanity is sinful, culture bears the imprint of human sinfulness. However beautiful,

great and highly cultivated it may be it is affected by human sin.” [231] On some level, all cultures


enshrine false thinking and behavior; they install human corruption as a communal norm. It is a

fool’s errand to assert that a perfect culture exists apart from the first or second Eden. [232]


Therefore, we cannot pursue ends which would rewrite the cultural studies of the past century


and conclude that some cultures are not civilized while some are. Instead, every culture, when it


encounters the true and living God through revelation, is left challenged and transformed, for

“not all Christian values are compatible with the values of any given culture…” [233]


Considering the Niebuhrian baggage attached to the word “transformed,” this thesis is not


employing that term to assert that Christianity’s primary communal purpose is to transform


228 2 Peter 1:20-21, Romans 3:2. Addressing the meaning of the 2 Peter text, Kelly articulates that human will was
only ever involved in the revelatory process, whether in cooperation or “under compulsion,” because they were
influenced by the Holy Spirit. Kelly, J. N. D. _A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude_, Pages 324-325.
229 John 14:6, 15-17, 26; 16:12-15. Beasley-Murray comments on 14:17, saying, “In contrast to the world the
disciples are to know the Paraclete because ‘he will remain alongside you…’ and ‘will be in you…’” The passage
simultaneously affirms “the presence of the Spirit with the disciples, while yet recognizing that the latter points to
the Spirit’s inner presence in individual believers…” Concerning 16:13, Beasley-Murray continues to exegete the
work of the coming Paraclete, “… the truth has been made known by Jesus to the disciples, but their grasp of it has
been limited; the task of the Paraclete will be to lead them that they may comprehend the depths and heights of the
revelation as yet unperceived by them.” Beasley-Murray, George R. _Word Biblical Commentary: John_, Pages 257258, 283.
230 1 John 4:1-4. “The author takes for granted the existence of a variety of spirits… the community is warned not to
submit itself to the various spirits, but to maintain a critical distance from them, that is, to ‘test’ them.” Strecker,
Georg. _The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John_, Page 132.
231 Nieder-Heitmann, J. H. _An Analysis and Evaluation of John S. Mbiti’s Theological Evaluation of African_
_Traditional Religions_, Page 106.
232 The first Eden, with Adam and Eve, depicts a singular culture with distinguished roles and ontological equality.
The second Eden, the new heavens and earth, does not display the abolition of diverse cultures but the marvelous
uniting of every culture in Christ. Thus, the first Eden is a vision of the perfect culture in relationship to God and
others, and the second Eden is a vision of the perfect multicultural context in relationship to God and others.
233 Oduyoye, Mercy Amba, and Hendrik M. Vroom. _One Gospel - Many Cultures: Case Studies and Reflections on_
_Cross Cultural Theology_, Page 4.


53


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


cultures. In contrast to a militant perspective, cultural transformation is a natural result of a


rendezvous between Christian revelation and human culture. Even by carrying out one


command of Christ, such as “love your enemies,” cultures are affected, and the world is

changed. [234] But Christians on every level desire that Christian ethics, as exemplified through


Jesus and His apostles, should lead us toward cultural service in some regard. Should those who


have been bestowed with the words of life be silent and still while a culture perpetuates systems


of repression against women and attitudes of normalcy toward child abuse? To these and other


injustices, we bear the biblical witness with divine authority to identify evil for what it is. Will


we not defend the downtrodden? When we remove revelation from centrality, judgments and


criticisms of cultural norms often manifest as one culture intolerantly accusing another. Only


God’s utterance offers a foundation by which we can employ a moral compass in the global


cultural marketplace fraught with injustices amongst the richness of its innumerable wares.


The canonical texts are also shaped by the cultural currents during their composition.


“God’s self-revelation in the Bible was recorded faithfully by the biblical writers, who used

whatever cultural materials they had at their disposal.” [235] Biblical writers, such as John with


_logos_ theology, often expropriated cultural/religious terms of their day in order to coherently


convey the surpassing nature of Christ. Because God chose to reveal Himself at particular times


to specific people in certain contexts, culture remains an issue from start to finish in the


Christian’s relationship with God’s Word. We must understand the biblical cultures to


accurately ascertain the intention of the divinely superintended authors, and we must be


acquainted with current cultures in order to translate the gospel truth, while not subjecting the

latter to the former. [236] But our concern lies with the hermeneutical implications on the backend


of that process.


234 Matthew 5:44. What a unique and convicting statement! The “love your enemies” text from the Sermon on the
Mount “is a classic example of Jesus’ exegesis of the Torah; far from breaking with the Torah, he interpreted it in
terms of Jewish hermeneutics of the time in order to propose a startlingly innovative interpretation...” Betz, Hans
Dieter. _The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain_
_(Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49)_, Page 309.
235 Lak, Yeow Choo. “Christianity in a Southeast-Asian Metropolis: Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics” in _One Gospel -_
_Many Cultures: Case Studies and Reflections on Cross Cultural Theology_, Page 22.
236 Even with the cultural context which flavors the revelatory writings, the perspicuity of the Bible is remarkable.
Humanity’s ability to observe, form hermeneutical conclusions, and develop applicational consequences allows
everyone to access the truth with a reasonable amount of accuracy, while simultaneously allowing for the possibility
of a new understanding based upon other canonical contexts and ANE cultural insights.


54


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**3.3** **Multiculturalism and a Multicultural Hermeneutic**


We stand at the gateway to a new era, wearing the traditional garb of our fathers and


employing the thoughts crafted in the context of the past. The distance which once slowed and


separated global discourse has rapidly shrunk and virtually vanished, and Christian theological


thought cannot ignore the consequences. It is not a question of “will we respond to this changing


environment or not?” Rather, we must ask “how will we respond?” “There are methodological


implications for undertaking theology in light of the sheer expansion of data brought about by

globalization, inculturation and non-Western theologies.” [237] Before we approach the


hermeneutical endeavor, let us first assess the situation.


As a resident of the ever-diversifying England, Graham Ward paints the following scene:


_I live in the northern part of Manchester, Salford, where the first language is now_
_arguably Punjabi – certainly it is arguable the extent to which it is English… My_
_local supermarket will serve you in English, but if you took an average day the_
_staff probably speak more Polish (to each other and their customers) than they_
_speak English. All the local shops, whether… serving pizzas, kebabs… tandoori…_
_milk… cheap vodka, are owned by Punjabi speakers. If I walk less than 200_
_yards further up the road on which my house is situated, I enter an area of several_
_square miles occupied by Hasidic Jews… These speak a variety of Yiddish_
_dialects. So as a Christian living in that area I cannot live out my faith, in fact I_
_could not even live, without being multicultural._ _[238]_

This vibrant multiculturalism leads to exceedingly profound enrichment, which Ward describes

in his personal experiences in England as “energizing.” [239] Invigorating diversity is increasing


not only on the streets of Manchester but around the globe, in the university and in the church.


One of the foremost scholars concerning culture and its relationship to theological

practice, Tanner argues that cultures are not “sharply bounded, self-contained units.” [240]


Furthermore, she thinks that “the cultures that anthropologists study are never likely to have been

closed systems in fact.” [241] But now, the innumerable cultures of the earth are more evidently

fluid due to our “age of global world systems.” [242]


237 Cartledge, Mark J. and David Cheetam. _Intercultural Theology: Approaches and Themes_, Page 1.
238 Ward, Graham. “Intercultural Theology and Political Discipleship” in _Intercultural Theology: Approaches and_
_Themes_, Page 30.
239 Ibid, Page 31.
240 Tanner, Kathryn. _Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology_, Page 53.
241 Ibid, Page 54.
242 Ibid.


55


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


The danger we face at this level is the inner urge to return. Faced with the daunting


reality of being swallowed up into the multicultural façade, will our theology retreat to the


narrow “development of contextual theology” centered upon one arbitrarily isolated cultural

manifestation and persist in resisting a multicultural theology? [243] As Ward says, “…the context

today is multicultural and multi-faith…” [244] We cannot return to ages past when Christian


theologians and pastors could formulate and practice theologies which were crafted and


conditioned by one culture. Too many worldviews operate simultaneously in small areas –


communities, universities, and churches. With Yeow Choo Lak, we can agree that in our

changing context, “there is no place for provincialism.” [245]


A great deal of theological energy has been exerted in forming helpful and insightful


American, African, and Chinese theological studies (to name but a few). For instance, in


constructing his African theological composition, Charles Nyamiti says, “… while doing African


theology, we should arrive at the stage where e.g. a Kikuyu theologian freely employs cultural


elements taken from Ghana, Congo, South Africa, etc. and integrates them in his/her Kikuyu


theology – for the simple reason that they are authentic African values, and as values they

transcend all ethnics limits.” [246] But do such admirable sentiments portray the hermeneutical


ideals of the past rather than the hermeneutical challenges of the future? Can we truly construct


an “African theology” or an “American theology” any longer? How long will this be the case?


Even if we can outline distinct theologies, should we develop them?


Kato advocated, “The noble desire to indigenize Christianity in Africa must not be


forsaken… But must one betray Scriptural principles of God and His dealing with man at the


altar of any regional theology? Should human sympathy and rationalism override what is clearly

taught in Scripture?” [247] His desire to maintain a focus upon the biblical revelation is


commendable, but the time of “regional theology” is in decline. This is now being


acknowledged.


In recognition of the multicultural era we inhabit, education has sought to be at the


forefront of multicultural issues. “Multicultural education” is a pliable term, “an umbrella term,

243 Ibid, Page 32.
244 Ibid, Page 30.
245 Lak, Yeow Choo. “Christianity in a Southeast-Asian Metropolis: Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics” in _One Gospel -_
_Many Cultures: Case Studies and Reflections on Cross Cultural Theology_, Page 13.
246 Nyamiti, Charles. _Studies in African Christian Theology: Vol. 1, Jesus Christ, the Ancestor of Humankind:_
_Methodological and Trinitarian Foundations_, Page 15. Italics removed.
247 Kato, Byang. _Theological Pitfalls in Africa_, Page 16.


56


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


used to refer to a variety of approved or demanded practices in education establishments.” [248]


Mal Leicester explains that three primary strands exist:


_1._ _Education through many cultures._
_2._ _Education in many cultures._
_3._ _Education for a multicultural society._ _[249]_


Without delving into the plethora of resulting debates, the overall agenda is clear: education


cannot be monocultural or ethnocentric. South Africa’s education system is confronted by this


on a broad scale, due to the amount of “learners from diverse cultural, linguistic, educational,

and socioeconomic backgrounds.” [250] In a school, all these contexts meet. Yet in Western,


Eastern, and African religious education; do we recognize and account for such diversity in our


theology? Are we guilty of prescribing the wrong remedy for the prevailing symptoms, elevating


one past or current cultural expression of Christianity to a superior position? The simple answer


must be yes; we do this far too often. Then what does a multicultural hermeneutic look like at


the dawn of this new day?


Having been confronted by the current multicultural trend, David Cheetham wisely


reminds us of the necessary eschatological perspective, citing the multitudes from every “nation,


tribe, people, and language” who stand before the Lamb in Revelation 7:9. He calls this the

“multicultural vision of the Kingdom of God…” [251] This adequately reminds us of the ultimate


calling of God’s people. We are not eschatologically destined to the permutations of Christian


theology but rather to unity before Christ. He is our focus and our destiny. Unity in the person,


work, and teaching of Christ is coming soon, even as we struggle for cohesion now.


However, Cheetham is not so concerned with the reality of multiple cultures operating in


one setting. He is concerned with “intercultural theology” which “could easily be described as

merely a global intra-Christian discourse.” [252] Many others have nobly sought the “significant


development of Christian theology in one cultural context through interaction with theologies

developed in other cultural contexts.” [253] This is not our primary focus in this study, and our


248 Leicester, Mal. _Multicultural Education: From Theory to Practice_, Page 22.
249 Ibid, Page 23.
250 Lemmer, Eleanor, Corinne Meier, and Noleen van Wyk. _Multicultural Education_, Page v.
251 Cheetham, David. “Intercultural Theology and Interreligious Studies” in _Intercultural Theology: Approaches_
_and Themes_, Page 43.
252 Ibid.
253 Fulljames, Peter. _God and Creation in Intercultural Theology: Dialogue between Theologies of Barth, Dickson,_
_Pobee, Nyamiti, and Pannenberg_, Page 173.


57


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


study does not seek to formally address the traditional “Christ and culture” paradigms. Lak says,


“While most theologians have to wrestle with the intricate ‘Gospel and cultures’ motif, others


have had to go beyond that to deal with the ‘Christ in multi- and cross-cultural contexts’

motif.” [254] More and more theologians are being confronted by the latter, and his recognition of


multiculturalism’s reality (specifically in Singapore) illustrates that argument.


In this thesis, it is posited that the theologians of the present and the theologians of the


future will not have one cultural context and neither will the parishioners, the students, and the


churches that they serve. In our attempt to move beyond monocultural and intercultural studies,


Walter Hollenweger, from the University of Birmingham, provides the way forward - crucial

material - as he formulated the field of intercultural theology. [255]


Of his seven point list of presuppositions for his argumentation, Hollenweger’s fifth


principle says, “The point of contact between our traditions and the new theologies from the

Third World is Scripture.” [256] Without denying that every Christian will select texts and share the


gospel through their particular cultural, traditional lens; this “point of contact” is an advance in


the multicultural communicative dilemma.


Two primary responses arise to the multicultural theological tapestry that floods the


Christian world. On one hand, we may seek to look back to the hermeneutics which seeks to


preserve and enshrine one particular cultural expression of Christianity, preserving and mining it


for its richness. The perils to this perspective are many. If we continue in this path, we may


champion the safeguarding of particular cultural theological strands, but we risk losing touch


with the culturally pluralistic world we now inhabit. Are we the defenders of past isolation or of


254 Lak, Yeow Choo. “Christianity in a Southeast-Asian Metropolis: Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics” in _One Gospel -_
_Many Cultures: Case Studies and Reflections on Cross Cultural Theology_, Page 15.
255 Hollenweger, Walter J. “Intercultural Theology” in _Theology Today_, April 1986, Vol. 43, Num. 1, Page 29.
“Intercultural theology” as a discipline is defined as “(1) All theologies are contextually conditioned. (2) There is
nothing wrong with theology being contextually conditioned. (3) It may take others to show us how conditioned,
parochial, or ideologically captive our own theology is. (4) Even if once we could ignore such voices, now we can
no longer do so. (5) The point of contact between our traditions and the new theologies from the Third World is
Scripture. (6) Only in creative tension with the widest possible perspective can we develop theologies appropriate to
our own particular situations. (7) Since within the church the ultimate loyalty is not simply to nation, class, or
culture, the universal church is uniquely suited to provide the context in which the task of creative theologizing can
take place.” While this field proves to be absolutely critical for theological communication across Christian cultural
barriers in academic settings, the ramifications of the fifth point seem to be lost in the midst of the methodological
chatter.
256 Ibid. His seven point list is included in the previous footnote.


58


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


future unity? [257] On the other hand, we may adventure forward to a hermeneutics which


recognizes the multicultural intersection of the peoples. Yes, distinctions remain. So we must


ask: how will Christian hermeneutics and the resulting theology find unity and inspire unity in


such times?


As Hollenweger suggests, we must renew our focus, not upon the particular cultural


manifestations, but upon the Bible itself. The Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who accompanies


them are what bind us together. The Bible is what unites us in the midst of the numerous


expressions of Christian theology and elucidates which theologies are not truly Christian. An


unwavering fastidiousness to the Bible and its teachings is what bridges the cultural divides


present in our Christian communities - universities, churches, and homes. The Bible, with its


grand multicultural eschatological hope, is what will continue to maintain cohesion between the


numerous theological traditions. Without disregard for the cultural distinctions that exist, we


must emphasize that which unites us, the Scriptures and the Trinitarian God of salvation it

espouses – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [258] The further we drift from this One God, His works,


and His perspective as superintended by the Holy Spirit in the revelatory composition of the Old


and New Testaments, the further we drift from true unity. We lose our point of contact, not only


with one another, but with our Heavenly Father for “God alone is the ground and source of

authentic Christian doctrine.” [259] Thus, revelation from God is what binds us together, to God.


With a biblical prioritization response to the multicultural context in which we live, we


avoid the error of letting “theological content [be] determined by the cultural milieu, as happened

in western theological liberalism.” [260] We can successfully skirt “the peril that threatens churches


of every age and culture as they seek to appropriate and communicate the message of the gospel


257 By using the word “isolation,” the intention is not to denigrate our past but rather to state the past’s reality. As
cultures throughout history were far more isolated, the present globalization fervor demands a shift in our
hermeneutical paradigm.
258 Some may perhaps choose at this point to claim the cultural dependency of this argument as I have referenced
Trinitarian theology. While it was formulated in the Greco-Roman context, I would assert that the Trinitarian
theology, though expressed in and through cultural parameters, was not manufactured but recognized, sourced from
the revelation of Scripture. Therefore, in a hypothetical attempt to translate Christianity into another culture, we
should not aim to deprive it of Trinitarian theology, but instead convey it with different language. In a multicultural
context, Trinitarian questions and therefore Trinitarian biblical theology is the natural result of biblical study. Some
theological questions are not determined by the context in which the Bible is received. They are determined by the
very context of Scripture itself. Trinitarianism arises in such a manner.
259 Thiselton, Anthony C. _The Hermeneutics of Doctrine_, Page 62.
260 Ferdinando, Keith. _Triumph of Christ in African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in the_
_African Context_, Page 406.


59


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


in their own contexts.” [261] Our Christian multicultural agenda must “ensure that its theology so


reflects the biblical emphases that it is the authentic New Testament gospel in its depth and

completeness that it is communicating.” [262]


Though fervent in its desire for biblical grounding, the Evangelical perspective does not


fit the above prescription. The confession must be made that, as a Christian movement, it does


not adequately delve into the multicultural context and reflect upon it. William Dyrness says,


“…large segments of evangelicalism remain untouched by these conversations. The continuing


failure to integrate expanding multicultural experience into a consistent understanding of culture

and cultural engagement still bedevils the evangelical movement.” [263] But with its radical desire


for the whole biblical truth to stabilize its faith and theological direction, perhaps it is better


prepared to respond to this multicultural context – not to “take back culture” but to speak the


transformative reality of redemption through Christ alone into every culture?


As we return to the focal point of this thesis (the personhood of the demonic as defined


by Karl Barth and Merrill Unger), the multicultural hermeneutic outlined here in 3.3 will be


utilized. Recognizing the numerous cultural currents which now simultaneously exist, we will


attempt to identify cultural elements in Barth and Unger which may be imposing a Western


worldview instead of propagating a biblical worldview. Once these elements are identified, we


will then proceed to offer a multicultural understanding of the personhood of the demonic,


highlighting particular cultural tendencies which either support a biblical perspective or lead us


farther away from it.


**3.4** **Reflections on Barth in the Context of Theology and Culture**


As we begin our endeavor into Barth’s cultural dimensions through his demonological


project, we must first state a glaring issue with Karl Barth’s theological method in general.


Robert Palma, in his detailing of Barth’s theology of culture, says that “there can be no facile

typing of Barth’s theological understanding of culture.” [264] Through his estimation of Barth’s


diverse interactions and engagement with culture, Palma wonders if Barth could be placed


261 Ibid.
262 Ibid.
263 Dyrness, William A. “Evangelical Theology and Culture” in the _Cambridge Companion to Evangelical_
_Theology_, Page 155.
264 Palma, Robert J. _Karl Barth’s Theology of Culture_, Page 6.


60


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


“somewhere between the ‘Christ and Culture in Paradox’ model and the ‘Christ the Transformer

of Culture’ model?” [265]


Peter Fulljames rightly roots Barth’s theological expression back into his view of the

supremacy of Scripture. We serve Christ, and “it is the Bible who witnesses to Jesus Christ.” [266]


In the resulting interpretation, all ends must lead to Christ. The hermeneutical endeavor must be

grounded in Him. [267] Throughout _Church Dogmatics_, Barth focuses on this goal. A major issue


of theology is “the relation of revelation to the _Being_ and _Person_ of God Himself. In God’s self

revelation in the Bible… God speaks to us in Person. In other words, revelation is God-in-his
revelation, God-in-his-Word.” [268] Thus, he offers “a theology which is an ontology for it is an

account of God as He is in relationship with all things.” [269] This includes his assessment of the


demonic.


With this ontological attitude toward theological formation, culture does not play an


intentionally central role in Barth’s demonology. By rooting everything into Christ, revelation is


designed to serve as the focal point of his dogmatic project. With that method, he does convey


the biblical emphasis – which is not upon the demonic itself but upon their activity and defeat in


relationship to Christ’s victorious rule. Also, his perspective concerning personhood in general


is profoundly biblical, especially in light of the Genesis creation narrative. Adam was a living


being - a person – not because of his role in culture/society but because of his relationship to


God. Essentially, God, the ultimate Person, made and declared a person to be. Therefore, a


person is. But a few aspects of Barthian demonology are more related to Western cultural


philosophy than to biblical parameters. Without attempting to exhaust every topic of discussion,


we will examine a pair of issues.


In Barth’s demonology, nothingness is a key subject of discussion. In fact, Geoffrey

Bromiley sums up Barth’s thought saying, “[Demons] belong to nothingness.” [270] Because of this


prevalent concept of nothingness – “the third order” - which we have already addressed at length,


265 Ibid. These models are shaped by Reinhold Niebuhr’s landmark work _Christ and Culture_ .
266 Fulljames, Peter. _God and Creation in Intercultural Theology: Dialogue between Theologies of Barth, Dickson,_
_Pobee, Nyamiti, and Pannenberg_, Page 15.
267 Ibid, Page 16.
268 Torrance, Thomas F. _Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian_, Page 43.
269 Ibid, Page 18.
270 Bromiley, Geoffrey W. _Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth_, Page 154.


61


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


he begins down some frustrating and perhaps self-contradictory paths. [271] This is exemplified in


Barth’s argument that “… God has not created [demons], and therefore they are not

creaturely.” [272] Yet this theological conclusion is most certainly the result of Western


philosophical underpinnings rather than the Scriptures which alludes that demons were created,

though they probably selected and subsequently championed malevolence. [273] At one point, he


actually argues that nothingness is how the Scripture understands the demonic - “this alien

element.” [274] Yet no support is given.


Barth also demands that there is no relationship between the angelic and demonic realms.


Demons are not fallen angels; they are not of the same kind. He compares their relationship to


“nonsense” which “does not denote a particular species of sense, but that which is negated and

excluded by sense…” [275] Barth brushes over the implications of passages such as Revelation


12:7 and Matthew 25:41 in order to angle his readers to this end. Throughout his treatment, the


emphasis is continually and rightfully placed on the “radical conflict” as the demonic must

always be portrayed in light of their defeat. [276] But the means by which he attains such a “radical


conflict” is in doubt from a biblical standpoint.


Concerning this whole issue of the demonic, Bromiley illuminates that Barth’s stand


concerning the uncreated nature of demons and his repudiation of an angelic fall is problematic.


In light of the handful of texts which suggest otherwise, Bromiley says:


_Unfortunately he does not back up the objection with any direct biblical material._
_His interpretation stands, then, under the shadow cast by these verses. They do_
_indeed suggest an “angelic catastrophe” as Augustine put it. Nor would it seem_
_that Barth’s understanding is totally compromised if this be their meaning. Yet he_
_takes a firm stand on the issue and in so doing lays himself open to criticism at a_
_vital point: Is he really obeying scripture as the criterion of dogmatic purity and_
_truth?_ _[277]_

The logical response is no. His Western philosophical background hijacks his demonology away


from his rigid desire for revelatory primacy to such a point that scholars like Bromiley are left

271 Mallow, Vernon R. _The Demonic: A Selected Theological Study: An Examination into the Theology of Edwin_
_Lewis, Karl Barth, and Paul Tillich_, Page 64.
272 Barth, Karl _. Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 523.
273 Romans 8:38-39. Demons are included in Paul’s list of created things. The text emphasizes that the forces and
powers listed “are all creatures, just as humans are, and no creature has the power to contend with God.” Jewett,
Robert. _Romans: A Commentary_, Page 554.
274 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 523.
275 Ibid, Page 524.
276 Ibid.
277 Bromiley, Geoffrey W. _Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth_, Page 155.


62


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


saddened. Bromiley summarizes, “When he has done so much to restore angels (and demons) as


a theme of serious theological enquiry, it is a pity that the whole discussion should end with so

questionable a thesis and procedure.” [278] For being a man who wants to be judged by his “fidelity

to the Bible,” his demonology is a rare misstep. [279]


**3.5** **Reflections on Unger in the Context of Theology and Culture**


Watered by the Evangelical tradition, Merrill Unger’s theology bears the earmarks of this


widespread teaching. Though occasionally a point of contention, “a high view of Scripture has

always been part and parcel of Evangelical thought.” [280] Sometimes this manifests as the doctrine


of biblical inerrancy, and while it is not directly affirmed in Biblical Demonology, inerrancy


theology is clearly assumed throughout. His perspective of biblical superiority exudes


throughout every one of his demonological works.


_…Whereas the Scripture account of the origin and reality of evil supernaturalism_
_offers a solid and substantial basis of explanation for the widespread persistence_
_and manifestation of Satanic and demonological phenomena from the most_
_ancient times to the present, naturalistic speculations can but inadequately_
_attribute the facts to man’s religiously superstitious mind, or to some similarly_
_unsatisfactory basis._ _[281]_
_Demons do exist, first and foremost, for God in His Word says they exist._ _[282]_
_The Word of God attests the reality of evil supernaturalism through the career of_
_both Satan and his myriads of helpers called demons or evil spirits (Luke 10:17,_
_20)._ _[283]_
_It is high time for believers to see Satan and demonic powers in their true light_
_and full Scripture perspective._ _[284]_


Even with this revelation-oriented perspective, Evangelical hermeneutics still recognizes

the need for cultural studies, especially with reference to the past. [285] In order to properly


understand the Bible, one must “‘walk in their sandals’ to understand their writings as they


278 Ibid.
279 Ford, D. F. “Conclusion: Assessing Barth” in _Karl Barth – Studies of His Theological Methods_, Page 199.
280 König, Adrio. “Evangelical Theology” in _Initiation into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and_
_Hermeneutics_, Page 101.
281 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 17.
282 Ibid, Page 36.
283 Unger, Merrill. _Demons in the World Today_, Page 8.
284 Unger, Merrill. _What Demons Can Do to Saints_, Page 12.
285 There is a “growing and sophisticated conversation about culture [that] has taken root among evangelicals…”
Dyrness, William A. “Evangelical Theology and Culture” in the _Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology_,
Page 154.


63


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


would have.” [286] The other side of the equation however, is less structured, as Evangelicals often


try to present the words of Scripture as plainly as possible, and if that particular passage


confronts or confirms the prevailing culture, so be it. Daniel Treier observes,


“‘Contextualization’ has become a fairly popular way for evangelicals to describe their


theological encounter with Scripture in culture(s), consistent with their persistent commitment to

Bible translation.” [287] Terms and concepts of the prevailing context and language are utilized in


the expressing of the truth, but nothing is above the rebuke of the biblical material. The intention

of the Bible must be taught for that is what is true; all else submits, conforms, and agrees. [288]


Ergo, concerning the field of demonology, “The fact of Christians’ engagement in an on-going

battle with the devil and his cohorts is a biblical fact which evangelical theology attests to.” [289]


Evangelicalism’s ongoing problem with the issue of culture is again replayed in Unger’s


theology. William Dyrness accurately comments concerning Evangelical theology:


_Throughout their history evangelicals have displayed ambivalence toward their_
_cultural context. The world was either something to be won over in the name of_
_Christ, or to be avoided as a source of temptation, but it could also represent a_
_resource to be exploited in pursuit of their evangelical calling. As a result, their_
_relationship with culture has been ambiguous, marked more often by vigorous_
_campaigns against particular evils believed to threaten Christian living… than by_
_thoughtful engagement with the complexities of culture._ _[290]_

Unger’s relationship to this summary is close. As Unger attempts to affirm a biblical perspective


utilizing whatever resources are available to him (primarily Scripture), he does engage wholesale


with cultural issues, but only in an attempt to usher away skepticism, remove cultural


superstitions, and validate biblical propositions concerning the reality of evil supernaturalism


(including the worldwide presence of occultism). He prefers to remain where certainty can be


grasped, saying:


_Since demonological phenomena have been found to be almost universally_
_prevalent among people of various religions and of varying degrees of culture,_
_from the remotest ages of antiquity to the present, it is practically impossible to_
_interpret accurately and to evaluate properly the religious phenomena and_


286 Klein, William. “Evangelical Hermeneutics” in _Initiation into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and_
_Hermeneutics_, Page 328.
287 Treier, Daniel J. “Scripture and Hermeneutics” in _The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology_, Page 44.
288 Ibid, Pages 323-324.
289 Ampong, Ebenezer Adu. _Deliverance in Ghanaian Neo-Pentecostal Ministries: A Critical Assessment from an_
_Evangelical Perspective_, Page 87.
290 Dyrness, William A. “Evangelical Theology and Culture” in the _Cambridge Companion to Evangelical_
_Theology_, Page 145.


64


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_practices of various peoples, which frequently are confusingly involved, without a_
_discriminating grasp of this subject.”_ _[291]_

Gaining this “discriminating grasp” is pursued in the words of Scripture which charts the course

between skepticism and superstition. [292]


Merrill Unger, even with his biblical centrality, still weaves non-biblical contributions

into his demonology. [293] In his case for the reality of the demonic realm in _Biblical Demonology_,


he inaugurates his argumentation with scriptural material and then continues with evidence from

physical nature, human nature, and human experience. [294] From these influxes alone, culture and


his cultural conceptions of the human and natural world are quietly inserted. Yet his devotion to


the scriptural revelation continues to shape and guide these secondary sources.


In Unger’s _Biblical Demonology_, one theological misstep habitually surfaces, one which

Barth vehemently sought to discard for its unbiblical “nature.” [295] Traditional demonology has


consistently defined demonic ontology prior to demonic activity. While ontological priority


might be a suitable practice for Theology Proper, the biblical testimony, en masse, does little to


outline the demonic horde’s origin or nature. Instead, it consistently and overtly witnesses


demonic activity in relationship to Bibliology, Theology Proper, Christology, Anthropology,

Eschatology, and so on. We consequently gain insight into who they are. [296] In the case of the

demonic, a biblical perspective should emphasize activity before shouldering ontology’s tasks. [297]


**3.6** **Multiculturalism and the Personhood of the Demonic**


Utilizing the previously outlined multicultural emphasis upon revelation, how then


should we approach the personhood of the demonic? How should we dialogue concerning the

291 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 1. Sadly, it appears that he still operates under the older Western
impression that there is a hierarchy of culture.
292 Ibid, Page 8.
293 He and Barth are quite united in their oversight of their own cultural presuppositions.
294 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Pages 36-39.
295 Whether or not Barth avoided this fault is up for debate, especially considering how the ontological reality of
nothingness overshadows the architecture of his demonology.
296 Matthew 12:43-45 is a helpful example of the principle stated above.  While describing the activity of an
expelled demon, we are granted the knowledge of a gradation of evil among these ambient spirits. The fact that the
demon returns with seven others “‘more evil than itself,’ to lodge in the same person…” is critical to the point Jesus
is arguing. The “last state… of the person has become worse than the first state…” Jesus’ miracles had helped, but
the “evil generation” showed no repentance or commitment to Him and His cause. So they were left worse off than
before. Hagner, Donald A. _Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13_, Page 357.
297 Since this thesis is an analytical work on previously constructed systematic demonologies, there is no harm in
pursuing an ontologically driven endeavor. If this was an article attempting to offer a new biblical demonology for
others’ analysis, a structural reorientation to prioritize demonic activity before ontology would be pursued.


65


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


personal supernatural beings, especially considering the massive worldview gaps between the


Western and African minds?


First, the Bible must speak, and we must listen. Regarding the study of demons, the


African worldview will face less direct confrontation. Keith Ferdinando, a preeminent scholar in


the realm of demonology in the African context, remarks, “Indeed in key respects African beliefs

are closer to a biblical paradigm than is western rationalistic scepticism.” [298] The cosmological


views of the Bible offer “a perspective more sympathetic to African beliefs” than the paradigms

of the West. [299] Thus, an African who maintains that “the invisible and visible worlds are not…


two separate spheres but… different dimensions of a single indivisible reality…” has less of an

intellectual journey than a Westerner when he encounters the biblical material. [300] But the Bible


transforms everyone’s understanding of the world, with each culture and person being affected


differently.


Unfortunately, even some Africans would prefer to title a great deal as superstition,


saying, “The Devil, satyrs, fauns, the legendary inhabitants of the Golden Age and the noble

savage of the Age of Enlightenment are other imaginary creations of Western man.” [301] But are


not the Devil (and perhaps satyrs) a part of biblical cosmology? Can we steal one part of the


Christian world (Jesus) without the whole? Who are we to determine what is true, real, and


relevant? In this regard, syncretism, polytheism, and naturalism await the adventurous.


These attempts at an intellectual rejection of the revelatory witness with its recordings of


supernatural phenomena are more commonly a Western activity. But how wise are these


endeavors? Ferdinando comments, “Most peoples, for most of history, have believed in spirits,

witchcraft and sorcery.” [302] The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal mentions that “belief in spirits

is widespread in the ancient and modern world.” [303] If we narrow the subject to apparitions and


necromancy, in overtly skeptical Western Countries, another source alleges that an increasing


298 Ferdinando, Keith. _Triumph of Christ in African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in the_
_African Context_, Page 5.
299 Ibid, Pages 378-379.
300 Ibid, Page 27.
301 p’Bitek, Okot. _African Religions in Western Scholarship_, Page 35.
302 Ferdinando, Keith. _Triumph of Christ in African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in the_
_African Context_, Page 376.
303 Stein, Gordon. “Spiritualism” in _The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal_, Page 713.


66


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


number of adults over the past century and a half have seen an apparition of some kind, nearly

one third of those most recently polled. [304] The paranormal is not out of style.


In a global context, a multicultural forum would present the modern skeptic as being the

odd one out. Should they not bear the burden of disproving the norm? [305] In the revealing light


of the biblical material, the case against the skeptic grows greater. As Ferdinando candidly

posits, “Biblical supernaturalism contrasts sharply with western skepticism…” [306]


While the biblical material regarding the demonic may prove profoundly plausible in a


multicultural context, personhood is a different discussion. Specifically within African


traditionalism, there are major distinctions between it and the Western worldview. In his work


_The Living Dead and the Living God_, Klaus Nürnberger comments:


_In the West, a person is characterized by communicative competence on one hand_
_and definite personality traits on the other… However, the concept of “personal”_
_may be understood quite differently in traditionalist Africa. The individual is part_
_of a greater structure of relationships in which each element impacts the other_
_according to relative proximity and relative “weight.” The decisive ingredients_
_are “presence” and “authority.” One’s identity is not defined so much by one’s_
_individual personality traits as by one’s location in the communal hierarchy and_
_the impact of this “status” on everything else in one’s life world._ _[307]_

But do either personhood positions, though culturally widespread within their respective


environments which increasingly junction and blend, bear out how God wishes us to understand


ourselves? Perhaps these particular cultural manifestations of the nature of personhood reflect


the results of living as persons. As in, because we are persons, we “love our neighbors as

ourselves,” and serve our Christian community because we are a body together not apart. [308] But

ultimately we are persons because God made us to be persons, in community with Him. [309] The


304 Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. “Apparitions” in _The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits_, Page 15. She leans heavily
upon the polling of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Council (NORC). According to Guiley,
the last poll on apparitions was completed in 1987, and forty-two percent of American adults surveyed admitted
some form of contact with the dead, with seventy-eight percent of those who had contact reporting an apparition of
some kind.
305 Ibid.
306 Ferdinando, Keith. _Triumph of Christ in African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in the_
_African Context_, Page 379.
307 Nürnberger, Klaus. _The Living Dead and the Living God: Christ and the Ancestors in a Changing Africa_, Page
31.
308 Mark 12:31, 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. Regarding the figure of the body in 1 Corinthians 12, Conzelmann believes
“that Paul’s attack is directed against the practice of individuals’ disassociating themselves from the ‘body,’ that is,
against enthusiastic individualism.” Together, we are whole. Being apart is never supposed to occur.
309 Genesis 1:26, 2:7. We are who we are, persons, because of God who made us in entirety, and even from the
context of Eden, we are not supposed to be alone. Essentially, God creates a person who is displayed as a person in


67


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


resulting cultural theories as to what amounts to “personhood” are simply derivative outworkings


of our personhood as grounded in God’s creative work.


Let us begin to turn to the issue of demonic personhood. Nürnberger broadens this


discussion on personhood to more than simply the human and divine. He says:


_But this network of human relationships is not restricted to the human community._
_In fact, there are no clearly defined boundaries between the self, the other and the_
_whole. Therefore we do not find a sharp distinction between the personal and the_
_impersonal that one finds in Western thought patterns, just as there is no clear_
_distinction between the immanent and transcendent. Reality is one vast system of_
_relationships. In this sense, the whole of reality is “personalized.” When a_
_calamity strikes, the first question is always, “Who did it?” The cause can be_
_sorcerers, witches or their (non-human) “familiars.”_ _[310]_

As we continue to let the African cultural context offer input into our discussion concerning


personhood, Herbert Bucher, in his analysis of Shona cosmology, says, “Power is wielded both


by tangible persons and by invisible entities, which latter are however, no less real an experience

than the former.” [311] Though these “invisible entities” do not directly correlate to the malevolent


demons of the Bible, their conceptions of ancestral territorial spirits, with their indispensable role


in the community power systems, certainly allows conceptual space for unseen demons with


personhood.


It should be mentioned that Nürnberger falls into the common problem of letting one’s


needs dictate the discussion. Speaking about the unfortunate nature of many Christian Africans’


religious duplicities, he asserts, “…the Christ they came to know through the message of the


missionaries, subsequent religious leaders, even their own reading of the Bible, does not seem to

have covered their most pressing spiritual needs.” [312] As we already posited in chapter one,


seeking to remedy “needs” is too often a false avenue. Perhaps instead of seeking Christ as the


response to their needs, the religiously bifurcated African (or Westerner) ought to seek Christ


that He may define both his needs and solutions. But Nürnberger chooses to limit the level of


dialogue permissible saying that “dialogue between Christian and African religions should not


and through community. Bill Arnold says on Genesis 2:7, “The ‘living being’ is not some disembodied component
of the human being, distinct from his physical existence; a ‘soul’ comprising one portion of a person’s whole being.
Rather the ‘living being’ denotes the totality of the human.” Arnold, Bill T. _Genesis_, Pages 57-58.
310 Nürnberger, Klaus. _The Living Dead and the Living God: Christ and the Ancestors in a Changing Africa_, Page
31. Nürnberger proceeds to indicate myriads of other possible causes.
311 Bucher, Hubert. _Spirits and Power: An Analysis of Shona Cosmology_, Page 189.
312 Ibid, Page 40.


68


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


happen… at the level of ontological speculation.” [313] The result is that the Bible is not allowed to


define the players and needs, and it is left only to submit the moldable clay of Christ who may or


may not fit into an African’s situation.


As we continue to move toward tackling the issue of demonic personhood in light of a


multicultural context, we must again recall the preeminence of revelatory information. John


Mbiti writes:


_Any viable theology must have a biblical basis… nothing can substitute for the_
_Bible. However much African cultural religious background may be close to the_
_biblical world, we must guard against references like “the hitherto unwritten_
_‘African Old Testament’” or sentiments that see any final revelation of God in the_
_African religious heritage._ _[314]_

Yet, while this brief statement appears to place emphasis and priority on the influx of biblical


material into a formidable Christian theology, it remains to be seen if this plays out in practice.


In light of theological formation around the world, it must be conceded that Christian theology


can be formed with the Bible and without African cultural input. In reverse, a truly “Christian”


theology cannot be constructed with African cultural input and without the Bible. The cultural


information and context is interchangeable (though not superfluous); the biblical/revelatory

contribution is essential. [315]


J. H. Nieder-Heitmann rejects anyone who would attempt to completely rescue any


cultural element from transformation, “Sin has totally permeated man’s being, religion and


culture. Religion is a systematic unity and every element revolves around the axis of a religion.


For these reasons there are no unblemished values in African Religion(s) which can be separated

from the ‘dead’ and ‘rotten’ elements.” [316] Such is true in every context. Since culture is an


interwoven, interconnected tapestry, any change or influx creates a new whole. Too many seek


to rescue, prune, and redeem their religious heritage, when in reality it stands wholly affected.


As Amos chided ancient humanity for following the idolatrous religion of their ancestors, as Paul


so passionately declared that the Colossians were free from “philosophy which depends upon


human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces this world rather than on Christ,” we too must


313 Ibid.
314 Mbiti, John S. _Bible and Theology in African Christianity,_ Page 59.
315 In no way is this statement seeking to demean the richness of culture’s contributions to the Christian experience.
316 Nieder-Heitmann, J. H. _An Analysis and Evaluation of John S. Mbiti’s Theological Evaluation of African_
_Traditional Religions_, Page 104


69


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


be prepared for the consequences of accepting the Word of God. [317] But why should we worry?


What is a new perspective and a fresh attitude toward our culture when, as Paul says, we gain

Christ, “who possesses all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge?” [318]


As the oceans that divide the Western and African cultures evaporate with Christians of


both (and other) backgrounds converging in churches, universities, and communities; how then


will we aim to provide a multicultural Christian response (especially to the personhood of the


demonic) where one culture is not elevated by pejorative perspectives and prejudicial posturing?


We must let biblical revelation speak truth into our conceptions of the malevolent spirit world (or


lack thereof). The Bible must lead as our primary source of truth and unity in a multicultural

world. It stands as “the final judge of every culture.” [319]


Such a bold perspective between the Bible and culture easily garners criticism as being


narrow and unaccepting. A bibliocentric and Christocentric attitude can and does tend to err


toward a disposition of cultural engagement marred by laziness, ignorance, and

dismissiveness. [320] But the abuse of a position does not negate its validity. Revelatory priority


still stands. In a multicultural situation, criticism of each particular culture which composes the


context is inevitable. “Once multiculturalism is more widely accepted, then the much needed

internal critique of traditions and customs will accelerate.” [321] This is not a curse but a blessing.


After we accept the multicultural reality, the issue then changes. As Christians who are directed


by the revelatory truth of the Bible, shall we let another culture or our own culture determine the


corrections that should be embraced? This thesis urges us to embrace the Word of God, first and


foremost, and in our pursuit of biblical Christianity, our relationship and perspective toward


culture will consequently transform.


317 Amos 2:4; Colossians 2:8, author’s paraphrase. Amos indicts Judah not only because they had turned from the
true God but because they had accepted false ones. This led to a traditional, generational rebellion. “The action of
the parents becomes paradigmatic to their children. The sons follow their parents in being led astray by idol
worship.” Paul, Shalom M. _Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos_, Page 75.
318 Colossians 2:3, author’s paraphrase. The exclusivity of Colossians 2 is jarring. “Just as the right understanding
of the community is dependent upon Christ alone, so also ‘Wisdom…’ and ‘knowledge…’ have their ground only in
him.” The Greek term _pantes_ “bans all exceptions, so that all attempts to search out other sources of knowledge
besides Christ are vain and false.” Christ is exalted by Paul due to the dangers of deceivers in verse 4 and captors in
verse 8. Lohse, Eduard. _Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to_
_Philemon_, Page 82.
319 Kato, Byang. _African Cultural Revolution and the Christian Faith_, Page 42.
320 The opposite is far worse. A culture-centric theology lends itself to “laziness, ignorance, and dismissiveness”
toward God’s revealed truth. This position flirts with a Christ-less Christianity, the far greater evil.
321 Katsiaficas, George, and Teodros Kiros. _The Promise of Multiculturalism_, Page 7.


70


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


This conclusion is not supposed to leave the multicultural context devoid of cultural


richness. Once the Scripture has taken its place as the central invigorator and director of the


Christian faith, we do not and cannot leave our cultures. We cannot obliterate our pasts. But in


the glorious light of our Savior, we rejoice in our cultural diversity within the unity we now have


in Christ. We are not divided, for there is no longer “Greek and Jew, circumcised and

uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.” [322] Let us


abscond from such misleading titles as Christian Africans or Christian Westerners, and be


radically united with Christ, in identity and activity. We have been inseparably united to the


person and work of Jesus Christ.


The time has come to turn directly to the issue of demonic personhood in a multicultural


context. In our desire to let God speak and to let His Word shape our needs, practices, and


solutions; we have already highlighted the African’s spiritual (non-skeptical) worldview as


helpful in approaching God’s supernatural revelation. Indeed, in a diverse context, they have


much to offer in their fresh biblical perspectives which will further ground us in the Scriptures,


as it was meant to be read. But what cultural tendencies may arise which would serve as


stumbling blocks toward a cohesive multicultural community?


One of the most controversial topics, especially in African theological circles, is


regarding ancestors, which form a vital part of the African worldview. Simply put, they “are still

a part of the family.” [323] In relationship to the issue of personhood, we should remember

Nürnberger’s assessment, “…the whole of reality is ‘personalized.’” [324] Personhood does not


bear the brunt of scrutiny; rather, the issue of “demonic” does. This specifically is raised


concerning the African’s relationship with their ancestors. So Nürnberger comments,


“…ancestors should never be mistaken as being part of the demonic realm, as has sometimes


been done in missionary and evangelistic circles. According to the biblical witness, ancestors


have been normal human beings when they were alive… They cannot be anything else in


322 Colossians 3:11, NASB. “What separates men from one another in the world – which of course still exists – has
been abolished in the community of Jesus Christ.” The author of Colossians “speaks about men of completely
diverse origins who have been gathered together in unity in Christ through allegiance to one Lord. True, they also
continue to live in the roles that the world assigns to them as Greeks or Jews, slaves or free. But where the Body of
Christ exists and where his members are joined together into a fellowship, there the differences which separate men
from one another are abolished.” Lohse, Eduard. _Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the_
_Colossians and to Philemon,_ Pages 143-145.
323 Steyne, Philip M. _Gods of Power: A Study of the Beliefs and Practices of Animists_, Page 80.
324 Nürnberger, Klaus. _The Living Dead and the Living God: Christ and the Ancestors in a Changing Africa_, Page
31.


71


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


death.” [325] After an examination the biblical text, he concludes in a plenary fashion, “As far as the


authority of the deceased is concerned, therefore, the messages of the Old Testament and the


New Testament leave no room for doubt; nothing, absolutely nothing, should ever assume

authority over God’s people, or be given space to stand between God and His people.” [326] Thus,


the Christian led by revelation does not lose his ancestors, but instead, his relationship to them is


drastically reshaped. Especially within a Christian context; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the


pantheon of faithful believers, as recounted in Hebrews 11, do not serve as present authorities or

intermediaries but as relevant examples and encouragements in our present situation. [327] This


cultural issue is simultaneously affirmed, corrected, and transformed. In a multicultural context,


a biblical perspective of the ancestors would add to the richness of theological understanding,


speaking into the past paradigms which still operate amongst those of other cultures. No doubt


many of a more Western persuasion could be reminded of the biblical value and theological


importance of our spiritual forbearers.


Since we have properly bifurcated the subjects of ancestors and demons, we must turn to


the spirits themselves. Gerrit Brand observes “…it is doubtful whether African Traditional


Religion ever knew of an absolutely evil spirit, comparable to the figure of Satan. It is, in any


case, abundantly clear that _most_ African spirits – whether ancestors of non-human spirits – are,

like humans, regarded as morally ambiguous.” [328] How far is this ambiguousness from the


biblical revelation? If we consider (1) the spirit of Job 4:12-21, (2) Satan’s ability to disguise


himself in 2 Corinthians 11:14, and (3) the Johannine command to test the spirits in 1 John 4:1-4;

ambiguity seems to be an inherent dynamic of the biblical recording of spiritual interactions. [329]


But the Scriptures see fit to delineate and distinguish the actuality of the spirit world, not merely


our perception of it. Evil spirits (demons) exist, exerting varying levels of perverse influence in


this realm. Therefore, we must approach ambiguous circumstances with caution!


325 Ibid, Page 14.
326 Ibid, Page 62.
327 Probably the most remarkable outworking of this engagement of revelation with culture is concerning Abraham.
Indeed, as Christians, he is our ancestor, and we are his seed.
328 Brand, Gerrit. _Speaking of a Fabulous Ghost: In Search of Theological Criteria, with Special Reference to the_
_Debate on Salvation in African Christian Theology_, Page 100.
329 For more on Job 4:12-21, see section 2.5.2. For more on 1 John 4:1-4, see section 3.2. As for the text in 2
Corinthians 11:14, debate does exist as to whether it reflects one instance of Satanic disguise or his “habitual
activity.” But from the passage itself, no reason is apparent which would limit Satan’s masquerade to one instance,
just as his servants (human false apostles) continue their fraud. For more on this discussion, see Thrall, Margaret, E.
_II Corinthians: Volume II_, Pages 695-696.


72


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Another issue, as we have repeatedly addressed throughout this thesis, is the skeptical


proclivities of the Western mind in the Christian context. Though it might be an understatement


to classify it as merely a “tendency,” Ferdinando summarizes, “Western scholarship has tended

to be skeptical toward African claims about both spirit and occult attack…” [330] Possession,


witchcraft, and other manifestations of a malevolent, accessible, and personal spiritual realm are


often relegated to the psychological sphere. Of course, the logic of such bold skepticism is


tedious, as the denial of every so-called spiritual or demonic event requires far more


investigation and faith than the openness and acceptance of the possibility. The odds are not in

skepticism’s favor. [331] Ferdinando concludes, “… the case for the predominantly skeptical

western approach has not been established.” [332]


In a multicultural context composed of but not limited to African and Western Christians,


the biblical material concerning the demonic, on a canonical level, harshly rebukes this Western


skepticism while not necessary confirming the entire perspective of the African Christian.


However, this rebuked skepticism does serve a valid biblical function. While others may lean


toward being too accepting in a diverse context, this skepticism may prove helpful to the whole


in dispelling and remedying the overall ambiguity of the spirit realm. Ergo, as Christians who


are first and foremost directed by the testimony of Scripture, a chastened skepticism should no


longer deny the demonic but clarify it.


Therefore, in a multicultural context, the path to unity while avoiding ethnocentricism


and isolationism is found in a biblical adherence which transcends and transforms our


relationship to our cultures. This is profoundly crucial concerning our approach to the


personhood of the demonic and the spirit realm in a diverse setting. In multicultural churches


and communities, the reading together of the biblical information concerning the demonic


becomes paramount. By this, cultural superstitions are dispersed, and cultural skepticism is


reshaped. Accepting the Scripture as our primary guide, we, of every people and tongue, are left


330 Ferdinando, Keith. _The Triumph of Christ in the African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in_
_the African Context_, Page 372.
331 For a skeptic to be validated in his dismissive attitude toward the reality of the demonic realm, every single
instance must be thoroughly disproven beyond the level of reasonable doubt. Undermining such skeptics only
requires one instance of the “so-called” demonic which provides a unexplainable level of curiosity-provoking
evidence. As Christians, should not the biblical narratives of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospels provoke us to openness
instead of driving us to skepticism?
332 Ferdinando, Keith. _The Triumph of Christ in the African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and Redemption in_
_the African Context_, Page 378.


73


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


with the distinct biblical theology that the demonic realm is indeed personal in description. To


those who experience it, caution and sobriety is ordered, that they might avoid remedies which


do not find their root in the authority and testimony of Christ. To those who do not knowingly


encounter demonic personalities, faithfulness and watchfulness is commanded that they might


pursue the cause of Christ in a world ruled and manipulated by the enemy’s servants.


**3.7** **Conclusion**


As we conclude this chapter, let us recapitulate the divulged argumentation. In order to


analyze Barth and Unger’s perspective concerning the personhood of the demonic in a


multicultural context, groundwork had to be laid. Culture itself was initially described,


particularly focusing on its relationship to the gospel and hermeneutics. Primarily utilizing


African theological compositions, we advocated that “Africans need to formulate theological


concepts in the language of Africa. But theology itself in its essence must be left alone. The

Bible must remain the basic source of Christian theology.” [333] Avoiding tendencies to champion


solely “Western” or “African” theologies, we ultimately resisted any attempts to simply attribute


theology as being another manifestation of cultural processes and goals. Because theology is


ultimately concerned with the proper reception and comprehension of the revelatory material and


hermeneutically conveying it into our cultural context, theology and culture are indeed related,


but the revelatory weight of the Word of God lends theology the strength to speak into our


cultures and to transform (affirming and rebuking) our relationships with them.


Having established a revelation-centered understanding of culture, multiculturalism and


its impact upon hermeneutical and theological arenas was investigated. With increasing


diversity in churches, Christian communities, and universities in limited geographical areas,


God’s people can no longer function as isolated cultural manifestations of Christianity, because


multiple cultures are present. How do we find Christian cohesion? Some might attempt to


service one culture’s particular needs, and yes, some division may be necessary in order to


bridge linguistic gaps. But our emphasis must lie on the elevation of the biblical perspective in


the midst of a multicultural community. Christ, as revealed in the Scriptures, unites.


As the overarching foil for our analysis of the personhood of the demonic, Barth and


Unger’s perspective toward theology and culture was integrated into the discussion. We


333 Kato, Byang H. “Theological Anemia in Africa” in _Biblical Christianity in Africa_, Page 12.


74


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


concluded that while Barth desired to have a theology which was biblically derived, his


demonology is essentially “hijacked” by his Western philosophical presuppositions. Even


Bromiley was left saddened by Barth’s demonological conclusions. Somehow through it all, he


maintains a demonic realm which is personal, remaining true to a biblical perspective, yet the


demonic’s uncreated origin and its relationship with nothingness is incongruent with the


revelatory material.


Merrill Unger constructs a demonology that is far more biblical. However, he quickly


succumbs to the ever-popular Evangelical mistake of failing to fully define the roles of other


sources which inevitably surface in any theology. In Unger’s case, he elevates biblical authority


yet allows traditional (cultural) paradigms to define the very system with which he approaches


the personal demonic beings described in Scripture. Thus, unlike the Bible, he formulates a


demonology that is grounded upon their ontology, when revelation ushers in demonic themes


through their activity. Only through demons’ activities do we begin to discern their ontology.


We then turned to multiculturalism and the personhood of the demonic. In a diverse


context, the Bible must speak, and the African perspective is largely affirmed by the Bible’s


primarily personal understanding of the spiritual world. Yet the African spiritual world is not


beyond biblical transformation for the African Christian in a multicultural context. After


properly dividing the subject of the ancestors from the malevolent spirits, spirits in general


require caution and testing due to the remarkable level of ambiguity in biblically recorded


instances. Western Christianity’s tendency toward skepticism is also transformed in light of the


biblical material. Revelatory acceptance instead of empirical presumptuousness is required, but


a skeptical mindset still lends itself to usefulness balancing and correcting those who might be


far too oblivious and ambitious with their relationship to unseen evils.


Therefore, we can conclude that when we accept the biblical material concerning the


personhood of the demonic in chapter two, it transforms the multicultural Christian community’s


perspective toward the demonic. The Bible affirms and rebukes, leaving us united and enriched


by our contextual perspectives yet grounded and directed by a singular understanding and


response to the personal malevolent spirit realm.


75


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**4.** **The Strengths and Weaknesses of Barth and Unger’s Positions toward a Defensible**


**Account of the Personal Nature of the Demonic**


**4.1** **Introduction**


Now that we have outlined and interacted with the pivotal topics of recent biblical


scholarship and the multicultural context, we will draw out some concerns and affirmations from


those theological avenues with regard to the demonological contributions of Karl Barth in


_Church Dogmatics_ and Merrill Unger in _Biblical Demonology_ . Since we concluded in chapter


two that the majority of authors advocated that the Bible does envision intermediary beings


which act malevolently and that these beings progressively manifest as personal demons, we


must then ask if Barth and Unger have strengths and weaknesses in these areas. Also, since we


affirmed in chapter three that our increasingly multicultural context demands a biblical emphasis


in order to avoid cultural preferences over one another, we must also investigate any strength or


weaknesses which may turn up in Barth and Unger’s theology of demonic personhood when it is


challenged by the multicultural context.


As we confront Barth and Unger’s writings with our assessments from the recent biblical


scholarship and the multicultural context, we must be reminded: no work of scholarship, no


cultural study is absolute. Their criticisms and encouragements toward Barth and Unger should


not be unreflectively swallowed, for their perspectives are flawed, just as the perspectives of this


thesis are certainly defective in places. With that in mind, let us first delve into Barth’s


theological offerings.


**4.2** **Karl Barth’s Strengths with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic**


While Barth’s theology does not address the personhood of the demonic at length, it is


briefly mentioned. As we have seen, this arises because of his overwhelming desire to maintain


a biblical perspective. His stand against demythologization, in the Bultmann sense of the word,


is quite contrary to the academic thought at that time. But overall, we observed that Barth’s


demonology as a whole is swamped with philosophical convictions. Therefore, the strengths and


weaknesses of Barth’s demonological positions are tenuous and debatable, as one cannot always


discern what source (whether Scripture, reason/philosophy, or culture) is grounding his


theological decision.


76


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


When we narrow the topic to simply demonic personhood, Barth’s biblical


presuppositions shine. Speaking from a Barthian perspective, it is likely an over-step to


designate demons as fully ontological beings, though he might inadvertently refer to them as

beings. [334] But as uncreated “beings” derived from nothingness, “which ultimately traces back…

to God,” they are most certainly real. [335] Barth has no problem describing them in personal

ways. [336] They are essentially nothingness in personal form. With such an arguably non-biblical


(and eisegetical) concept of nothingness which would easily lend itself to a completely


depersonalized view of evil, why would Barth reach a personalized conclusion?


His biblicism demands this conclusion. Indeed, the Bible describes demons as a part of


the kingdom which stands opposed against God. Barth aggressively asserts:


_…it is for the Bible no mere figure of speech or poetic fancy or expression of_
_human concern but the simple truth that nothingness has this dynamic, that it is a_
_kingdom on the march and engaged in invasion and assault… a kingdom which_
_by the very fact that God confronts it is characterised from the very outset as_
_weak and futile… yet a real kingdom, a nexus of form and power and movement_
_and activity, of real menace and danger within its appointed limits. This is how_
_Holy Scripture sees nothingness. And this is how it also sees demons._ _[337]_
_Nothingness is falsehood. It exists as such, having a kind of substance and_
_person, vitality and spontaneity, form and power and movement. As such it_
_founds and organises its kingdom. And demons are its exponents, the powers of_
_falsehood in a thousand different forms._ _[338]_

Of course, this reality is always posed in tension. He wishes to cede no ground to those who


“boldly demythologise.” Demons cannot be ignored. But they cannot be respected as true


powers. Their falsehood, their nothingness should never be out of view.


In light of recent biblical scholarship, what is Barth’s strength? By far, Barth’s stated


desire for activity’s preeminence in the demonic field stands out. Biblical scholarship is quite


uniform on the matter; demonology itself, though frequently referenced, is a supplementary


theme throughout the Scriptures. Barth says well, “…the Bible only touches on this sphere at all


334 “We cannot deny but must soberly recognise that in all these things the demons are constantly present and active.
Fortunately the angels are also present and active. But there can be no doubt that the demons are there too, beings
which betray their nature by this fatal ‘too.’” Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 528. He even utters the
term “demonic being” two pages later.
335 Mallow, Vernon R. _The Demonic: A Selected Theological Study: An Examination into the Theology of Edwin_
_Lewis, Karl Barth, and Paul Tillich_, Page 54.
336 Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_, III, 3, Page 481.
337 Ibid, Page 524.
338 Ibid, Page 527.


77


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


as it shows God and His angels to be in conflict with it… it does not in the least require us to

consider or take this sphere seriously in and for itself.” [339] This perspective floods into his idea of


demonic personhood. While he is completely comfortable discussing anthropology and


Christology with their respective ontological ramifications, demonology is not afforded the same


attention but is discussed with direct reference to their activity of opposition. In his demonology,


ontology is a concern, as he is still defending the doctrine of nothingness, but demonic

personhood occurs more incidentally. [340]


This thesis then moved forward from recent biblical scholarship in order to approach and


integrate the multicultural context into the analysis at hand. Again, Barth’s strength flows from


his prioritization of the biblical material, at least with regard to demonic personhood. Thus, in a


European context comfortable with Bultmann’s demythological project, Barth surprisingly


advocates that the Scriptures assert personal perspectives toward the demonic realm. From the


conclusions provided in chapter three, Barth’s demonology proves fairly coherent in a


multicultural context, though his philosophical thought concerning nothingness and other


outstanding issues do cause hindrances in attaining communal unity in the Scriptures.


**4.3** **Karl Barth’s Weaknesses with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic**


After examining biblical scholarship concerning the personhood of the demonic, the


problems with Barth’s demonological project are quite glaring. Karl Barth, while engaging the


major theological trends and questions of his time, is found to be inconsistent. While claiming a


demonology grounded in Scripture, his perspective in _Church Dogmatics_ rarely returns to it,


leaving the reader to question what scholarship and texts he entertained to construct his


positions. Yes, he offers biblical conclusions, as in a demonic realm that is real, active, and


personal, but though those demonological conclusions may fit within the larger work, they

certainly strike as unusual in his nothingness-dominated demonology. [341] When he does directly


339 Ibid, Page 522.
340 While this is a strength of Barth’s, this is a noticeable flaw in Unger’s demonology. The biblical material
relegates the ontology and origin of the demonic as nearly inconsequential. Instead, we are consistently warned to
be alert because of their activities. This biblical orientation is not embraced by Unger. He argues for the reality and
origin of demons long before he directly assesses their influence and effect in the created realm. In _Biblical_
_Demonology_, Pages 35-66 address their reality, identity, and description. Page 67 begins Unger’s analysis of
demonic activity.
341 Bromiley, Geoffrey W. _Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth_, Page 155.


78


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


utilize Scripture, the Apocalypse surprisingly stands as a central text, blurring an already difficult

subject with a difficult genre. [342]


Again, we turn to the topic of culture and theology. We will now highlight Barth’s


primary weakness in his personhood of the demonic in light of the multicultural context, but we


must be careful to not offer an anachronological critique. As in, when he wrote in the middle of


the 1900’s, could we declare that the processes of globalism and multiculturalism had begun in


full? How then could we admonish Barth for not taking it into account!

As we noticed, Barth’s theological relationship to culture is not obvious. [343] As all


theologians do, he clearly operates within a cultural framework, but his stated desire is to be


directed by revelation. This sentiment and his discomfort with demonology combine to offer us


little interaction with cultural ramifications of his demonology. Maintaining a biblical


demonology, especially with regard to personhood, does inevitably lead us to various


confrontation and affirmation situations with the cultural information we are sociologically fed.


Unfortunately, this is not a concern of Barth’s, and we are left to do this task. But this weakness


is perhaps a strength in a multicultural context, as no particular culture is elevated to being a


primary interlocutor, though he does not identify and engage his own cultural presuppositions.


Instead, he wishes that the biblical material might speak, and it does in part. Now let us shift to


the strengths and weaknesses of Merrill Unger’s personhood of the demonic.


**4.4** **Merrill Unger’s Strengths with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic**


_Biblical Demonology_ is a direct systematic attempt to compile and analyze the biblical


information regarding the demonic, with the hope of providing meaningful and challenging


application for the Christian in the world. In his endeavor to search out the demonic subject, he


avoids common arbitrary hermeneutical assumptions, desiring that he might remain consistent to


the biblical claims. The end result perhaps overwhelms the reader with references. Fidelity to


the biblical material and what it intended to convey, from a canonical perspective, is a clear


priority. He says:


342 Barth fails to interact with biblical scholars throughout his demonological section (angelology is a different
matter). A common, unfortunate error of some systematic theologians is the disconnection of biblical scholarship
from the formal theological enterprise. On this subject, he is a perfect example. But Unger completely contrasts
Barth’s absence of interlocuters with a persistent interaction with biblical and theological scholarship.
343 Fulljames, Peter. _God and Creation in Intercultural Theology: Dialogue between Theologies of Barth, Dickson,_
_Pobee, Nyamiti, and Pannenberg_, Page 15.


79


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_… there is not a hint that Jesus or any of the New Testament writers had the_
_slightest doubt as to the real existence of either Satan or the demons. They_
_believed in their reality as much as in the existence of God, or of the good angels._
_Only slight investigation is necessary to expose the extreme crudity,_
_destructiveness, and untenability of the rationalistic and mythical view of Satan_
_and demons. It not only jeopardizes the character and truthfulness of the Son of_
_God himself, but challenges the authenticity and reliability of the whole Bible._
_For if the teachings of Scripture on the subject of Satan and demons are judged_
_mythical, any other doctrine of Holy Writ may likewise be declared mythical at_
_the caprice of the critic, who is disposed to offset his opinions against those of the_
_prophets, apostles, and the Lord himself._ _[344]_

This humble approach, wherein he sets the Scriptures above himself, dictates his approach to the


demonic.


Unger’s greatest strength is his unashamed attitude of receptivity toward the Bible.


Because he seeks to simply accept the text instead of reinterpreting it, his personhood of the


demonic, much like Barth’s, finds few enemies amongst modern biblical scholarship, though he


certainly has less friends in the theological realm considering how strongly he rebukes imposed


textual judgments which stray from the original intention of the author. With the gospels at


center stage, he attempts to describe the phenomena recorded, and he consequently dismisses any

conclusion that would seek to depersonify the demonic. [345] As the previously analyzed biblical


scholarship mostly recognized the personal nature of the demonic confrontations in the gospels


and remained open to the possibility of personhood in other texts, Unger, accepting the


Scriptures as a canonical whole, has no problem viewing the entire demonic theme as personal


even when it is not explicitly revealed.


Again, considering that _Biblical Demonology_ was originally composed in the 1952, we


cannot expect Unger to fully account for the multicultural context in his demonology. But he


does have an eye for diversity. The near universal existence of “demonological phenomena”

serves as an introductory context by which he begins his study. [346] Even with his clearly Western


background, he seeks to encounter the text in such a way that it speaks to the global experience.


Unger does not arrive at his biblical study of the demonic out of unusual curiosity;


demonology’s practicality demands that it be a subject carefully parsed.


344 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Pages 36-37.
345 Ibid, Page 41.
346 Ibid, Page 1.


80


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_Some would view the whole subject of Biblical demonology as accidental and_
_essentially purposeless, a mere incursion of popular contemporary superstitions_
_into the Biblical accounts. Others would trace the facts to remnants of animistic_
_or polytheistic belief in the evolutionary process from a more primitive and_
_cruder faith. The emptiness of such baseless naturalistic hypotheses, however, is_
_emphasized by the eminent practicality and intrinsic purposefulness of Biblical_
_demonology._ _[347]_

Of course, his work continues on to address many practical issues after constructing a biblical


framework for the reality, identity, origin, and activity of the demonic realm. A biblical and


practical response is offered in response to possession, magic, divination, necromancy, heresy,

world governments, eschatology, and deliverance practices. [348] His reception of the biblical


material, with its portrayal of demons as active and personal beings, leads him to have a


meaningful voice in the global and multicultural context, as these are relevant issues in virtually


any society.


However, this voice, seeking to remain biblical yet inevitably colored by a Western


cultural lens shaped by historical expeditions into demonology, does not and cannot


unconsciously accept the spiritual practices of the West or the rest of the world which result from


a personhood of the demonic. In an attempt to relay God’s revelation into the global context,


Unger lets the Bible both affirm the reality of experience and challenge our response to it. This


disposition, which places the Bible in the seat of authority, is a profound strength in a


multicultural context. The Christian community ultimately coheres, not according to a


fluctuating set of cultural parameters, but upon the unchanging Word of God.


If we turn directly to the personhood of the demonic, Unger’s strength, in relationship to


the multicultural context, is that he accepts the reality and personhood of the demonic from the


biblical material and attempts to apply it in light of the global context. How could he reach a


mythical understanding of the demonic when the Bible does not convey it and the global context


does not bear it out? Believing that demonization is directly or indirectly caused by demons, he


will not ignore:


347 Ibid, Page 25.
348 After arriving at the conclusion that the demonic realm is personal, we should not dismiss the contributions of
Migliore ( _The Power of God and the gods of Power_ ) and Wink ( _Engaging the Powers_ ). Rather, the demonic’s
relationship to power, especially human government, is left as a subject requiring even further engagement. Unger
says, “In every age of human history and in every phase of daily life demons have played a tremendous and very
important role. In no realm is their activity more significant than in the sphere of human government. In this area
possibly more than in any other field of their operation their activity has frequently not been clearly discerned or
even partially understood.” Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 181.


81


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


_Cases both of spontaneous or involuntary and voluntary possession are_
_practically universal in extent, there being no quarter of the globe where such_
_phenomena have not been authenticated nor any class or society, primitive or_
_civilized, where they have not occurred, nor any period, ancient, or medieval, or_
_modern, in which cases cannot be cited._ _[349]_


Unger sees this context, and since God has revealed Himself in such a way that offers victory


over the personal and malevolent spirit world, he proclaims that God’s truth be received and


trumpeted.


**4.5** **Merrill Unger’s Weaknesses with Regard to the Personhood of the Demonic**


As we cast a glance upon the primary weaknesses of Unger’s personhood of the demonic,


it is likely that the reader has already noticed them as they were exposed throughout this thesis.


Unger’s relationship to recent biblical scholarship is fairly amicable. As an Old Testament


scholar with a PhD in Semitics and Biblical Archeology, his respect for the Word of God is


evident. But blind spots do crop up. He does not incorporate the progressive nature of


revelation into his analysis of the demonic, and the vaguenesses of the Old Testament witness


concerning the spirit world are not discussed at length. Indeed, this seems to avoid scrutiny due


to his canonical hermeneutic wherein the New Testament grants luciferous insights, which

reveals a fuller understanding of the Old Testament. [350] While this thesis does not desire to


undermine the centrality of canonical hermeneutics in the Christian religion, the progression of


demonology (and especially personhood) throughout the biblical text does demand interaction


and assessment.


As a brief aside concerning the progression of demonological thought in the Scriptures,


speculation regarding the transmission of ANE thought to Hebrew theology is commonplace in


contemporary scholarship. In reference to Zoroastrianism’s influence in the ancient world, G. J.


Riley says, “Circles within Judaism used [the Zoroastrian demonological] framework to revalue


older myths and produced after the Exile the dualistic strains of Judaism visible in post-exilic


349 Ibid, Page 84. Unger’s inherently ethnocentric understanding of culture and “civilization” permeates this
statement, yet it should sadly be recognized that his perspective was not uncommon at the time of his writing. He
cites T. K. Oesterreich’s _Possession, Demoniacal and Other among Primitive Races in Antiquity, the Middle Ages,_
_and Modern Times_ (New York: R. Long and R. Smith, Inc., 1930. Pages 131-380) to support his argument.
350 Ibid, Pages 15-16. In this section, he is building a biblical understanding of Satan. His interpretation of the Old
Testament texts hinges upon the presence of the New Testament.


82


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


and intertestamental literature and in Christianity.” [351] Yes, an increase in flamboyant


demonological literature, such as the book of Enoch, does surface especially in the


intertestamental period, which may have been influenced by such currents. But those


superstitious works bear little in common with the biblical material, in both the Old and New

Testaments. [352] As an Old Testament scholar, Unger notes, “Even Jewish demonology, in spite of


the chaste and lofty example of the Old Testament Scriptures, has by the time of our Lord


degenerated into a system of almost incredible and fanciful superstition, in sharp contrast to both

Old and New Testament teaching.” [353] It should also be considered that while similarities in


terms and categories may be worthy of study, conclusions which directly assert cause


(Zoroastrian dualism) and effect (post-exilic Hebrew demonology) are ultimately speculative.


Thus, in the midst of such speculation which overtly overlooks the revelatory nature of the


Scriptures, this thesis posits that we should instead place our focus upon our remarkable canon of


sixty-six works, which elucidates an unusually unadorned and perspicuous demonology.


Unger’s emphasis is clearly upon the text, but not engaging with the demonological progression


in the biblical material is a noticeable omission.


Unger’s personhood of the demonic in light of the growing multicultural context also has


its problems as well. The most prominent is that he fails to state and account for his own cultural


influences as he attempts to present a truly biblical and personal demonology. This lack of self

analysis leads Unger to one of the frequent errors of his time: an archaic idea of culture and the

preeminence of Western culture as true “civilization.” [354]


This lack of reflection is particularly prominent when he discusses “The Character of

Ethnic Demonology” in chapter three. [355] He systematically contrasts the revelation of God – the


“true and thoroughly reliable… criterion of appraisal” – with the briefly sketched demonological

thoughts of numerous cultures. [356] Yet as he rightly critiques others, he does not pose the


possibility that his own presentation of a biblical demonology, with its blunt acceptance of a


demonic personhood, may be shaded by his cultural relationship to the topic. On top of this


351 Riley, G. C. “Demon” in _The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD)_, Page 238.
352 Is there a spot in the biblical text which definitively asserts a dualistic cosmology? In the Old and New
Testaments, Satan and his demons are consistently portrayed as underlings, subservient to God’s sovereignty and
unable to persist in thwarting God’s power. All spirits appear to be under His control.
353 Unger, Merrill. _Biblical Demonology_, Page 4.
354 Ibid, Page 1.
355 Ibid, Pages 29-32.
356 Ibid, Page 29.


83


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


problem, a more substantial response to mythology, demythologization, and symbolism is


noticeably absent. Understanding culture more broadly, these academic enterprises might


perhaps deserve to be placed under his survey of “ethnic demonology,” but instead, these

subjects barely garner a few paragraphs. [357] But what conclusions can we discern from our


assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Barth and Unger’s demonic personhoods?


**4.6** **Conclusion**


On a whole, Barth and Unger are left relatively unscathed and largely affirmed by


contemporary scholarship in their reading of the biblical material concerning the personhood of


the demonic. The biblical scholarship often implicates that the textual intention is to convey a


personal demonic ontology. While not overwhelmingly supported, Barth and Unger’s


theological conclusions from the text are, at least, vindicated as valid. Of course, while the text


seems to indicate demonic personhood, many choose to impose demythological methodologies,


but this interpretive endeavor is not supplied or supported from Scripture. In no way should we


misconstrue Barth and Unger’s position as unbiblical.


Furthermore, Barth and Unger’s theology of demonic personhood stands up well in a


multicultural context. While their unreflective perspective toward culture does create significant


blind spots, their overwhelming desire to focus upon the biblical texts and to found their


demonologies upon those texts results in a surprising level of unity regarding the personhood of


the demonic. This is a remarkable event considering Barth and Unger’s divergent contexts. But


this biblical emphasis translates well into the multicultural context, wherein we can bring our


cultural backgrounds, sit at the feet of God’s Word, be united together, and transformed in our


cultural perspectives.


As we conclude this thesis, we must finally turn to the natural conclusions of accepting


the reality and language of demonic personhood. What theological consequences are there?


What practical ramifications occur? How can we further study and further equip the church on


this issue?


357 Ibid, Page 90.


84


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**5.** **Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Study**


**5.1** **Introduction**


In chapter one, we surveyed the demonological contributions of Karl Barth in _Church_


_Dogmatics_ and Merrill Unger in _Biblical Demonology_ . We posed the question of whether or not


they advocated for an impersonal or personal perspective toward the demonic. Though


surrounded and crafted by widely differing theological contexts, they both opted to convey the


reality of demons through personal indicators, as they both desired to remain faithful to the


revelatory language of the Bible.


This led us to chapter two, wherein we investigated if the biblical witness, as shown


through contemporary scholarship, indicated and validated a demonic which is personal. While


we did encounter a progressive introduction of demonic personhood throughout the biblical text,


many scholars advocated that the texts which referenced the demonic contained personal


references. Barth and Unger’s reading of the biblical material was found to be remarkably valid.


Cultural context’s input into the topic was presented in chapter three. After outlining


culture and the rise of multiculturalism, we assessed the cultural perspectives of Barth and


Unger. Employing a host of African sources, we engaged the plausibility of a personhood of the


demonic in a multicultural context. This thesis asserted that Christian cohesion in a diverse


community is forged through biblical fidelity and that fidelity results in affirmation, correction,


and transformation of every culture represented. From this instruction, we concluded that Barth


and Unger’s acceptance of the biblical language of a personal demonic realm was appropriate,


especially in a multicultural setting.


Chapter four then asked analytical questions concerning Barth and Unger’s personhood


of the demonic. We assessed their strengths and weakness with regard to the previously


provided input of recent biblical scholarship and the multicultural context. While numerous


flaws were uncovered, both theologians were deemed proficient, as they both operated using


personal references to the demonic due to their biblical perspective, which grants theological


strength and unity to the multicultural Christian community.


Finally, in response to these four chapters, we must now ask, “What are the consequences


of accepting a demonology with personhood?” The range of responses is evident. On one hand,


Barth prefers to theologically demythologize the subject, and on the other hand, Unger offers


85


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


numerous applications, spilling into his other works in the demonological field. But how will we


respond? The theological and practical complications could be discussed at great length,


requiring their own thesis! In that light, suggestions for further research will be suggested. Let


us begin with the theological ramifications of integrating a demonic personhood into our


theological structures.


**5.2** **Theological Consequences of a Personhood of the Demonic**


No theological enterprise should be performed in isolation. A systematic study, such as


this one, cannot be left to stand alone. Can we pursue a consistent and inter-related theological


perspective in order that we can present a cohesive and consistent Christianity, before a watching


world and church? With that question in mind, what theological ramifications stem from


accepting a personhood of the demonic in our systematics? Here are three suggested fields for


reevaluation.


If we accept that the extant narratives of the gospels truly depict our Savior expelling


demonic persons from the demonized, our Christological efforts ought to reflect those realities.


While the primary biblical motifs of Christ the Prophet, Priest, and King should not be


supplanted, Christ the Exorcist should be integrated as a subsidiary motif. Diane Stinton, in her


work _Jesus of Africa: Voices of Contemporary African Christology_, researched the prevalence of


particular Christological titles. In the study of “Jesus as liberator,” she found that a common


sentiment was, in the words of interviewed clergyman Abraham Akrong, “I think he’s liberator


only in the sense of the one who liberates us from demons and witches but not in terms of social,

political liberation.” [358] She later concluded, “Analysis of the oral Christologies reveals almost


unanimous assent to the image of Jesus as liberator, with interpretations generally favoring

personal and spiritual dimensions such as deliverance from sin, fear, and evil powers.” [359] This


common perspective merits further systematic emphasis and investigation in light of a personal


demonic.


Theologies of personhood also need to be widely reevaluated. Throughout this study, we


have rejected that personhood is merely the result of a certain attribute of communicative ability,


intellectual capacity, or social designation. Yes, they are valuable indicators, but they serve to


358 Stinton, Diane B. _Jesus of Africa: Voices of Contemporary African Christology_, Page 209.
359 Ibid, Page 213.


86


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


identify what already exists with or without them. Concerning humanity, a person is a person


because God created them as one. In the case of the demonic, we only observe the results of


personhood (will, intellect, emotion, and social hierarchy/relationship) sketched by divine


revelation in personal terms, with no biblical creation account included for further clarity.


Reorienting our personhood studies around the ultimate Person would be a logical step. Before


He created, God was the only Person; a Person in a far greater sense than we can ever convey or


articulate. The created spirit realm and humanity bear personhood, not because of empirical and


sociological signs but because of our Father’s gracious act of creation. While other insights are


valuable, a divine perspective is primary.


As a subject of critical study, demonology, by far, bears the strongest relationship with


soteriology, regardless of whether the demonology in question espouses an impersonal or


personal demonic. Works like Gustaf Aulén’s _Christus Victor_ have championed this strong

tie. [360] But how does a personal demonic realm affect this association? It adds a level of


tangibility to redemption. Yes, the sins which we exhibit everyday have been addressed by the


work of Christ. These are performed by every person everywhere, even now, but as the author of


Hebrews argues, Christ is the sufficient sacrifice and high priest to satisfy the wages of such


behavior. And yes, Christ has dramatically reshaped our affiliation with the world – the patterns,


goals, and practices developed by its inhabitants. And yes, Christ has rescued us, ransomed us


from the hateful grip of Satan and his servants. Our salvation is never amorphous. We are saved


from the wrath of the ultimate Person, from the sinful patterns of a world of persons, from the


unsatisfying desires of our own person, and from the schemes of a largely unseen realm of


malevolent persons. All of this is not accomplished by a moral code, a sacrificed animal, or an


intellectual paradigm but the compassionate action of the person Jesus Christ. Thus, our


salvation is plausible, tangible, and consistent. But this consistency is not as clear unless we


maintain the personhood of the demonic. In that light, it may prove beneficial to reassess


soteriology as a personal subject.


360 Aulén, Gustaf. _Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement._
Pages 47-55 especially illuminate the relationship of Satan and salvation. Sadly, his focus primarily rests upon
Satan himself, not the wider idea of the demonic.


87


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**5.3** **Practical Consequences of a Personhood of the Demonic**


Too often, we engage in theological pursuits with little to no relationship to the practical


realm, to the detriment of the church’s health and the gospel’s spread. Intellectual stimulation


and even self-gratification can be our theological ends. The hope is that even this thesis could


largely remain accessible to the church and beneficial for its nourishment. With that in mind, we


will draw some specific outworkings of a demonic personhood in the ecclesiological context.


One group has affirmed, with near universality, the personal nature of the demonic. So


then, what must we do with the testimony and instruction of exorcists and deliverance


practitioners? Should their empirical contributions be dismissed? While empiricism is a flawed


system because as an inherently naturalistic process it cannot fully account for spiritual factors,


the observations and testimonies of personal encounters similar to the biblical witness should be


evaluated. Theologians such as J. Janse van Rensburg argue strongly for the relevance and value


of empirical research, advocating and participating in qualitative studies into deliverance


ministries.


Throughout the history of the church, godly men have detailed their personal


confrontations with the demonic. Among the church fathers, the accounts are numerous.


Tertullian writes, “For God, Creator of the universe, has no need of odours or of blood. These


things are the food of devils. But we not only reject those wicked spirits: we overcome them; we


daily hold them up to contempt; we exorcise them from their victims, as multitudes can

testify.” [361] Irenaeus was more than comfortable concluding that a “whom” had demonized the

ancient heretic Marcus. [362] The so-called ministry of the “Holy Spirit” through a demonized


woman is discussed by Firmilian in his letter to Cyprian, wherein her deceptions with the aid of

at least one demon and her subsequent deliverance by a Christian exorcist are recounted. [363] A


compilation of the early Christian demonological accounts would be a vast undertaking! But


cataloging the sheer number of contemporary reports would also prove difficult.


361 Tertullian, “To Scapula: Chapter 2” in _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, Volume 3, PC Study Bible formatted electronic
database.
362 Irenaeus, “Against Heresies: The Deceitful Arts and Nefarious Practices of Marcus” in _Ante-Nicene Fathers_,
Volume 1, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database.
363 Cyprian, “Epistle 74 – Firmilian to Cyprian: Chapter 10” in _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, Volume 5, PC Study Bible
formatted electronic database.


88


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Within the past century, numerous deliverance specialists have recorded empirical

offerings on this matter. [364] Kurt Koch, the late German theologian, controversially discussed


hundreds of cases of apparently occultic and demonic activities, describing a demonic realm

which is profoundly personal. [365] In a straightforward manner, van Rensberg recounts the


ministry of André O’Kennedy, a Dutch Reformed Minister, who conversed in Afrikaans with a

demon who dwelled in a man who could not speak that language. [366] Others, such as Karl Payne,


have sought to not only document the variety of demonic attacks but also to train leaders and


laypersons to systematically utilize biblical principles with restraint and courage, when

necessary. [367] Even Dr. Ed Murphy, from a Pentecostal background, directs readers of his


_Handbook for Spiritual Warfare_ to lead deliverance sessions which keep spirits silent, avoiding

confusion and unnecessary clamor. [368] All of these practitioners and others are responding to the


same phenomena – the apparent acts of unseen malevolent persons. Can we dismiss their input


and perspective in light of the work of Christ, Paul, Steven, and others?


Can we also concede our past errors, as a Christian community, in this regard? Aversion


and skepticism toward this topic may be the result of Christianity’s unfortunate treatment of the


demonic in the past. Satan and his compatriots have been sensationalized by authors like Danté,


and they have been misconstrued as being far more powerful than they actually are. Erwin


Lutzer corrects this notion saying, “…although Lucifer rebelled that he might no longer be God’s


364 Only a limited number of examples are included for the sake of brevity. Opponents to the reality of the demonic
admit that empirical evidence may arise in opposition to their position. “Could demons perhaps be written off on
the basis of empirical motives? This is a problematic argument, for our experience of ‘empirical facts’ is
codetermined by a normative world-picture: Proponents of the view that demons exist will probably have empirical
arguments of their own. Therefore, we shall have to provide good argumentative justification for maintaining the
normativeness of the modern world-picture as far as scepticism about demons is concerned. This could be done by
pointing to the achievements of modern science after 1600. The rejection of demonology is part of the broader
development: Today, we have _better, more successful_ explanatory theories at hand, namely psychiatric categories.
However, this argument would hardly impress the opponent, for in his view, it is precisely natural science that has a
blind spot for these kinds of realities.” Labooy, Guus. _Freedom and Dispositions_, Page 277.
365 Probably his two most famous works are _Occult ABC_ and _Christian Counseling and Occultism_ . As for instances
of personal encounters, they are numerous, but one extreme instance is found in _Occultism ABC_, pages 304-305.
366 Van Rensberg, J. Janse. “A Qualitative Investigation into the So-Called Ministry of Deliverance” in _In die_
_Skriflig_ 44 (3 & 4), 2010, Page 689-690.
367 Payne, Karl I. _Spiritual Warfare: Christians, Demonization, and Deliverance_ . Chapter two contains a pair of
more obvious instances of demons acting as individual persons within a human host, but this is far from Karl
Payne’s emphasis. He is primarily concerned with the contemporary church’s laxity toward the nuanced advances
of the enemy against the laity. He says on page 135, “Demonic warfare is usually a battle of mental subtleties and
deception that more often than not focuses upon growing Christians.”
368 Murphy, Ed. _The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare_, Pages 595-599. Dr. Murphy’s work is perhaps the most
thorough presentation of theological and practical insights regarding the demonic, utilizing a plethora of first hand
experiences and biblical references.


89


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


servant, he still is.” [369] God’s sovereignty has not been subverted; His children need not fear the


unseen, unnecessarily avoid the biblical identifiers of personhood, or glamorize the church’s


ministries against the demonic. From the scholarship we assessed, the realm of the demons, with


their described personhood and activities, is a simple truth of God’s revelation, depicted to bring


glory not to the conquered but the Conqueror – Jesus Christ.


Finally, if we accept the revelatory commitment that demons are defined as personal


beings which interact within the visible world we inhabit, then our pastoral and counseling care


should account for their impact like any other factor. Unger comments:


_Because demons are spirit personalities, they can act upon and influence man’s_
_body and mind. Counselors, parapsychologists, and psychiatrists who deny or_
_ignore this sphere of reality render themselves unequipped to deal with patients_
_who may be suffering from occult oppression and subjection..._ _[370]_

Hence, contributions such as the Resources for Christian Counseling series which includes an

entire volume entitled _Counseling and the Demonic_ should perhaps be further utilized. [371]


Rodger Bufford’s balanced perspective dictates stringent diagnostic standards and an aversion


toward one-size-fits-all deliverance activities, instead suggesting multiple spiritual intervention


methods of which “exorcism” is simply one. In sum, Bufford, Payne, and others offer tangible

steps, which could be carefully introduced in pastoral circles. [372] Hopefully this would blunt the

prevalence of pastoral silence toward occultism and its victims. [373]


369 Lutzer, Erwin W. _The Serpent of Paradise: The Incredible Story of How Satan’s Rebellion Serves God’s_
_Purposes_, Page 21.
370 Unger, Merrill. _Demons in the World Today_, Page 23.
371 Bufford has an extraordinarily clinical and restrained approach toward the issue.  In his introduction, he
describes his work as “Biblical accounts of demonism and the work of Satan and his agents are compared and
contrasted with the American Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R). After defining the problem and setting it in
context, biblical principles for dealing with demonism are addressed along with practical suggestions from
psychology and counseling. Examples from the counseling office are given to illustrate various approaches.”
Bufford, Rodger K. _Counseling and the Demonic_, Page 13.
372 Anderson, Neil T. and Timothy M. Warner. _The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Warfare_ . Beyond the necessity of
equipping leadership, Anderson and Warner penned this work so that laypersons could be equipped to properly
evaluate their relationship with the flesh, the world, and the enemy. This brief book contains a particularly
insightful yet accessible chapter (3) concerning the inadequacy of the Western worldview and the importance of
acquiring a biblical one.
373 Van Rensburg, J. Janse. “A Qualitative Investigation into the So-Called Ministry of Deliverance” in _In die_
_Skriflig_ 44 (3 & 4), 2010, Page 691.


90


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**5.4** **Suggestions for Further Study**


Without a doubt, as one ponders on demonic personhood as evidenced throughout Barth


and Unger’s writings, questions inevitably arise. On theological and practical levels, this subject


is far from exhausted. Beneficial insight and research are yet to be obtained. With the


contribution of this thesis in mind, let us examine a few areas which merit further investigation.


First, as this thesis analyzed Barth’s _Church Dogmatics_ and Unger’s _Biblical_


_Demonology_, plenty of critical works reviewing Barth’s theology were available, but when the


focus was narrowed to the field of demonology, only Vernon Mallow, who grouped Barth with


two other theologians for his analysis, took a specific and sizeable look at the demonic. The


situation was even worse when the study turned to Unger, as lengthy critiques on American


Evangelical demonology were noticeably absent. A contemporary analytical work or series on


the spectrum of demonologies in the past and present of the broader Christian community would


appear to be a distinct need.


Obviously, while this thesis undertook the theme of demonic personhood in Barth and


Unger, angelology could easily undergo the same examination. The study would be fairly


straightforward as well. As Barth provides far more content concerning angels than demons,


more material would be available for assessment. Since Unger does not contribute to the field of


angelology in any substantial way, he could easily be swapped out for another Evangelical


composition such as _Angels: Elect and Evil_ by C. Fred Dickason.


A completely original work on the personhood of the angelic/demonic realm would also


be appropriate. Founded upon revelatory data, supported by cultural information from around


the world, supplied with specialists’ observations, informed by the numerous historical


traditions; an academic and systematic work of such magnitude would no doubt serve as a


starting point for numerous other studies. But while personhood is a major topic in anthropology


and theology proper, it remains an underdeveloped theme with regard to biblical intermediaries.


Finally, upon the composition of a demonology which utilizes personal indicators, the


results remain somewhat similar to early Christianity’s understanding of the demonic realm.


With the academic trends for the past decades mostly modeling an impersonal demonic, perhaps


this has forged a wedge of disassociation with the demonology and the context of the early


church. Thus, an academic recovery and critique of ancient demonology would naturally follow


after asserting a demonic personhood. Recognizing the presence of Greek philosophical and


91


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


ontological underpinnings, an unwavering fidelity to biblical commitments and priorities would

be essential. [374]


**5.5** **Conclusion**


The theological area selected for this thesis, demonic personhood in the writings of Karl


Barth and Merrill Unger, was not chosen at random or upon the whim of a passing curiosity. As


this chapter hopefully demonstrates, the topic is not without its implications and further


questions. This brief section began by noting some theological results of maintaining a personal


demonic like Barth and Unger. Our Christology needs to be more obvious and personal in


accounting for Christ’s role as an exorcist. Personhood studies need to be more theological than


anthropological in nature; if not, the idea of a personhood of the demonic will be likely ushered


away from serious thought and consideration. Finally, soteriology is reshaped as a consistently


personal process.


We also considered a few practical and pastoral consequences. First, we engaged the


relevance and value of historical and contemporary observations regarding the demonic,


especially in personal manifestations. We followed this strand of thought to its end - the


reintegration of biblical and empirical studies on the demonic into our pastoral and counseling


practices.


In conclusion, we suggested a few areas which require further study. Academic,


analytical studies into demonology are very much in need. Evangelical demonology as a whole


lacked significant critiques with which this thesis could interact. Also, a near repetition of this


study for the subject of angels in Barth and others would also address more personhood


questions which were left mostly untouched. After this, we also outlined the need, in light of a


demonic personhood, to revisit the demonology of the early church in order that their theological


wealth might instruct and their theological errors might warn.


374 A suitable starting point for a historical study would be Everett Ferguson’s _Demonology of the Early Christian_
_World_ . His incredible research distinguishes the biblical perspective on demonology from the prevalent Jewish and
Greek teachings on the subject. But he does not intentionally develop or critique their relationship with modern
demonology.


92


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


**Bibliography**


Alexander, T. Desmond., Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, eds. _New_

_Dictionary of Biblical Theology_ . Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 2000.


Allen, Clifton J., ed. _The Broadman Bible Commentary_ . Vol. 8. Nashville: Broadman, 1969.


Ampong, Ebenezer Adu. _Deliverance in Ghanaian Neo-Pentecostal Ministries: A Critical_

_Assessment from an Evangelical Perspective_ . University of Stellenbosch: MTh Thesis,
2004.


Anderson, Neil T., and Timothy M. Warner. _The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Warfare_ . Ann

Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000.


Aquinas, St. Thomas. _Summa Theologiæ_ . Trans. Kenelm Foster, O.P. Vol. 9. London: Eyre &

Spottiswoode, 2004.


Arnold, Bill T. _Genesis_ . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.


Arnold, Clinton E. “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: _Stoicheia_ as Evil Spirits in

Galatians 4:3, 9.” _Novum Testamentum_ XXXVIII.1 (1996): 55-76.


Aulén, Gustaf. _Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the_

_Atonement_ . London: S.P.C.K., 1970.


Balentine, Samuel E. _Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary: Job_ . Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys,

2006.


Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. _Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament_ . Vol. 1.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.


Barth, Karl. _Church Dogmatics_ . Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance.

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960.


Barth, Karl. _Modern Theology: Selections from Twentieth-Century Theologians: Karl Barth_ . Ed.

Ernest John. Tinsley. London: Epworth, 1973.


Beasley-Murray, George R. _Word Biblical Commentary: John_ . Vol. 36. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.


Bediako, Kwame. _Theology and Identity: The Impact of Culture upon Christian Thought in the_

_Second Century and in Modern Africa_ . Oxford: Regnum International, 1999.


Berkhof, Hendrikus. _Christ and the Powers_ . Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1962.


Berkouwer, G. C. _The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth_ . Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.

Eerdmans Pub., 1956.


Betz, Hans Dieter., Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel, eds. _Religion Past_

_& Present: Encyclopedia of Theology and Religion_ . Leiden: Brill, 2007.


93


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Betz, Hans Dieter. _The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount,_

_including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49)_ . Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 1995.


Bock, Darrell L. _Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke 1:1 - 9:50_ . Ed.

Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994.


Bovon, François. _Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50_ . Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress, 2002.


Brand, Gerrit. _Speaking of a Fabulous Ghost: In Search of Theological Criteria, with Special_

_Reference to the Debate on Salvation in African Christian Theology_ . Frankfurt am Main:
Lang, 2002.


Brümmer, Vincent. “Spirituality and the Hermeneutics of Faith.” _HTS Teologiese Studies /_

_Theological Studies_ 66.1 (2010): n. pag.


Bromiley, Geoffrey W. _An Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth_ . Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1979.


Bromiley, Geoffrey W. _The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_ . Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1979.


Bucher, Hubert. _Spirits and Power: An Analysis of Shona Cosmology_ . Cape Town: Oxford UP,

1980.


Bufford, Rodger K. _Counseling and the Demonic_ . Dallas, TX: Word Pub., 1988.


Calvin, John. _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ . Ed. John Baillie, John T. McNeill, and Henry

P. Van Dusen. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.


Carr, Wesley. _Angels and Principalities: The Background, Meaning, and Development of the_

_Pauline Phrase Hai Archai Kai Hai Exousiai_ . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.


Cartledge, Mark J., and David Cheetham. _Intercultural Theology: Approaches and Themes_ .

London: SCM, 2011.


Collins, Adela Yarbro. _Mark: A Commentary_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.


Collins, John J., and Daniel C. Harlow, eds. _The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism_ . Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.


Conzelmann, Hans. _1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians_ .

Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1975.


Dalferth, Ingolf U. “‘I DETERMINE WHAT GOD IS!’ Theology in the Age of ‘Cafeteria

Religion’” _Theology Today_ 57.1 (2000): 5-23.


De Villiers, Pieter. _Like a Roaring Lion: Essays on the Bible, the Church and Demonic Powers_ .

Pretoria: C.B. Powell Bible Centre, 1987.


94


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Dibelius, Martin. _James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James_ . Philadelphia, PA: Fortress,

1976.


Dickason, C. Fred. _Angels, Elect and Evil_ . Chicago, IL: Moody, 1976.


Elwell, Walter A. _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology_ . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,

1984.


Emmrich, Martin. “The Lucan Account of the Beelzebul Controversy.” _Westminster Theological_

_Journal_ 62 (2000): 267-79.


Erler, Rolf Joachim., Reiner Marquard, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. _A Karl Barth Reader_ .

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.


Ferdinando, Keith. _The Triumph of Christ in African Perspective: A Study of Demonology and_

_Redemption in the African Context_ . Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999.


Ferguson, Everett. _Demonology of the Early Christian World_ . New York, NY: E. Mellen, 1984.


Ford, David. _Barth and God’s Story: Biblical Narrative and the Theological Method of Karl_

_Barth in the “Church Dogmatics”_ Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1981.


Freedman, David Noel. _The Anchor Bible Dictionary_ . Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992.


Fulljames, Peter. _God and Creation in Intercultural Perspective: Dialogue Between the_

_Theologies of Barth, Dickson, Pobee, Nyamiti, and Pannenberg_ . Frankfurt am Main:
Lang, 1993.


Grenz, Stanley J., David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. _Pocket Dictionary of Theological_

_Terms_ . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.


Guelich, Robert A. “Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul and Peretti.” _PNEUMA: The Journal of the_

_Society for Pentecostal Studies_ 13.1 (Spring 1991): 33-64.


Guelich, Robert A. _Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 1-8:26_ . Vol. 34A. Waco, TX: Word,

1989.


Guiley, Rosemary Ellen. _The Encyclopedia of Ghosts and Spirits_ . New York, NY: Facts on File,

1992.


Hagner, Donald A. _Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13_ . Vol. 33A. Dallas, TX: Word,

1993.


Hastings, Adrian, Alistair Mason, and Hugh S. Pyper, eds. _The Oxford Companion to Christian_

_Thought_ . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.


Hollenweger, W. J. “Intercultural Theology.” _Theology Today_ 43.1 (1986): 28-35.


Hooker, Morna D. _Black’s New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to St Mark_ .

London: & C Black, 1991.


95


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Horsley, Richard A. _Abingdon New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians_ . Nashville, TN:

Abingdon, 1998.


Hunsinger, George. _How to Read Karl Barth_ . New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1991.


Jewett, Robert. _Romans: A Commentary_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.


Johnson, Luke Timothy. _The Anchor Bible: The Letter of James_ . Vol. 37A. New York, NY:

Doubleday, 1995.


Juel, Donald H. “Plundering Satan’s House.” _Word & World_ XVII.3 (Summer 1997): 278-81.


Kato, Byang H. _African Cultural Revolution and the Christian Faith_ . Jos, Nigeria: Challenge

Publications, 1976.


Kato, Byang H. _Biblical Christianity in Africa: A Collection of Papers and Addresses_ . Achimota:

Africa Christian, 1985.


Kato, Byang H. _Theological Pitfalls in Africa_ . Kisumu: Evangel Pub. House, 1975.


Katsiaficas, George, and Teodros Kiros. _The Promise of Multiculturalism: Education and_

_Autonomy in the 21st Century_ . New York: Routledge, 1998.


Kelly, J. N. D. _A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude_ . New York, NY: Harper &

Row, 1969.


Klein, Ralph W. _Word Biblical Commentary: 1 Samuel_ . Vol. 10. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.


Koch, Kurt E. _Occult ABC_ . Germany: Literature Mission Aglasterhausen, 1980.


Larsen, Timothy, and Daniel J. Treier, eds. _The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology_ .

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.


Leahy, Frederick Stratford. _Satan Cast Out: A Study in Biblical Demonology_ . Edinburgh: Banner

of Truth Trust, 1975.


Leicester, Mal. _Multicultural Education: From Theory to Practice_ . Windsor: NFER-Nelson,

1989.


Lemmer, Eleanor, Corinne Meier, and Noleen Van Wyk. _Multicultural Education: An_

_Educator's Manual_ . Pretoria: Van Schaik, 2006.


Lohse, Eduard. _Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and_

_to Philemon_ . Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971.


Lutzer, Erwin W. _The Serpent of Paradise: The Incredible Story of How Satan’s Rebellion_

_Serves God's Purposes_ . Chicago, IL: Moody, 1996.


Maimela, Simon, and Adrio Konig. _Initiation into Theology: The Rich Variety of Theology and_

_Hermeneutics_ . Pretoria: J L Van Schaik Religious, 1998.


96


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Mallow, Vernon R. _The Demonic: A Selected Theological Study: An Examination into the_

_Theology of Edwin Lewis, Karl Barth, and Paul Tillich_ . Lanham: University of America,
1983.


Mbiti, John S. _Bible and Theology in African Christianity_ . Nairobi: Oxford UP, 1986.


McConnachie, John. _The Barthian Theology: And the Man of To-day_ . London: Hodder &

Stoughton, 1934.


McConnachie, John. _The Significance of Karl Barth_ . London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited,

1931.


Metzger, Bruce Manning., David Allan. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, eds. _Word Biblical_

_Commentary: Revelation 6-16_ . Vol. 52b. Waco, TX: Word, 1998.


Migliore, Daniel L. _The Power of God and the gods of Power_ . Louisville, KY: Westminster John

Knox, 2008.


Montgomery, John Warwick. _Demon Possession_ . Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1976.


Murphy, Edward F. _The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare_ . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1996.


Neyrey, Jerome H. “Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology.” _The Catholic_

_Biblical Quarterly_ 50 (1988): 72-100.


Nieder-Heitmann, Jan Hendrik. _An Analysis and Evaluation of John S. Mbiti’s Theological_

_Evaluation of African Traditional Religions_ . Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University, 1981.


Nolland, John. _Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 1-9:20_ . Vol. 35A. Waco, TX: Word, 1989.


Nürnberger, Klaus. _The Living Dead and the Living God: Christ and the Ancestors in a_

_Changing Africa_ . Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications, 2007.


Nyamiti, Charles. _Studies in African Christian Theology: Vol. 1, Jesus Christ, the Ancestor of_

_Humankind: Methodological and Trinitarian Foundations_ . Nairobi: CUEA Publications,
2005.


Oduyoye, Mercy Amba., and H. M. Vroom. _One Gospel, Many Cultures: Case Studies and_

_Reflections on Cross-cultural Theology_ . Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003.


Palma, Robert J. _Karl Barth’s Theology of Culture: The Freedom of Culture for the Praise of_

_God_ . Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Pub., 1983.


Paul, Shalom M. _Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991.


Payne, Karl I. _Spiritual Warfare: Christians, Demonization, and Deliverance_ . Washington, D.C.:

WND, 2011.


P'Bitek, Okot. _African Religions in Western Scholarship_ . Kampala: East African Literature

Bureau, 1970.


97


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Pervo, Richard I. _Acts: A Commentary_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2009.


Pobee, J. S. _Toward an African Theology_ . Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1979.


Pope, Marvin H. _The Anchor Bible: Job_ . Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973.


Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. _The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the_

_Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325_ . Biblesoft: PC Study Bible Formatted
Electronic Database, 2006.


Roloff, Jürgen. _The Revelation of John_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993.


Ryken, Leland, Jim Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. _Dictionary of Biblical Imagery_ .

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.


Sakenfield, Katharine Doob, ed. _The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible_ . Vol. 2.

Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2007.


Schleiermacher, Friedrich. _The Christian Faith_ . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.


Smit, Dirk J. “Ethics and Interpretation: New Voices from the USA.” _Scriptura_ 33 (1990): 29
43.


Smit, Dirk J. “Reading the Bible and the (Un)official Interpretive Culture.” _Neotestamentica_ 28.2

(1994): 309-21.


Snodgrass, Klyne R. “An Introduction to a Hermeneutics of Identity.” _Bibliotheca_

_Sacra_ 168.Jan-Mar (2011): 3-19.


Stein, Gordon. _The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal_ . Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1996.


Stein, Robert H. _New American Commentary: Luke_ . Biblesoft: PC Study Bible Formatted

Electronic Database, 1992.


Steyne, Philip M. _Gods of Power: A Study of the Beliefs and Practices of Animists_ . Houston, TX:

Touch Pub., 1989.


Stinton, Diane B. _Jesus of Africa: Voices of Contemporary African Christology_ . Maryknoll, NY:

Orbis, 2004.


Strecker, Georg. _The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John_ . Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress, 1996.


Sykes, Stephen, ed. _Karl Barth - Studies of His Theological Method_ . Oxford: Clarendon, 1979.


Tanner, Kathryn. _Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology_ . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,

1997.


Thiselton, Anthony C. _The Hermeneutics of Doctrine_ . Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.


Thomas, Linda E. _Under the Canopy: Ritual Process and Spiritual Resilience in South Africa_ .

Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1999.


98


Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za


Thrall, Margaret E. _II Corinthians_ . Vol. II. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.


Toorn, K. Van Der., Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van Der Horst. _Dictionary of Deities and_

_Demons in the Bible_ . Leiden: Brill, 1999.


Torrance, T. F. _Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian_ . Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990.


Tremlin, Todd. _Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion_ . New York: Oxford

UP, 2006.


Underwood, Peter. _Dictionary of the Occult & Supernatural: An A to Z of Hauntings,_

_Possession, Witchcraft, Demonology and Other Occult Phenomena_ . [S.L.]:
Fontana/Collins, 1979.


Unger, Merrill F. _Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces behind the Present_

_World Unrest_ . Wheaton, IL: Scripture, 1952.


Unger, Merrill F. “Bibliotheca Sacra” _Scientific Biblical Criticism and Exegesis_ 121.Jan-Mar

(1964): 58-65.


Unger, Merrill F. _Demons in the World Today: A Study of Occultism in the Light of God's Word_ .

Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1971.


Unger, Merrill F. _What Demons Can Do to Saints_ . Chicago, IL: Moody, 1977.


Van Der.Toorn, Karel, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Van Der Horst. _Dictionary of Deities and_

_Demons in the Bible DDD_ . Leiden: Brill, 1999.


Van, Niekerk E. _Methodological Aspects in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics_ . Pretoria: University

of South Africa, 1984.


Ward, Graham. _Barth, Derrida and the Language of Theology_ . Cambridge: Cambridge UP,

1995.


Webster, J. B. _The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth_ . Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.


Wilson, R. McL. _Colossians and Philemon_ . London: T&T Clark, 2005.


Wink, Walter. _Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination_ .

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.


Wink, Walter. _Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament_ . Philadelphia,

PA: Fortress, 1984.


Wylie-Kellermann, Bill. “Not Vice Versa. Reading the Powers Biblically: Stringfellow,

Hermeneutics, and the Principalities.” _Anglican Theological Review_ LXXXI.4 (1999):
665-82.


99