Karl Barth and Merrill Unger on Christians having demons

Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars

Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
18

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
19

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
20

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
21

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
22

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
23

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…”
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
24

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
25

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.
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
26

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