The Demonic in Jewish Scriptures

Belief in demons was widespread in the ancient Near East, yet priestly literature makes no explicit mention of their existence or any pollution that is associated with such entities. From this silence Jacob Milgrom argues that although Israel’s purity thinking shared many commonalities with other ancient Mesopotamian purity systems, the priests stripped the demonic from their own worldview. In contrast to their surrounding culture, which was pervaded by belief in both malevolent and benevolent entities, Israel’s priests demythologized the world. Priestly thinking, according to Milgrom, “posits the existence of one supreme God who contends neither with a higher realm nor with competing peers. The world of demons is abolished; there is no struggle with autonomous foes, because there are none. With the demise of the demons, only one creature remains with ‘demonic’ power—the human being.”

A cursory of the priestly literature demonstrates that Milgrom is, in general, correct. And yet within Leviticus, traces of the demonic linger. Most significantly, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, requires the use of two goats, one devoted to Israel’s God and one devoted to Azazel (Lev. 16:7, 10, 26). This contrast between Azazel and YHWH might lead one to infer that the legislation of Leviticus 16 views Azazel as some sort of divine bring. Further, the text locates Azazel in the wilderness (16:10), a place identified elsewhere as the haunt of demons (e.g., Isa. 13:21; 34:14). Milgrom argues that the goat sent into the wilderness is a relic of a pagan sacrifice to a demon named Azazel, a vestige that the priestly writer demytholozies and incorporates into priestly ritual practices. While this suggestion may be true, it requires us to believe that an originally demonic figure is demythologized in priestly thinking only to be remythologized in later Jewish literature. Additionally, if the priests did not think of Azazel as a demonic figure, it seems ill-advised for them to mention this name within a broader culture that would have. Nonetheless, they did mention it, suggesting that they were not entirely averse to demonology.

The rite of the jealous husband (Num. 5:11-31) may provide further evidence of the demonic in priestly literature, since it contains a procedure in case a ruaḥ of jealousy incites a husband to suspect his wife of adultery. Whether this ruaḥ should be understood in demonic terms is unclear though. So too the rite of the ashes of the red heifer may be based upon an apotropaic effort to defend against the demonic.

On the other hand, Leviticus and Numbers are the literary products of the priestly caste—one particular group of elites in Israel. Milgrom may be correct to conclude that the priests suppressed (or at least did not focus on) the demonic in their expositions of the purity system, but this fact does not mean that all ancient Israelites dissociated purity and impurity from the realm of the demonic.

Outside of priestly literature, Jewish scriptures refer to the existence of demonic beings on a number of occasions. For instance, the Deuteronomistic Historian mentions evil ruḥot (spirits) in passing, apparently assuming the existence of and widespread belief in the demonic. In recounting the life of Israel’s first king, Saul, the Historian states that after God’s ruaḥ indicates a force distinct from Israel’s God. While David succeeds in soothing Saul, the evil ruaḥ becomes hell-bent on destroying David, compelling Saul to try to kill him (18:10-11, 25; 19:1, 9-17). The narrative makes apparent, nonetheless, that even this oppressive demonic force ultimately serves Israel’s God (18:10-11; 19:9-10).

Not only do demons afflict people, but they also deceive them, as the Historian makes clear through the words of the prophet Micaiah: “And YHWH said: ‘Who will deceive Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ . . . Then a ruaḥ came forward and stood before YHHW, saying: ‘I will deceive him.’ And YHWH said to it, ‘How?’ And it said, ‘I will go out and be a lying ruaḥ in the mouth of all is prophets.’ And [God] said, ‘You shall deceive and succeed—go out and do so!’” (1 Kings 22:20-22). This prophetic account of the heavenly throne room portrays God seeking a servant to ensure God’s will—to convince King Ahab to go up to Ramoth-gilead to fight against the king of Syria. God intends for Ahab to die through this deceit. A lying ruaḥ rushes to do God’s bidding, using the false words of Israel’s prophets to convince Ahab that God has promised him success in his military venture. The result: Ahab listens to the deceitful words of the ruaḥ given voice by the false prophets and goes up to Ramoth-gilead, where he dies in battle. The fact that the Chronicler, who may have been of Levitical or priestly descent, incorporates this same story into his history of Israel (2 Chron. 18:18-23) suggests that at least some of those who were of priestly descent were open to the existence of the demonic.

One final reference to a ruaḥ in the Deuteronomistic History bears mentioning. When the Assyrian king Shalmaneser besieges Jerusalem, Isaiah prophesies that God will send a ruaḥ to the king so that he will hear rumors of his homeland that will cause him to lift the siege and return home, where he will die (2 Kings 19:7; cf. Isa. 37:7). Each of these stories presents such beings as under the control of God and as attempting to deceive or kill humans. Even as it is acknowledges the existence of malevolent divine beings, then, the Deuteronomic History also emphasizes that they serve Israel’s God. Consequently, the work shows the way that the Israelites, priests or otherwise, could, in the words of Milgrom, posit “the existence of one supreme God who contends neither with a higher realm nor with competing peers” and believe in the existence of numerous demons. Ultimately, as Paula Fredriksen puts it, ancient monotheism, both Jewish and non-Jewish, “spoke to the imagined architecture o the cosmos, not to its absolute population.” Ancient monotheism did not preclude the existence of numerous divine beings; rather, it required only that there be one supreme God who ruled over all other gods.

The evil ruaḥ of the Deuteronomic History may shed light on a passage from Zechariah that is of relevance to our discussion of Jesus and the demonic. According to the prophet, God promises the following: “’And on that day,’ says YHWH of hosts, ‘I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they will be remembered no more. And I will also remove from the land of the prophets and the ruaḥ of impurity’” (Zech. 13:2). While it is possible to interpret the phrase "ruaḥ of impurity” as referring to an internal human disposition, it is also conceivable that the prophet here envisages some divine malevolent force, a force perhaps associated with the idols he mentions, that Israel’s God will purge. If so, the passage demonstrates again that a priest (Zech. 1:1) believed in the demonic.