Jump to content

The Devil


Resource Manager
 Share

Recommended Posts

TheDevil.jpg

 

The Devil

 

A BIBLICAL EXPOSITION OF THE TRUTH CONCERNING

 

“THAT OLD SERPENT, THE DEVIL AND SATAN”

 

AND

 

A REFUTATION OF THE BELIEFS OBTAINING IN THE WORLD

REGARDING SIN AND ITS SOURCE

 

Sherwood & Co.,

23 Paternoster Row,

London

 

1842

 

Price 1/-

 

-------

 

CONTENTS

 

CHAPTER 1

 

The rule in the investigation of truth. Successful application in natural science. Why should not equal success attend its application to other truths? The method for establishing uniformity of opinion. The rule applied in the investigation of the Devil. The book of creation affords no knowledge of the Devil. The importance of a knowledge of the Devil. Great number of passages where the word “devil” occurs in the Common Version, in which it is not in the original. No two words can mean the same thing. The true meaning of the word Diabolos. Proofs from the Common Version of this meaning. The substitution of the true meaning for the untrue much more useful and instructive.

 

CHAPTER 2

 

Man possesses a threefold nature. The opposition between the institutions of society and the commands of Christ. Submission of self. Means to obtain this submission. False-accusation state of mind. Passages illustrative. Parable of the tares. Parable of the sower of the seed. The misintroduction of the Devil into the Old Testament.

 

CHAPTER 3

 

The term SATAN. Who Satan is must be learned from Revelation. Satan applied to express “adversary.” No badness of meaning essentially connected with the word Satan. The Satan in the Book of job an idolator. Peter, the apostle, a Satan.

 

CHAPTER 4

 

“Satan indicates any state or condition adverse. Adverse to health - adverse in circumstances - adverse in state of mind. The “Satan” in the Revelations.

 

CHAPTER 5

 

Jesus is never said, in the original Scriptures, to have cast out “devils.” God, the author of language, must know its right use. The universal extension of the Greek language. Daimon, as understood by the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews — a “departed human ‘spirit’,” Natural gods of the heathens. The Cerriti and the Larvati. BeeIzebub. Paul’s speech at Athens. Demons believe. The worship of demons. Paul’s answer to the expediency, sham charity men of his day.

 

CHAPTER 6

 

Possession indicated by certain signs. Madness an indication. The Pythia. Unusual bodily contortions. The Gadarene and Gergesene demoniacs were madmen. Lunatics. Epileptics.

 

CHAPTER 7

 

The Gadarene and Gergesene demoniacs. Their dispossession, and the madness of the swine examined and explained. The language of our Saviour and of his Apostles correspond to the opinions of men. How the demoniacs confessed Christ.

 

CHAPTER 8

 

Temptation, its nature. Trial. The source of temptation. The erroneousness of many notions on this subject.

 

CHAPTER 9

The source of trial. The lust (epithumia). The misapplication of the word. The steps in the production of a sin. Desire, its nature. Numerous passagesin which epithumia is applied to a desire, decidedly good.

 

CHAPTER 10

 

The history of the trial of our Lord. The rule to guide as to a passage of Scripture being interpreted literally or figuratively. This rule applied to the three trials of Christ, and the impossibility of the account being literally true.

 

CHAPTER 11

 

The peculiar work which Christ had to perform. The character, his humanity in which he had to perform that work. Te difference between the first Adam and the second Adam. The trials of the Lord shown to be mere mental states, through which his mind passed.

 

CHAPTER 12

 

The atheism of believing in a being called the Devil. The absurdity of such belief. The obstacles to the removal of the belief in such a being.

 

-------

 

Comment:

 

THE DEVIL A BIBLICAL EXPOSITION OF THE TRUTH CONCERNING “THAT OLD SERPENT, THE DEVIL AND SATAN”

AND A REFUTATION OF THE BELIEFS OBTAINING IN THE WORLD REGARDING SIN AND ITS SOURCE

 

was first published anonymously in London in 1842, notwithstanding, the authorship has been attributed to a Mr. John Epps of London.

 

Also Reprinted under the title:

 

THE DEVIL - An Exposé

 

by The Australian Christadelphian Standing Committee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE DEVIL

 

CHAPTER 1

 

The rule in the investigation of truth. Successful application in natural science. Why should not equal success attend its application to other truths? The method for establishing uniformity of opinion. The rule applied in the investigation of the Devil. The book of creation affords no knowledge of the Devil. The importance of a knowledge of the Devil. Great number of passages where the word “devil” occurs in the Common Version, in which it is not in the original. No two words can mean the same thing. The true meaning of the word Diabolos. Proofs from the Common Version of this meaning. The substitution of the true meaning for the untrue much more useful and instructive.

 

SOUND thinking, that is, cultivated and well-directed common sense, applied to the discovery of truth, either natural or revealed, has followed the rule, That nothing ought to be believed as true, unless its truth can be demonstrated by an appeal to the facts recorded in the book of Creation, or to those revealed in the book of Revelation.

 

Rigid adherence, of late years, by the naturalists to this rule, in reference to the subject of natural, creation-written truths, has been the cause of immense progress in natural science: and is it not, without any improper presumption, to be inferred that a similar rigid adherence to this rule in matters relating to the spiritual, Bible-written truths, will be attended with equal progress?

 

It is a lamentable fact that, in the matter of rigid adherence to this rule of truth investigation and truth demonstration, “the children” who study the things of the natural order are far in advance of, “are wiser in their generation than the children” who study the things of the spiritual order.

 

It is from this cause that such diversities of opinions prevail among professed followers of Christ; an evil, not to be remedied, as the Romanists would remedy it, by squeezing all men’s minds into one universal square, impudently called “the mind of the church”; or, as Milton describes the patent uniforming process, “starching them into the stiffness of uniformity by tradition.”1 This is not the method; but the only method is, to establish as binding upon all inquirers after truth the rule already recorded, that nothing in spiritual matters ought to be believed as true, unless its truth can be demonstrated by an appeal to the original scriptures, and this to the satisfaction of every well constituted, truth loving mind.

 

This rule, once generally recognised and practically carried out, will make all of one mind, will establish a uniformity of opinion, founded on the conviction, and not on the suspension, of the understanding.

 

Men of science are of one mind in regard to chemical, mechanical, and mathematical facts; this oneness having been arrived at by rigidly adhering to the prescribed rule in studying the book of Creation. What, then, is there in spiritual subjects to prevent men, pursuing Revelation-recorded truths, arriving at a similar oneness of mind in regard to those truths recorded by the same divine wisdom, and guided by the same God of order as dictated the other book of instruction?

 

Taking this rule as the guide, and holding the principles, that, Revelation being a truth discovery its truths were for discovery, and that these truths are to he discovered with a certainty as great as that connected with the Creation truths, it is proposed to consider the subject of

 

THE DEVIL

 

As a consequence of being guided by his rule, it will be essential to throw behind us, and, as far as possible, to banish from our thoughts, all the various notions that have been instilled into our minds regarding the existence of a personal immortal Devil by means of stories, pictures, and even by that delightful writer, Bunyan,2 and by that stupendous-minded poet, Milton.3 The descriptions, however beautiful, and the notions thence derived, however strong, must be to us, as inquirers after truth, as though they were not.

 

Knowing, however, how strong early impressed notions are, how constantly they intrude themselves, whenever the subjects with which they were originally introduced into the mind are brought before the view, we require to remain continually on the intellectual watch-tower, lest when we, in relation to the influence of mental associations, are asleep, they may enter in and divert our minds from the good old way of the law and the testimony.

 

From the book of Creation nothing can be learned of the existence of the Devil of popular belief. Formerly, the miseries in the world might and did lead some to imagine and to believe in the existence of some powerful malignant spirit. The Magi taught the existence of a good and of an evil spirit, between which existed an irreconcilable enmity: an opinion constantly detectable in the Egyptian and Grecian mythologies. But now it is known that all misery arises from the violation of the laws of the Creator, obedience to which is productive, necessarily productive, of happiness: and that all evil will cease when God’s laws, physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual, are discovered and obeyed.

 

-------

1 Milton’s Prose Works, Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing

2 Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress

3 Milton’s Paradise Lost and Regained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The importance of an accurate knowledge respecting the popular devil must be apparent, when it is remembered that his agencies and operations are regarded as extensive as is the outspreading of the human family; as singularly powerful, amounting almost to an omnipotent dominion; as producing multitudes of crimes1 in connection with the wicked, and excessive mental distress in connection with the good and the excellent. If, therefore, there is such a being, it must be highly advantageous to know about him; and if there is not such a being, it must be equally necessary, yea, more so, to be aware and thoroughly convinced of his non-existence, as thus the mind will be led to seek for other causes for the results which are supposed to be dependent upon his agencies, and, by their discovery, the discoverer will gain the power of getting rid of these results by removing their causes.
 

As, therefore, the book of Creation can afford no knowledge of a devil, the Scriptures must be the book where the natural history of the Devil must be learned.
 

The words, “devil” and “devils,” occur over one hundred times in the common translation.
 

The first step in the inquiry respecting the Devil of Scripture is, Are these words represented by the same word in the original Scriptures? An examination demonstrates that this is not the case; that two radically distinct words are used: and that seventy-seven of the passages are represented by a word quite distinct from that which, in the remaining passages, is the representative of the word “devil” in the common translation, Allowing, for the present, that the word “devil” is the proper translation of the Greek word in these thirty-seven passages, it is quite certain that the word “devil” or “devils” cannot be the proper rendering of the Greek word occurring in the other passages; and, consequently, a rendering which does not discriminate between the two sets of passages must lead into error.
 

For it is a principle that all who study the Scriptures regarding them as the product, through human agency, of divine wisdom, must allow, that divine wisdom would never employ two distinct words if one correctly conveyed the meaning. All arguments, therefore, in relation to the Devil, as derived from the passages referred to, would be fallacious, because the Devil is not referred to therein.
 

These seventy-seven passages can therefore be dismissed for the present, while we consider the remaining passages in which a different word translated “devil” occurs, and from them must be learned what is taught concerning the Devil of Scripture.
 

The field of inquiry is thus limited: let care be taken in its examination. The passages are: -



Matt 4:1 Luke 8:12 1 Tim 3:7 1 John 3:8
Matt 4:5 John 6:70 1 Tim 3:11 1 John 3:8
Matt 4:8 John 8:44 2 Tim 2:26 1 John 3:10
Matt 4:11 John 8:2 2 Tim 3:3 Jude 9
Matt 8:39 Acts 10:38 Titus 2:3 Rev 2:10
Matt 25:41 Acts 13:10 Heb 2:14 Rev 12:9
Luke 4:2 Eph 4:27 James 4:7 Rev 12:12
Luke 4:3 Eph 6:11 1 Peter v. 8 Rev 20:2
Luke 4:6 1 Tim 3:6 1 John 3:8 Rev 20:10
Luke 4:13            

 

What, then, is the word rendered “devil” in these passages? It is diabolos. What does this mean? It is derived from diaballo, this itself being compounded or made up, of two words, dia - through, and ballo - to strike, to pierce (as with an arrow): diaballo, therefore, signifies to pierce through: and as, when a man’s character is attacked by the false charges of another, his character is pierced through, this word diaballo means also to calumniate, which is to pierce through with the darts of calumny. And, as the idea of this calumny implies that the accusations are false, the term diabolos means false-accuser, a calumniator. The proper meaning of the word diabolos, is, therefore, false-accuser, calumniator; the improper meaning is “devil” - this improper interpretation having been first given by the translators of the Scriptures into Greek; a rendering Leigh2 remarks, “nowhere else sampled (i.e., so used) in any Greek author.” The derivation of this word thus proves that false-accuser, calumniator, is the correct translation.


Additional evidence that “false-accuser” is the correct translation of diabolos is afforded in the occasional use of the proper meaning of the word in the common translation. A few passages may be noted. Paul, in writing to Timothy respecting the wives of deacons, observes, “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things,” 1 Timothy 3:11. The phrase, not slanderers, is, in the original, me diaboloi, not devils-that is, if the proper meaning of the word diabolos is “devil.” The translators here were obliged to translate the word rightly: for the same subserviency of mind that caused them to obey the audacious mandate of King James to translate the word ecclesia, church, and not assembly or congestion, which is its proper meaning, would operate in making them avoid giving offence to the fair sex, which they would have done had they rendered the word diaboloi, “devils.” Their gallantry, perhaps it was, made them do right. This, then, is passage the first where the proper meaning has been given.
 

Paul, in writing to Titus, uses the same expression: “The aged women, likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false-accusers,” Titus 2:3. The phrase rendered “not false-accusers” is me diabolous, not devils - if devil be the proper meaning of the word diabolos. The translators, however, have here again, by the undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to translate the word properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second evidence that diabolos means false-accuser.
-------
Copy of indictment for murder, Chitty’s Burn’s Justice of the Peace, vol. 3, p. 259, 26th edit., 1831. – The Jurors for our Lord the King upon their oath present that not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, on in the year of the reign of with force and arms, at the parish of aforesaid, in the country of aforesaid, in and upon one in the peace of God and our said Lord and King, there being feloniously, wilfully, and in his malice afterthought, did make an assault, and that, &c. 
2 Leigh’s Critica Sacra, article diabolos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A third passage, confirming this as the proper interpretation, is the following:- “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away,” 2 Tim. 3v 1-3. Here the word, correctly rendered “false-accusers,” is diaboloi, “devils” - that is, if “devils” is the proper interpretation - the interpretation given to it in thirty-five other passages in the common translation. But it is not the proper rendering: the proper translation has been, given in this passage, thus affording a third confirmatory evidence that “false-accuser” is the meaning of the word diabolos.

 

In all the passages thus quoted the word is applied to human beings, and not to any supernatural, invisible beings - a fact well worthy of being noted.

 

The question here occurs, if the phrase “false-accuser,” or that of “slanderer,” is the proper translation in these passages, why should not a similar rendering be given throughout the Scriptures? Why should the Translators, or, more correctly, the Revisers of the Scriptures, not have rendered the word uniformly throughout? The answers are left to be supplied by the common-sense of each inquirer.

 

It will be seen from the preceding remarks that false-accuser, slanderer, calumniator, is the primary meaning, and, it may be added, the proper meaning of this word diabolos, a meaning which has this advantage, that all can understand it; a statement which cannot be made in reference to the word “devil”; for does any one, adopting the common notions, understand what the “Devil” is? Do any two people agree on his character, his existence, his attributes? Seeing, then, that there is a simple meaning, and seeing there is a mysterious meaning, can it be proper, can it be advantageous, to substitute a word which has no definite meaning for one which has a fixed, a practical meaning?

 

To proceed in the investigation. It may be inferred that, as all truth is harmonious, the introduction of the actual meaning of the word diabolos in those passages in which, in the common translation, it has been represented by the word “devil,” will render the passages themselves much more intelligible and practically useful.

 

These passages may now be considered with this idea before the mind.

 

Jesus had been declaring some of those great truths which certain of those who followed him were “not able to hear,” so that “from that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him,” Jno. 6v 66. Their self-love ruling wrongly in their natures deceived them, and hence they falsely accused Christ of deceiving them, and so forsook him. Their departure afforded Christ an opportunity of asking the twelve, “—Will ye also go away?” Then Simon Peter answered him, “Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son, of the living God,” Jno. 6v 67, 68, 69. To this rejoinder of Simon was the distressing information imparted by the Lord: “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Jno. 6v 70. The language is plain in its application. The Saviour is speaking to twelve men, and one of these men, he stated, is a devil? No; he does not so say. The Common Version makes him thus to speak, but the real expression which Jesus used was, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a diabolos,” a false-accuser. This is what he says; and illustrative of the point of view in which the disciple referred to is a false-accuser, the form is pointed out in which the character was made manifest: “for he” (Judas) “it was who should betray him,” Jno. 6v 70 - pierce him through by false accusation. That diabolos in this passage means “false-accuser,” and not “devil,” is further evident from this, that if it means “devil,” then Judas was a devil: for it is said, “He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon,” Jno. 6v 71; and Judas being a man, a devil must therefore be a man. This conclusion, which at once would overturn the common idea of the devil - that he is a supernatural being — cannot be got rid of except by doing justice to the word diabolos, and rendering it by the word, properly expressive of its meaning, namely, “false-accuser.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next step in the betrayal of the Christ still further demonstrates that “false-accuser” is the proper meaning of the word diabolos, and that therefore the introduction of the word “devil” into the passage detailing such step, is incorrect: “And supper being ended-the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,” Jno. 13v 2. This passage, many think, argues strongly in favour of a literal “devil,” because, it is said, that “the devil having now put into,” or entered, “the heart of Judas.” But it it is quite clear that this cannot be literally true, for no “Devil” could put anything into the heart of a person; and, it is further evident that if a “devil” is to be regarded as a distinct being, Judas was a “devil,” for Jesus called him so; and how could one “devil” enter into another “devil”? and, what is more difficult still, into the heart of that other “devil”; which must have been the case if Judas, already a “devil” (“one of you is a devil”), had a “devil” enter his heart.

 

But if it is understood that the word “devil;” represents not only a human being who falsely accuses, but the state of mind whence false accusations arise: that, in other words, it represents a ruling, active, selfish, accusing state of mind, which, entering a man - that is, gaining rule in, or possession of, his mind - creates in the man those mental states by which the man, as a false-accuser, manifests himself, the matter becomes quite clear, and all contradictions cease. The narrative then informs us that Judas, who, ere the betrayal, was a false accuser, at last became so much the servant of the self-love principle, the accusing his master principle, as to be subject to its dictations, and to become a slave in carrying out its behests.

 

Vicious plans, confirmed vicious habits, are not produced in a moment. The selfish desire works a long time before it comes to its development. A vicious state of mind works insensibly oftentimes before the vice enters the heart of the man - that is, before it is so influential as to break forth into positive acts. Such was the case with Judas. He had long been in a state of mind in which he falsely accused his master: mark how he grumbled respecting the ointment used for the anointing of the Christ (“–for he kept the bag”): but before this state took the form of betrayal, of positive act, various barriers had to be overcome. These were overcome, and then the false-accusation-state-of-mind, diabolos, entered and possessed him.

 

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated, but improperly so, “devil,” is the following:- “And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus: which was with the deputy of the country. Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then Saul (who also is called Paul), filled with the Holy Spirit, set his eyes on him, and said, O full of all subtilty, and all mischief thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right was of the Lord?” Acts 13v 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

 

What does the whole narrative prove? That Elymas, not content with his sorceries, falsely represented to Sergius Paulus the doctrines which Paul preached, and which Sergius Paulus had believed. What followed this false accusation of Paul? Paul, the account states, set his eyes upon the false-accuser, and said, “O full of all subtilty, and of all mischief, child of calumny, enemy of all righteousness.” There is no authority in the original for the word “the” which, in the Common Version, precedes the word “devil,” so that if “devil” were the proper translation, the passage ought to be “child of a devil.” But “devil” has no business in the passage at all: Paul charges Elymas with calumny, and personifies him as a child of calumny, just as we say of a wicked person, he is a “child” of vice.”

 

This exact sense of the word diabolos, namely, as embracing the utterer of false-accusation, develops the force of another passage in which Jesus, after being falsely-accused by the Jews, charges them:- Jno. 8v 44-“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye do” -that is, you adopt the character of a false-accuser in calumniating me: ye, as such, are the children of this state of mind. You, in mind, are led away by the accursed disposition of falsely-accusing: ye are the children mentally of the false-accuser, and being so, your mental perceptions manifest their parentage. And the destructive character of this falsely-accusing state of mind, of this slaying by calumny all that is excellent, of this giving false views of the character of God, is exhibited by the passage in question; Jno. 8v 44 - “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because truth is not in him: when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it.” So that when the mind is in this state, truth is not present: it is banished: the mind generates lies: it murders truth. This selfish state slays the man, defacing the likeness-to-God state: and this, from the very first, when it gained the mastery.

 

Another passage in the Common Version in which the phrase “the devil” occurs would be beautifully expressive, truly natural, if rendered according to the proper interpretation, “false-accuser.” Paul is recommending the Ephesians to perform all the social duties in such a way as to give no cause of complaint to any one, not even the most captious; to those anxiously looking for opportunities to charge them with offences: Eph. 4v 27-”Neither give place to the false accuser” (tou diabolou) - that is, give no opportunity to any one who would be glad to charge you with offences against the law. And that Paul refers to a human, and not to an invisible, enemy, is proved by the context, where offences are referred to that are objects of notice by the civil magistrate before whom the false-accuser, but not the “devil,” would be happy to have the opportunity of taking the believer: “Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.”

 

Another passage in which the word diabolos in the Common Version, rendered “the devil,” would, if rendered “false accuser,” exhibit the sense in its beautiful simplicity, is, “And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those thinks which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” Rev. 2v 8, 9, 10. It is quite certain that the “devil,” an invisible agent, could not cast them (that is, human bodies) into prison, but a diabolos, a false-accuser, by branding them with charges before a civil magistrate, might obtain their committal: and that such a false-accuser, or such false-accusers, are human beings, is proved by the preceding verse, wherein they are described as “Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue, or the assembly, of the adversary” (tou Satanas - the Translators have left out the tou “thee,” which is before “Satan,” which latter means adversary). The passage, therefore, will appear in its clearness when the word diabolos is rendered according to its simple meaning. “Fear none of these things, which thou shalt suffer: behold, the false-accuser shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tou diabolou occurs in two other passages, in which it is rendered in the Common Version “devil,” where, if rendered false-accuser, the sense would at once become apparent. Paul is describing the qualifications of a Christian bishop: one he particularly details, 1 Tim. 3v 6 - “Not a novice;” and the reason is given, “lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” The condemnation of the devil of orthodox belief would never be associated with the lifting up with pride; such lifting up would, according to the common idea of the Devil, be pleasing to the Devil. If it be said that the condemnation is that into which “the Devil” fell, the answer is, that condemnation must first be proved.

 

The words are krima tou diabolou; the term krima means legal judgment, hence our word “crime”, which is applied to an offence of which the civil magistrate takes note. Paul therefore means, that being lifted up with pride, the novice might act in such a manner as to, render himself amenable to the critically exercised judgment of the false-accuser. That Paul refers to no invisible being, but to men, by whom the bishop is surrounded, is proved by the following passage: 1 Tim. 3v 7 – “Moreover he must have a good report of them that are without” (i.e., men of the world), “lest he fall into reproach and into the snare of the false-accuser”; rendered “devil” in the Common Version.

 

The same idea of a human “false-accuser” is conveyed in other passages where the word “devil” is improperly given in the Common Version. Thus, Peter writes (I Peter 5v 8). “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” This passage is very commonly quoted to prove the existence and the power of the Devil; but that the phrase diabolos refers to a human false-accuser is settled by the phrase definitive of an preceding it, namely, “adversary.” The word for adversary is antidikos, which means an opponent at law. Peter, therefore, is referring to the necessity of believers so shaping their conduct as members of society, that the opponent will have no opportunity of charging them with any violation of the law of moral duty (for dike, a part of the word antidikos, means “moral rectitude”) before the civil magistrate. How much more simple would this passage be if rendered, as it ought to have been, “Be sober, be vigilant, because your opponent, the false-accuser, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

 

A somewhat similar application of the term diabolos is found in James 4v 7, where we read: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” James teaches submission on the one hand and resistance on the other: to God, submission of mind; to the utterer of false-accusation (or, it may be, to the falsely-accusing state of mind possessing one’s self for the time being) resistance, when “the diabolos will flee.”

 

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated “devil,” is the following: - “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee,” Jude v9. The proper meaning of the word diabolos here is “false-accuser”; and, that Michael, the chief messenger, and also the false-accuser, were individual human beings, will be shown in the remarks to be made hereafter on the word “Satan.”

 

In the Revelations are three passages in which the word diabolos occurs and is, in the Common Version, translated “devil,” but in which it refers to a false-accuser, and not to an invisible supernatural agent. The demonstration of this view will require the force of the word Satan to be understood; and, therefore, these three passages will be dealt with when “Satan” is examined.

 

The last passage now to be referred to in which diabolos, rendered “devil” in the Common Version, means, and ought to have been rendered, “false-accuser,” is that where Paul, addressing the Ephesians, says – “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,” Eph. 6v 11. A previous warning of the Ephesians by Paul against the false-accuser has been already noticed; and in this passage he notices the means by which they can successfully resist all the cunning methods (methodeias) of the false-accuser. The means are the “whole Armour of God.” And the necessity of the whole, and not a part, of the armour, is evidenced by the number of enemies with which the false-accuser of the believer is leagued: “For,” adds he (verse 12), “we wrestle not against flesh and blood” - that is, against our own selfish desires and our natural feelings - “but against principalities” (archas - i.e. civil rulers), “against powers” (exousias - i.e., authorities), “against the rulers of the darkness of this world” i.e., against those who rule merely, and by means of, the dark ignorance of the age (aion) , and who, therefore, hate the religion of Christ, which is light. Not only against these has the disciple, who follows the commands of Christ, to fight, as Paul says, but, in his profession and practice of the truth, he has to fight against foes more deadly - the abominable superstitions and priestcraft systems, which cunning knaves have introduced into matters relating to heaven, even into Christianity itself, “against spiritual wickedness in high places,” or, as it may be translated, “against the spiritual things of the wickedness in the heavenly matters.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that many may prefer the peculiar unmeaningness and mystery of the passages as rendered in the Common Version; and they may find such obscurity useful in enabling them to apply the phrases to some mystifying beings in “the world of spirits.” A thief cries, “Stop thief?” - so the ecclesiastics, knowing that as long as the people think that this spiritual wickedness in high places means something going on in a world which none can see, think they can assert what they like as to this wickedness; and, in addition, they know that the people will be thus diverted from examining what is going on in this world which they can see, and will thus be prevented from discovering, by comparing with the original Scriptures, the gross and blasphemous pretensions and wickedness of these ecclesiastics in reference to the traditions and commandments of men with which they have sought to defile the minds of believers.”1

 

Paul, in this memorable passage, informs all believers that, if they do their duty, they have to fight, with Bible weapons, against the improper activities (for there are proper activities) of their natural feelings; against the institutions of the civil rulers, when they are opposed to the love of the neighbour and to obedience to Christ, as they often are; against those authorities in law and in opinion that are counter to the glorious truths made known by Deity; against those who live on the ignorance of mankind, making use of the darkness to set people against people; and, finally, against those enemies - the worst of all - who, by virtue of what they term “apostolic succession,” have, in matters relating to the Supreme, and to man in relation thereto, introduced a system of arrogant pretensions respecting their exclusive rights, and who, besides indulging in solemn mummeries in their half-pagan ceremonials, and priestly jugglery in their creed manufacture, have produced cunningly-devised fables which make those truths which are, as Cowper writes,

 

“Legible by the light they give,”

 

so obscure, that men have been obliged to go to these spiritual lawyers for an interpretation of the Divine Code; and a prosperous trade have they driven upon their assumed right of interpretation of the Divine Code; and a prosperous trade have they driven upon their assumed right of interpretation.

 

Considering that the believer has to combat all these foes; considering that the false-accuser presents so many forms; considering that these enemies are so numerous, and their interests so clashing with the love-neighbour principle; and that the false-accuser, urged on by these enemies to a constant watch, would hail any false step by which the believer might fall into the power, not of the “devil,” but of this false-accuser; well may the believer remember the words of Paul, and, in order to “be able to withstand the wiles of the false-accuser,” put on, the whole, and not a part merely, of the armour of God.

 

Diabolos is, then, a False-Accuser.

 

-------

1 Howitt’s History of Priestcraft. Tracts for the Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER 2

Man possesses a threefold nature. The opposition between the institutions of society and the commands of Christ. Submission of self. Means to obtain this submission. False-accusation state of mind. Passages illustrative. Parable of the tares. Parable of the sower of the seed. The misintroduction of the Devil into the Old Testament.

MAN has three departments in his constitution, an animal, selfish in its tendencies; a moral and religious, or spiritual, universal in its tendencies; and an intellectual, operative in the formation and communication of ideas. The institutions of society are, in general, appeals to man’s nature; they patronise self; they give nutriment to self; they draw forth the abundant and destructive fruits of self. The religion of Christ, on the other hand, appeals to man’s moral and religious nature; it cultivates universality of feeling and the love-neighbour principle; it draws forth the fruits of kindness, of mercy, of justice, and of true humility God-ward. The distinction between the institutions of society and the requirements of the truth is forcibly depicted by the great teacher: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, love thine enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you, That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain, On the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect,” Matt. 5v 38-48.

To act in accordance with these commands of Christ requires the subjugation of self-requires not the destruction, but the control of self. To do this, man must have some motive, and that motive must be very powerful; both because his selfish nature is peculiarly strong, and because the institutions of society have a constant tendency to foster its development. What, then, is a motive sufficiently powerful? The belief that “God exists, and that He becomes a rewarder of those who are diligently seeking Him” after the fashion set forth in the revelation of the secret (“mystery”) of “God all in all” (I Cor. 15v 28) “made known for the obedience of faith among all nations” by Jesus and his apostles (Rom. 16v 23); such a belief will enable a man to overcome himself, and thus approach towards the perfection of God.

The love of self - the natural state - leads one to act in harmony with his selfish nature; to become its slave; to believe that God is a hard master, gathering where He has not strewed; that He is a revengeful God, who seeks His own sovereign will and pleasure, and has no regard for man; that He has left man to struggle, as well as he can, through the turmoils of life, and to take care of himself; and that the subduing of the animal nature is taking a great deal of pains for no purpose; and that to aim at the perfection of God is all a mistake.

These latter states of mind, too common, and often boasted of, are states in which God is falsely accused. Those who act under these states falsely accuse their Maker by refusing to believe that that which He commands is for their good rather than for His. They become diaboloi, false-accusers of God: and the term diabolos can be transferred from the individual to the state of mind of the individual. In such sense, namely, as indicating a state, a falsely-accusing state, this word is frequently used in Scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This disposition of mind, this falsely-accusing state, being in opposition to the higher (the-likeness-to-God) possibilities of man’s nature, is subversive to happiness, which is the fruit of these higher principles. This state punishes its possessor. It creates a fire that burns within; a worm that dieth not, continually gnawing at the happiness and peace of its possessor. Those, then, who gratify this selfish state, who falsely accuse God by refusing to believe His promises, and who, from this disbelief, do not exercise what He commands, namely, the kindlier feelings of humanity, and the love-principles of Christianity, for fear they should lose thereby; who will not sacrifice to heaven for fear that heaven (though heaven has promised to repay) should not repay them for the sacrifice; and who, in so neglecting to sacrifice, will not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, lodge the stranger, clothe the naked, or visit the prisoner, do, as plainly as, possible, by their conduct falsely accuse God, and the arrangements of His divine wisdom.

To such responsible persons, our Saviour, the judge, will say, stationed, as they will be, in the place of inferiority, the left hand, “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25v 41) - that is, prepared for the false-accuser and his messengers. They have, by living in selfishness, been calumniating God, who “brought life and incorruptibility to light” for such as fulfil His will; and they have become the slaves of their own selfishness and falsely-accusing principle; and thus, under the power of the false-accuser, or selfish state of mind, they shut out all the kindlier sympathies of their higher nature, and thus they did not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or perform any of the duties of humanity.

This falsely-accusing state is that which deceives men, and hence in the Revelations the falsely-accusing state is defined as— “the devil that deceiveth them” (Rev. 20v 10) - more correctly, the false-accuser, the error-creator (ho planon).

This falsely-accusing of God’s principles is the source of fear - all fear arising from false notions of God. The mind that falsely accuses God by ascribing to Him the same revengeful disposition that itself feels, creates fear in reference to the future. Hence the glorious mission of Christ, who came to establish the truth that those who believe in and follow him are sons of God, and, as such, shall inherit the kingdom prepared for them. The writer to the Hebrews appreciated this glorious dilspeller of fear, as when lie writes: “And again, I will put trust in him. And again, behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise shared the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death-that is, the devil; And deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2v 13-15). Or, as properly rendered, “make inoperative him having the strength of death-that is, the false-accuser” - the state of mind which leads man falsely to accuse God: and the result of this state of mind, this falsely-accusing state, being done away (Christ having been raised, and thereby having demonstrated the completion of his work), is to “deliver them who, through fear of death,” from this false accusation of God, “were all their lifetime liable to (this evil) servitude” (Heb. 2v 15).

An additional illustration of the word diabolos being expressive of this falsely-accusing state of mind is afforded in the interesting parable of the sower of tares: “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the household came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, an enemy has done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares ye root -up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into, my barn. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that sowed the good seed is the son of man: the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked: the enemy that sowed them is the devil: the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are message-bearers” (Matt. 13v 24-30, 36-39).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is here positively asserted that the son of man sowed the good seed, and that the enemy who sowed the tares is, according to the Common Version, the Devil. The good seed, it is stated, are the children of the kingdom; the tares, the children of the wicked. These statements are not true literally, for Christ never sowed literal seed: he was a carpenter: and the Devil never sowed tares; he would have been useful if he had. It is quite clear that the children of the kingdom were not Christ’s literal children: no, Christ sowed truth, and the children, begotten by that truth, were thus spiritually its children. It is clear also that the children of the wicked were not the Devil’s literal children, but were those begotten by the opposite to truth, namely, the lies, which the falsely-accusing state of man’s mind generates in reference to God.

 

It should be remembered, also, that though it is stated that the tares are the children of the “wicked one “ there is no word for “one” in the original, and that the same term is in other passages translated “wickedness,” “the wicked.”

 

Besides, tares are not bad in themselves, but are bad when sown in soil appropriated for other uses. So the animal feelings, which the tares represent, are not bad in themselves, but are bad when they, as in the field of the world, usurp dominion over the moral and religious feelings. This is the evil. They grow together; but if tares kept to their field, then, instead of being an evil, they would be useful, as are the animal feelings. But when the false-accuser, who, Christ asserts, sowed the tares, makes use of the animal feelings to decry and vilify the government of the higher feelings that produce good fruit, then the tares are sown amidst the wheat - an arrangement which is a disturbance of the order that God has appointed. If the tares grew in their own field they would be useful, because nutritive; but when they grow in the wheat field, then, as they cannot be gathered till useless, they must, when gathered, be burned.

 

Another passage in which “devil” occurs in the Common Version, is in the parable of the sower of the seed: “A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed some fell by the wayside; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it ... Now, the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved” (Luke 8v 5, 11-12).

 

That no literal Devil can come and do this is quite certain. He must have very delicate fingers to take hold of words, those winged messengers of thought. The diabolos here represents the falsely-accusing state of the mind that represents God as a hard master, gathering where He had not strewed; which destroys the word teaching love to God and love to our neighbour. Let the falsely-accusing state preponderate - a preponderance which trial is very apt to occasion - the good word is overpowered, and a disregard of the beauties of mercy, justice, and humility becomes predominant in the adverse state of mind: thus the good seed, without the aid of any being, miscalled the Devil, is taken out of the heart.

 

Understanding the word diabolos as expressing a falsely-accusing state of mind, the forcible correctness of the statement of John becomes apparent: “He that committeth sin is of the devil,” the false-accuser - that is, he acts from the falsely-accusing state of mind; he acts in harmony with his animal nature, uncontrolled by the spiritual (he is, therefore, carnal): “for the devil (diabolos) sinneth from the beginning” (1 Jno. 3v 8). Hence it was, as John continues, “for this purpose the Son of God was manifested; that he might destroy (luo, to unloose) the works of the false-accuser (diabolos).” This “destruction” of his works is being accomplished in all those “born of God”; “for,” says John, “whosoever is born of God cloth not commit sin, because he is born of God” (verse 9). “In this,” he adds, “the children of God are manifest, and the children of the false-accuser (diabolos): whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of (ek, out of) God; neither he that loveth not his brother” (verse 10).

 

The passages have now been considered in which the word diabolos occurs, excepting those which refer to the temptation of the Saviour, being four passages in Matthew’s testimony, four in Luke’s, and one in John’s; and three passages in the Revelations where the term diabolos is used in connection with satan. These will be considered, and proof will be given that the same idea is intended to be conveyed by the word diabolos used in these passages.

 

The consideration of all these passages has proved - first, that the legitimate meaning of the word diabolos is false-accuser, calumniator; second, that in some passages the Translators, or rather the Revisers (for they did not translate), of the Common Version, have given the proper interpretation; third, that if the same translation had been given to all the passages in which the word diabolos occurs as that given in the passages referred to, the meaning of the divine writer would have been rendered intelligible; fourth, that there is no ground for a belief in a super-natural, invisible, individual existence called the Devil.

 

Before concluding these views, it may be proper to notice that the word “devil” does not occur in the Old Testament, though the word “devils” occurs four times. It is quite certain that the ancient Jews were not aware of the existence of a Devil - for the four passages in which the word “devils” occurs imply no such being. It may be useful to examine these passages, as the examination will throw some light upon the common notion of “the Devil.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passages are four: two in the Pentateuch, one in the book of Chronicles, and one in the Psalms. In two of them, the word translated “devils” is sheedim; in the other two, s’gnirim.

The word s’gnirim, rendered “devils,” occurs in the following passage: - “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: to the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation unto the priest, and offer them for peace-offerings unto the Lord. And the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them, throughout their generations” (Lev. 17v 1-7).

What, then, is the meaning of the word s’gnirim, which is translated “devils?” The word is derived from s’gnir, which signifies “the hair of the head.” The word therefore, represents something hairy. It came to signify a goat; a hairy one. It was applied to the fanciful, lustful animal, called a satyr, of whom the heathen god Pan, was the representative. Pan is described as a monster in appearance he had two small horns on his head, his complexion was ruddy, his nose flat, and his lips, thighs, tail, and feet were those of a goat. He was worshipped with the greatest solemnity over all Egypt. He was the emblem of fecundity, and the Egyptians and other nations looked upon him as the principle of all things.1 This description gives the parentage of the vulgar Devil, so that the common Devil was dug by the early corrupters of Christianity out of the grave of paganism:2 and yet some believers in the Scriptures hug the monster still. It will be seen from this view that no justification exists for the word “devils” in this passage. The Israelites are commanded not to “sacrifice to hairy ones,” the Pans (or idols) of the heathen around. They were taught that God is the Author of all fruitfulness, and that He alone ought to be worshipped.

Another passage where the same word occurs presents the absurdity of rendering the word “devils” in a still stronger view. “And the priests of the Levite that were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts. For the Levites let their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priests’ office unto the Lord. And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made” (2 Chron. 11v 13-15). Jeroboam manufactured a state religion: joined priestcraft and kingcraft: this he did most likely to keep his people, who by the law had to go up to Jerusalem to worship, from going back to Rehoboam, for he perceived it might be dangerous to his royal interests if the people associated with the subjects of Rehoboam, the king of Judah, when visiting Jerusalem to worship. In fact, this actually happened, it is stated, - “And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their father; So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong three years, for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon” (5v 15-17).

These “devils,” for which he ordained priests, were not “devils,” but the Pans, the hairy ones, the supposed prolific principle in nature, which he set up in place of the worship of Him who pours down fruitfulness on the earth, and provided for all in due season.

The other two passages in which the term “devils” occurs have the word sheedim. The word is derived from sheed, which means to pour forth. It mean also breasts; because they pour forth nourishment. “As a noun masculine plural it was the name given by the Hebrews to the idols worshipped by the inhabitant of Canaan” - (Parkhurst). The Egyptian god, Isis, was one of these sheedim, and was called multimamia or many-breasted; because [the idol was] clustered over with breasts. Sud also was “tho great goddess Diana,” on which was inscribed “all various nature, mother of all things.” The Israelites, whenever prosperity attended them, forgot the source, and worshipped the gods of their neighbours. “But Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness: then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God: to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.” (Deut. 32v 15-17).

The use of the word “devils,” therefore, is not correct: they worshipped idols or gods representing the prolific principles in nature. John Bellamy renders this passage, “They sacrificed to spoilers, not God”3 (Deut. 32v 17).

But not only was it evil to worship these false gods, but the worship itself was brutalising. “It is said of the Mexicans of America that, before the arrival of the Spaniards, children were offered up at the first appearance of green corn; when the corn was a foot above the ground, and again when it was two feet high.”4 In reference to some such brutal worship the Psalmist observes, “They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes: because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips. They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them; but were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils. . . . unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus they were defiled with their own works, :And went a whoring with their own inventions” (Ps. 106v 32-37).

Such, then, is a review of all the passages, with the few exceptions already referred to, in the Old and the New Testaments, in which, in the Common Version, the words “devil” and “devils” occur. This examination will serve to establish the inaccuracy of the translation, the absurdity of the belief in a being such as the Devil is represented to be, and will prepare the mind for a still more extended examination of the subject in the remaining chapters.

-------
1 Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary: article Pan.
2 “It is not, however, improbable that the ‘Christians’ borrowed these goat-like pictures of the devil, with a tail, horns and cloven feet, from the heathenish representations of Pan the terrible.” – Pankhurst’s Hebrew Lexicon; word s’gnir, by some read shor.
3 John Bellamy’s Translation of the Bible.
4 Essay on the Devil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER 3

The term SATAN. Who Satan is must be learned from Revelation. Satan applied to express “adversary.” No badness of meaning essentially connected with the word Satan. The Satan in the Book of Job an idolator. Peter, the apostle, a Satan.

ANOTHER term which has been referred to in the preceding examination of the devil is

SATAN

To ascertain who or what is represented by this term renders it necessary to pursue the same course as that adopted in the discovery of the who or the what represented by the word “Devil” - namely, to examine all the passages in which the word occurs in the Book of Revelation: since, in the Book of Creation, the personage of Satan is not detectable any more than is the Devil.

The word “Satan” occurs in the Common Version fifty-five times, nineteen in the Old, thirty-six in the New Testament. The word itself is a Hebrew word, and, consequently, it may be inferred that, from the Hebrew Scriptures, its real force may be most readily ascertained.

On examining the word satan in the Hebrew Scriptures, its occurrence is found to be much more frequent in the original than in the Common Version. It occurs in fourteen distinct passages in which it is, in the Common Version, translated adversary or adversaries: also once to resist, Zech. 3v 1, and once to withstand. Numb. 20v 32, so that, taking the number of times, nineteen in which it is not translated (for sathan or satan is the Hebrew word untranslated), and comparing these with the number, namely fourteen, in which the word is translated, and consequently the meaning of the word is given, the latter, presenting a true meaning, almost equal in number those in which the Hebrew word, but with no meaning, is found. And when the fact is considered that, of the nineteen in which the untranslated word satan occurs, fourteen are found in the book of Job, it can be seen that these passages in which the word is translated and exhibited in its true meaning are nine more than those in which it is put in its untranslated form, namely, “Satan.”

What, then, is the word by which sathan is rendered in these passages? A quotation of a few will afford the best illustration.

In the interesting history of David, it appears that he served Achish, one of the princes of the Philistines. In such service he was called upon to engage in war against the enemies of his master. The princes, who with Achish were about to fight against their mutual enemies, observed David and his men. “Then said the princes of the Philistines, What do these Hebrews here? And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, which hath been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault with him since he fell unto me unto this day? And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? Should it not be with the heads of these men? Is not this David of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, Saul slew his thousands and-David his ten thousands?” 1 Sam. 24v 3-5.

“Lest he be an adversary to us:” The word here rendered “adversary” is satan: and if “satan” were the proper meaning, it should be - “Lest he be a satan to us.” Hence satan is applied to, a man.

Other passages in which satan occurs in the original, and is rendered “adversary” in the Common Version, are presented in the life of Solomon. “And Hiram the king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father: for Hiram was ever a lover of David. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying, thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the Lord his God, for the wars which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet. But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent,” 1 Kings v. 1-4. The phrase “adversary” is in the original satan; and that this adversary refers to human adversaries is evident, because Solomon makes a reference to wars which David carried on, which wars were carried on by human beings.

That the adversary is a human adversary, the continuation of Solomon’s history affords additional evidence. Solomon deviated from the course which Yahweh had marked out. As a punishment, “The Lord stirred up an adversary, unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom,” 1 King 11v 14. Here there can be, no doubt that the adversary was a human being, and the Hebrew word for such adversary is satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additional corroborative evidence, that sathan is applicable to a human being, and that such application conveys the idea of an “adversary,” is afforded in circumstances connected with the life of this once wise, but afterwards unwise, man. Solomon still persisted in his deviations from the law of his God, and his punishment was therefore continued. “And God stirred up another adversary, Rezon, the son of Eliadah, which had fled from his lord Hadadezer, king of Zobah,” 1 Kings 11v, 23. Of him it is stated, “And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon,” 5v 25. The word sathan is the word translated “adversary,” and the “adversaries” were human beings.

But further evidence can be brought to strengthen this argument, that satan means an adversary, and that, as such, is applied to human beings.

In David’s history, when, the tide of misfortune rolled over him, and he was obliged to fly from Jerusalem, he was cursed as he passed by the way by Shimei. On his return in glory, the same Shimei came and importuned his pardon: “But Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death for this, because he cursed the Lord’s anointed? And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? Shall there any man be put to death in Israel? For do not I know that I am this day king over Israel? Therefore, the king said unto Shimei, Thou shalt not die. And the king sware unto him,” 2 Samuel 19v 21-23. The “adversaries” here are evidently human beings, namely, the sons of Zeruiah, and yet these in the Hebrew are named satans.

In the Psalms the following interesting passage occurs:- “Cast me not off in the time of old age; forsake me not when my strength faileth. For mine enemies speak against me; and they that lay wait for my soul take counsel together, saying, God hath forsaken him: persecute and take him; for there is none to deliver him. O God, be not far from me: O my God, make haste for my help. Let them be confounded and consumed that are adversaries to my soul; let them be covered with reproach and dishonour that seek my hurt....” Ps. 71v 9-13. The “adversaries” here referred to are evidently human adversaries; and in the Hebrew the term applied to them is satans. In another Psalm, the Psalmist writes: “As he clothed himself with cursing like as with a garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul,” Ps. 109v 18-20, 29. In both these passages human adversaries are, without doubt, referred to; and the word satans represents these adversaries. From these passages (others might be quoted) it is evident that the Hebrew word sathan means an adversary.

A further examination of the use of this word demonstrates another point, namely, that a badness of character is not of necessity attached to the word satan -a notion associated almost constantly with this word. But the most positive proof that Satan means simply an adversary, and that the addition of badness is an accident, and not an essential part of the word, is found in the fact that the word satan is applied to the messenger of Jehovah. Balaam, the prophet, was about to proceed to curse Israel at the instigation of Balak, and this contrary to the command of God (Num. 22v 12, 22). It is further added that Balaam, on perceiving the messenger of the Lord, bowed himself: and the angel-messenger of the Lord said to him, “Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to be an adversary unto thee, because thy way is perverse before me,” Num. 22v 32.

In this passage the Hebrew word for “adversary” is satan, and it is applied to the Lord’s messenger (in the Common Version an “angel”); an application quite demonstrative of this, that the simple meaning of satan is one opposing, and showing that if the one opposing opposes another doing evil, or if the one opposing opposes another doing good, in either case the individual is a satan, an adversary.

Having thus demonstrated the meaning of the word satan, by the quotation of passages in which it is rendered “adversary,” the next step in the inquiry will be to ascertain whether these passages in which the word “Satan” occurs in the Common Version will admit of the interpretation “adversary.”

In Job’s history the word “Satan” occurs twelve times. “Now, there was a day when the sons of God came, to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that feareth God and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast thou not made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face,” Job 1v 6-11.

Without founding any argument upon the generally received notion that the book of Job is a dramatic production, it is quite clear that the Satan referred to is an adversary to the true worship of God; and, as such, insinuates that Job served God only for what he got. In fact, his language is the language of a selfish being, a false-accuser, who believes and asserts that no man does anything good but for what the doing will bring him: and, finding upon the testing of Job by the loss of his substance that he held fast his integrity, and therefore that the adversary’s theory was not proved, the adversary insinuates, “Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.” And the Lord said unto Satan, “Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life,” Job 2v 4-6.

Herein is a beautiful description of the mode by which a man’s attachment to a principle, to a duty, is to be tested: a narration of the circumstances which, under the ordinary dispensations of providence, occur to a man: and the adverse circumstances are here represented as being inflicted, by permission of providence, upon a good man to test his sincerity, his goodness: and the state of mind, which insinuates that inferior motives are the cause of the goodness of a man, is presented under the form, not of “Satan,” but of an adversary, who is the false accuser of the good man.

Another passage in which “Satan” occurs, and in which it is applied to a human adversary, is the following: “Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise: for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me they have spoken against me with a lying tongue. They compassed me about almost with words of hatred; and fought against me without a. cause. For my love they are my adversaries; but I give myself unto prayer. And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love. Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin,” Ps. 109v 1-7. “Set thou a wicked man over him”: this is highly expressive of the punishment deservedly allotted to the bad; to have one who is a bad man to rule over him. This would be indeed a just and severe punishment: but to have at his right hand one who would misrepresent all he did to his ruler is indeed an aggravation of that punishment: is indeed a reward for his hate, which punishing him in the way in which he punished others, and putting him into the pit in which he placed others, will cause him to feel the abomination of his conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A passage, particularly striking, in which the word “Satan” occurs, is presented in Zechariah: “And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan! even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: Is not this a brand plucked from the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by,” Zech. 3v 15. It should be remembered, in order to understand this passage, that the term “angel” means messenger. Joshua, the high priest, was in office in the reign of Darius, when Zerubbabel was the governor of Judah. Cyrus had given permission to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, but the hired counsellors had prevented the realisation of the purpose till the time of Darius-Artaxerxes, instigated by these adversaries (i.e., satans), having forbidden the continuance of the work. Darius, having come to the throne, and the Jews going on with the work, “At the same time came to them Tatnai, the governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and their companions, and said thus unto them, “Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?” Then said we unto them after this manner, “What are the names of the men that make this building?” But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to Darius: and then they returned answer by letter concerning this matter. The copy of the letter that Tatnai, governor of this side the river, and Shethar-bomai, and his companions the Apharsachites, which were on this side the river, sent unto Darius the king,” Ezra 5v 3-6. Tatnai, the adversary to the building of the temple, who is here termed the Satan, standing at the right hand, to resist Joshua (till then, the temple not being completed, figuratively clothed in filthy garments. manifested his adversative (satanic) state thus. “They sent a letter unto him, wherein was written thus: Unto Darius the king, all peace. Be it known unto the king that we went into the province of Judea, to the house of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and prospereth in. their hands. Then asked we those elders, and said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this house, and to make up these walls? We asked their names also, to certify thee that we might write the names of the men that were the chief of them. And thus they returned us answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up. This Tatnai therefore requests that the records may be searched to ascertain it such degree existed. The decree was found, and the permission was granted, notwithstanding Tatnai’s opposition, to go on with the temple. Thus realizing, “Take away the filthy garments from him,” Joshua; “So they set a fair mitre on his head, and clothed him with garments.”

Zechariah, therefore, in his vision, represents an actual event in the history of the Jewish Church, - “Satan” being Tatnai, and Joshua, the high priest, being at the same time, the functionary fulfilling the duties. Referring to this event, Jude remarks, “Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise do minion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil (diabolos) he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which-they know not; but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.” Jude v9. Here Tatnai is represented as “the devil,” because he falsely accused the Jews and insinuated intentions to the ruling monarch quite contrary to their real intention. “The body of Moses” is merely the Jewish church, and the disputation regarding that body is the disputation regarding the building of the temple for the Mosaic system of worship, and thus this passage in Jude, which has been the cause of much perplexity, becomes easily intelligible, referring as it does to the vision of Zechariah; for in that vision we find that, like as in the argument of Jude against the railing accusers, Michael, the chief messenger, did not rebuke Satan, but said, “The Lord rebuke thee,” so it was in the case of Joshua.

Another passage in which “Satan” is used, but in which a human adversary is, without doubt, referred to, is, “And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel,” 1 Chron. 21v 1. David numbered Israel, not for the mere sake of ascertaining the number of the people, but for the purpose of pride: for the purpose of seeing his strength, thereby virtually forgetting the God of his strength. This was a state adverse to his happiness, and the individual who suggested it was a Satan, that stood up against Israel, whom David ruled over: and that he was an adversary is proved by the result that the conduct of David on this occasion caused a pestilence to be inflicted on his people.

From all the passages here quoted, it becomes perfectly apparent that the word “Satan,” so far as its use in the Old Testament is concerned, instead of meaning an invisible, supernatural being, means an adversary, and this adversary, a human being in a state of opposition: this conclusion being strengthened by the preceding collection of passages, in which satan in Hebrew is rendered “adversary” in the Common Version.

It may now be advantageous to examine this word “Satan,” as occurring in the New Testament, with the view of discovering whether there is any justification for the application of the word to an invisible, supernatural, unknown being.

After the memorable confession to Christ by Peter, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus began to “show unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan,” Matt. 16v 16, 21-23.

“Satan” here is undoubtedly applied to a human being, namely, Peter: and Christ says to him, “Get thee behind me, adversary:” and the reason given shows that in applying the term to Peter it was to him, not as representing any supernatural being, but as representing a man opposing the course which the Saviour had marked out: “Thou art an offence (a cause of stumbling) to me, for thou savourest not, the things that be of God, but those that be of men,” v. 23. He does not say, “Thou savourest the things that be of invisible spirits.”

Here, then, let it be repeated, is a passage from the New Testament where there cannot exist the slightest doubt that satan is applied to a man, and that man a disciple of the Lord; one to whom the honour was allotted of opening the kingdom of heaven by being the first to proclaim the gospel - to Peter. Here, then, is a human being a satan: in what respect was Peter “Satan”? In what character but this? That he placed himself in opposition to the noble determination of Christ to endure trials for the sake of suffering humanity - in other words, “to go to Jerusalem to suffer many things.” Peter tried, most likely from a motive of kindness, just as one kind friend would try and persuade another not to go into danger., to prevent his Lord exposing himself. He was an. adversary to Christ in reference to his determination: and the all-knowing Lord, knowing that Peter’s regard had its real root in selfishness, addresses him, “Get thee behind me, adversary.”

SATAN, therefore, both in the Old and New Testament, means an adversary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER 4

 

“Satan indicates any state or condition adverse. Adverse to health - adverse in circumstances - adverse in state of mind. The “Satan” in the Revelations.

 

IT was proved in the previous Chapter that the word sathan or satan is applied, in a variety of instances, to human beings, and that the particular feature constituting a human being a satan is that the being is in a state of opposition - that is, in the attitude or relation of an adversary to the individual with whom he is brought into relationship. To be in such a state of opposition is to be an adversary; and that this word is strictly expressive of the meaning of the Hebrew word satan was proved, and many instances the Common Version of the Scriptures, where the word is so translated, were given.

 

It may be an adversary in temporal matters: thus Hadad, the Edomite, and Rezon, the son of Eliadah, were the political satans or adversaries of Solomon. It may be an adversary in reference to character: to such adversaries or satans David refers in the passages quoted. It may be an adversary in reference to the true worship of God: thus the satan brought forward in the Book of Job, being an idolator, was an adversary to Job, who was a worshipper of the true God. It may be an adversary to any given course of action: in such case Peter was a Satan to Christ.

 

It was further proved that as the primary meaning of Satan is adversary, the word “satan” may be, and, is, used in a good sense: and hence the word satan is applied to the messenger of God that met and opposed Balaam, in his unjust career.

 

Such being seen to be the meaning of the word satan, namely, adversary, in connection with the passages previously noticed, it is proposed to consider some other passages in the New Testament in which the same word occurs.

 

It was shown in Chapter II, that diabolos is applied not only to a human false-accuser, but also to a falsely-accusing, state of mind. So, in regard to the term satan, it will be found that the primary meaning of the word, namely, adversary, makes it applicable to any thing or condition adverse. The application of this word to express an adverse state, if proved, will tend to strengthen the demonstration that Satan, when applied to a being, is applied throughout the Scriptures to a human being in an adversary-al state.

 

And first, in reference to an adverse state of the body. It has been said, “Health is the rule; disease is the exception; health is the standard; disease is the deviation from that standard; health is the offspring of that harmony existing between the life and the organs; disease is the offspring of the discord between the life and the organs. Health is the straight line, beginning and ending in life, and in God, the Author of life; disease is the deviation from the straight line, beginning in sin, which is the violation of the Creator’s law, as recorded in man’s physical constitution, and ending in death.”1

 

To the state adverse to health, the term satan is applied in the following distinct passages. The first passage has relation to Paul. He is defending his dignity as an apostle; and, in so doing, shows the high privileges which he had enjoyed. “It is not expedient for me doubtless to, glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew (oida) a man in Christ about fourteen years ago whether in body, I knew (oida) not; or whether out of the body, I knew (oida) not: God knew (oiden): such as one caught up, to the third heaven. And I knew (oida) such a man whether in body, or out of the body,2 I knew (oida) not: God knew (oideri): How that he was caught away into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. For, though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me [to be], or heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure,” 2 Cor. 12v 2-7.

 

“A messenger of Satan” was given to buffet him. It ought to be “a messenger, satan”; there is no “of” in the original: and even, more correctly still, it ought to be “a messenger, an adversary.” (It may be remarked here, in passing, that the word anggelos, which the translators have rendered rightly “messenger,” is the same as that which they have translated “angel” in other parts, so uncertain has been their proceeding.) It was not then an invisible being, that was a thorn in the flesh: it was an infirmity of the flesh, of which he writes elsewhere, and the term he there uses is astencia, which the Greeks used to express a paralytic affection. And this paralytic affection influenced his speech, as may be inferred from an extract in his letter to the Galatians: “Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God [even] as Christ Jesus,” Gal. 4v 13-14; and, he adds, that his enemies acknowledged that, though in speech weak, in his letters he was powerful. This state of the body, adverse to the healthy performance of its functions, this astheneia, this infirmity of the flesh, called “weakness,” I Cor. 2v 3, is “the messenger, the adversary.” Besides, how could buffeting be performed by an invisible being?

 

-------

1 Homeopathy and its principles explained, by John Epps, M.D.

2 The expression “in the body or out of the body” (en somatt . . cite ektos tou sornatos - verse 2; en sornati cite choris tou sornatos - verse 3) has been generally taken as establishing notion that man is possessed of a “spirit” of a nature capable of continued conscious existence after death of the body. Before, however, such a view of the passage could justly be taken, the existence of a selfconscious “spirit” must first be established on independent evidence. If this were done, the passage in question might reasonably enough to be taken as reflecting such a belief on the part of Paul regarding the separable existence of this presumed “spirit”; but until this is done, all that is justified by the immediate context - which, as will be seen, has to do with “visions and revelations” (verse 1) - is that neither during nor since the experience had the Apostle any means of determining whether the “vision and revelations” were in (en) the body or outside (ektos) the body; that is, whether they were subjective, like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, or objective, like the “vision” of Peter, James, and John on the mount and Moses’ “vision” of the flaming bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a further illustration of the application of the word satan to a state of body adverse to health, the history of the cure of the woman by Christ can be profitably quoted. “And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in nowise lift herself up. And when Jesus saw her, he called, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid hands on her: and immediately she was made straight and glorified God. And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day. The Lord then answered him, and said, Hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or ass from the stall, and lead away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day? And when he had said these things all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him,” Luke 13v 11-17. “Satan hath bound this woman” - that is, she had been afflicted with a condition adverse to health. That her affliction was a mere bodily disorder is quite apparent from the passage itself, in which it is described as “a spirit of infirmity,” a spirit of asthenceia; but to infer that an invisible being called Satan is this “spirit of infirmity” would be as absurd as to argue that, because the phrases the “spirit of holiness,” the “spirit of truth,” the “spirit of justice” occur, “holiness,” “truth,” and “justice” are invisible, supernatural beings.

The primary idea connected with satan being “adversary”, the term may apply to adverse circumstances. In such sense the word occurs in the following passage: “And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not [anything], but a synagogue of Satan.” Rev. 2v 8-9.

Here the word satan is applied to an assembly of men, who spoke evil of (for this is the correct meaning of the word blaspheme, which is applied in Scripture to the evil speaking of men as well as of God) and were adverse to, the disciples; and, as an illustration of the adverseness of the state in which these men were to the disciples, it is recorded. “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil (diabolos) shall cast some of you into prison, that you may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” Rev. 2v 10. The adversary is here referred to in the character of the false-accuser, causing them by this false accusation to be placed in prison, in adverse circumstances.

The same view, namely, the application of the word satan to a state of adverse circumstances, is borne out in the address to the church in Pergamos: “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things, saith he, which hath the sharp sword with two edges: I know thy works, and where thou dwellest where Satan’s seat [is]: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas [was] my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth,” Rev. 2v 12, 13. The phrase is “Satan’s seat,” or “the throne of Satan,” as it ought to be. Now, all will acknowledge that “Satan” had not his literal throne there (people believe that it is id the “Nether Regions,” misnamed hell); and all will agree that “Satan” did not literally dwell there, although it says “where Satan dwelleth.” The figurative meaning must be sought; and the reader is taught that the influence of the adversary, or of those circumstances adverse to the cause of the truth and to the comforts and peace of believers, was there peculiarly strong: and the statement that “Satan’s throne was there” no more indicates that a being called “Satan” had a throne there than the remark of the historian, regarding the court of King Charles the Second, that “Vice sat enthroned in his court,” suggests that a being called “Vice” had a throne in Charles’s court! The historian conveys to the reader that vice was the prominent feature of the court of that profligate monarch. Similarly, as a proof of the great influence of those adverse circumstances in the part of the world referred to, a martyr, Antipas, there (in Pergamos) sealed with his blood his adherence to the truth in Christ. The same idea is, in part, conveyed in the use of the word “Satan,” in reference to the church at Thyatira: “But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden,” Rev. 2v 24. A similar use of the word satan, as expressive of adverse circumstances, is presented in the following passage: “But we, brethren, being taken from you for a short time in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to see your face with great desire. Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I, Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us,” I Thess. 2v 17-18. Paul was prevented reaching his friends by a series of circumstances adverse to such journey. This is all Paul could mean, because he must have known that if God thought it good for him to see the Thessalonians, he would have so ordered it: and therefore that he did not go, he must have considered most beneficial to the cause in which he was engaged.

Revert again to the fundamental idea embodied in the word satan, namely, adversary, and it will be found that the term satan is applied to an adverse state of mind. The passages in which the word is used in this sense are numerous. Satan, as used in connection with Peter, has been already noticed. It is used, in connection with him and the other disciples, upon, a most peculiar occasion. It appears that, at the last supper, at a time when it might be imagined all feelings would have been swallowed up in the contemplation of the approaching betrayal of their Master, the disciples began disputing, yea, actually strove, respecting this: who should be accounted the greatest. Here was the manifestation of a spirit totally adverse to the spirit which Christ came to inculcate. This selfish state the Saviour condemns by remarking that though such desires for chiefdom were recognised in the existing order, nevertheless, in his kingdom the opposite state of mind was the only one recognised; and he then apostrophised Peter, who, from his natural impetuosity, was, it is likely, very prominent in putting forward claims to superiority, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired [to have] you, that he may sift [you] as wheat,” Luke 22v 31. The phrase is not “desired to have you;” in the original Greek there is no phrase “to have” at all; and the term rendered “desired” is eksetesato, which means inquired, pried into the passage, translated properly, is “the adversary has inquired respecting you.” And the “you” is not Peter: it is humas, the plural of “thou,” and refers to the contending disciples. The Saviour then adds, “But I have prayed for thee,” peri sou - “concerning thee” (sou, “thee”: being in the singular number), “that thy faith fail not.” The Saviour thus intimated that the adverse principle, satan, manifested by their desire for prominent position (and which, quite unfitted them for sitting on the thrones of the kingdom) had been prying narrowly into them, and had almost found a fixed resting-place; but for Peter, Jesus prayed that his faith might not fail; but, at the same time, to demonstrate to him his weakness, and his danger in supposing himself strong (as evidenced in his protestation: “Lord, I am ready to go with thee to prison and to death,” v. 33), Jesus said to him “I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me,” v. 34. Here would be a striking evidence of the power of this principle of love of self, which would “sift all of them as wheat.”

Here, then, satan represents the state of mind adverse to the state which Jesus requires in his followers: a meaning not in any way recognising the existence of an independent invisible being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another passage in which “Satan” occurs in the New Testament expresses the state of mind adverse to the universal love principle that had taken possession of the heart of Judas. The passage is this, “Then entered Satan into Judas, surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains how he might betray him unto them,” Luke 22v 3-4. It has been already noticed that, in a parallel passage, “the devil” is asserted to have entered the heart of Judas; here “Satan,” or “the Satan,” is said to enter. The “Devil” and the “Satan” must therefore be the same agent: and it is true that the “Devil” and the “Satan” represent the same general condition of mind; but they differ in this, that “Satan” is the general term for “adversary,” and the “Devil” represents the particular form under which the adversary operates, namely, in falsely accusing, in calumniating. This passage, therefore, conveys a simple fact, that the principle of selfishness, “the adversary” had gained full possession of the mind of Judas, and that therefore it would manifest itself speedily in the calumniation and betrayal of his Master.

That satan is expressive, not of an individual, but of a state of mind adverse to the highest, the near-to-God state, in which man, when he attains the image of his Creator, will be, is proved by the following passage: “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed; In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” I Cor. 5v 3-5. To what does this refer? To a fact disgraceful to the church at Corinth, namely, that they allowed one of their principal members to possess his father’s wife. Paul condemns the disciples for this, and commands them to deliver him to “satan:” that is, to the state of mind adverse to the higher principles of duty. It is certain the church could not deliver this man over to “satan” literally, which they ought to have done, if “satan” is a being: they were to deliver him to his selfish love; that is, as this man preferred violating (under the influence of a principle or state of mind adverse to the law of love to God and to man, adverse to the law of nature) that law or nature and that higher law of love, the brethren of Christ could no longer sanction such conduct, by extending towards the violator all the sympathies of Christian love, but said to him, “If you persist in gratifying your selfish passion, adverse to your higher good, adverse to the state of mind in which alone you can be a follower of Christ, we must no longer recognise you, we must leave you to your adversary-al, selfish state, to your Satan; and this, be it remembered, not from any ill-will to you, not from any holier-than-thou conceit, but simply that you, having a full experience of your self-love, evil state, it may end by the punishment it will thus directly or indirectly bring, ‘in the destruction’ of the rule ‘of the flesh:’ that is, you will find your course so inconvenient, so pain-producing, as soon to discover the yoke of the higher love to be a more pleasing one; and thus you will be driven to give up the lower love, the degrading love, the more selfish love: and so ‘the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus.’”

Taking this view of satan, all the trouble and perplexity connected with this “delivering over to Satan,” which has puzzled so many, disappears. This view is justified in the following passage: “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience: which some, having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme,” 1 Tim. 1v 18-20. Paul could not deliver these to “Satan” literally, any more than the church of Corinth could deliver over the incestuous person: but he could separate them from the enjoyment of the active and delightful offices of association in the truth, which, being withheld, might place their conduct before them in the way most likely, if possessing any remnants of noble feeling, to affect them beneficially and reformatively; and thus they might learn not to speak evil or blaspheme: that is, deliver them to their own selfish, complaining state of mind, and let them be punished by it; and thus they will see that the adverse state is one unsuited to happiness and to peace. This “delivering to Satan” is a metaphorical and beautiful way of expressing that which a parent is sometimes obliged to do towards a rebellious child: he tries every plan to deliver him from error and from vice, but all his efforts are ineffectual; at last, necessity obliges him to let the child pursue, unrestrained by him, the state of his disposition adverse to the duties he owes to his parent and to society: he delivers him to his adverse state of mind, that his adverse state of mind may punish him by troubles, which it will bring upon him. Thus, many a child has been taught and recovered: the rule of his flesh has been made subject to the higher rule, impulse giving way to principle, and he returns home like the prodigal son, and cries, “Father I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.”

Another illustration of the word satan being representative of a state of mind adverse to the higher state is afforded by the interesting but fearful account of the death of Ananias and Sapphira. “But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God,” Acts 5v 1-4. “Why hath “satan,” properly “THE Satan,” more properly—“the adversary,” “filled thine heart”? What is this “Satan”? What but this? Ananias and Sapphira professed to be influenced by the love of truth; they professed to give a possession to the cause connected with that truth. They sold it and kept back part of the price. In this they did nothing wrong; but a selfish state of mind had influenced them to try and obtain the character of being so extremely generous as to give their whole estate, whereas they intended to keep back a part of the price. Here, then, a state adverse to that of freedom of guilt, a feature of the genuine believer, filled their hearts, and the consequence was indeed sad.

Another illustration of the word satan being representative of a state of mind adverse to the higher love principle is presented in the following delicately expressed and importantly - practical direction: “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to tasting and prayer: and come together again, that Satan tempt ye not for your incontinency,” I Cor. 7v 3-5. Here Paul recognises the existence of the amative feeling: he points out with a delicacy truly beautiful the well-regulated activity of such a disposition of mind: he shows that, if such disposition is to be suppressed in its activity, such suppression should only, be for a time, lest, out of such suppression, an adverse state of mind may rise, in which the faculty will seek outlets inconsistent with the love owed to the neighbour, and the obedience owed to God; lest, in other words the “satan” (the state of mind adverse) tempt you for your incontinency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state of mind represented by satan, namely, the state adverse to the love to God and to man, is one which causes its possessor to do strange things. It makes him, in order to gain his purposes, adopt all imaginable expedients, and hence of the man of sin it is said, “Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders; and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” 2 Thess. 2v 9-10. How wonderfully does this working bring its own punishment! The attempt to carry out the plans of this adverse state of mind causes such a blinding of the mind, that it acts directly as “A strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness,” 5v 11-12. This adverse state of mind, in the endeavour to realise its purpose, will assume even the form of excellence. Such existed in Paul’s days: speaking of those who vilified him and blasphemed him, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ, And no marvel: for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works,” 2 Cor. 11v 13-15. The adversary assumes the form of a messenger of light (false apostles): such is the height of deception that a mind, having an adverse state against another, will have recourse to so as to gain its ends.

 

The believer, however, has this consolation, that the state of mind represented by “the adversary” shall be conquered; that the selfish nature shall be brought under the dominion of the higher nature. And Paul, in pointing out this glorious truth, that “the God of peace shall bruise Satan (the adversary) under your feet shortly,” Rom. 16v 20 (which could not be done literally, for how could an invisible and immaterial being be trodden by visible and material feet), details the great preventive to the realisation of this glorious state: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” v. 17-18. The men who serve their own belly are the great obstacles, and such men are those who make a trade of religion, the monkish hordes of ancient times, with “reverends” of our modern era; men who have plenty of “good words and fair speeches” but who, as a class, are great adversaries to the progress of the truth.1

 

Paul, for the believers’ consolation, points out the way to get rid of these obstacles, “these black bodies that form an eclipse between God and men’s souls,”2 namely, obedience to the laws laid down by Christ: “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil,” Romans 16v 19.

 

When the nature of the truth is considered, with the glorious character and the miraculous performances of Christ, and the power given from him to his disciples, well might Jesus exclaim, “I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall front heaven,” Luke 10v 18. That is, Jesus hurled down, not the literal “Satan” from heaven, but by the introduction of the truth into the mind he is driving, and will in time completely drive, selfishness out of the higher faculties, out of the heaven in man’s nature.

 

Paul understood well the nature of this deliverance, for he was told it by the Saviour himself, when, overpowered by the vision which he saw on the road to Damascus, and. hearing a voice call, he said, “Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to, open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me,” Acts 26v 15-18.

 

Yes, Jesus came to deliver man from the power of the state of mind which is adverse to those activities whose legitimate exercise is essential to big own happiness, and the happiness of his fellow-men.

 

Thus all these “Satans” of the New Testament have been examined, except three in the Book of Revelations. They have been seen, it is hoped, to have nothing of that invisible, unknown and intangible nature, but are really, in many cases, matters of flesh and blood, of human nature in its unenlightened condition: in some cases, hard counteracting circumstances opposing good and useful progress; and in numerous other cases selfish mental states opposed to man’s progress towards the divine state.

 

-------

1 Adversaries are by no means confined to this particular class: they abound in all associations, religious and irreligious. Even in the associations of the truth there are those to be found who regard “godliness to be a form of gain” to themselves. (1 Tim. 6v 5)

2 Definition of a paid parson by George Fox

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Satan,” in connection with other names, occurs in the Revelations three times. The first is in reference to “a battle fought in heaven” - that is, in the mental and moral state of man, so that it may be determined whether “flesh” or “spirit” is to rule the individual. “And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not: neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him,” Rev. 12v 7-9. Here “Satan” is described as a dragon; he is described as an old serpent, as the devil, so that there are three additional features under which “Satan” is presented. The same four-fold character or personification is presented in another passage in the same book, “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years. And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should receive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” Rev. 20v 1-3.

 

From these passages it is perfectly clear that “Satan” is not an individual being; because, how could he be a dragon, a serpent, a devil, and a satan? How could one distinct being be four distinct beings? It will not do to assert, as some dogmatically do, that he assumed, all these forms. This is merely begging the question. It cannot be literally that “Satan” can be a dragon and an old serpent too. He must he one or the other, not both. As he is said to be all, the meaning in which he is all must be sought. How “satan” can be and is the devil has been already explained: “Satan”, an adversary, manifests himself in that character as a false-accuser, diabolos. Satan, as an adversary, has his strength in the sensual part of a man’s nature, which “the old serpent” represents. “The dragon”, too, is a wasteful, destroying agent, so is the sensual principle in man: hence the application of these terms to the selfish principle in man’s nature personified.

 

The great embodiment of truth, represented by Michael, and the messengers of truth represented by Michael’s messengers, fight with the sensual principle in man, and victory is at last obtained.

 

But in the third of these occurrences a striking and most interesting fact is brought into prominence, viz., that it is for a time only that Satan is imprisoned: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison; and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle; the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved loved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured theme And the devil (diabolos), that deceived them, was cast in the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever,” (Rev. 20v 7-10). Thus it is revealed that the self-love of man will be brought under rule for a given time: diabolos, and satan will be imprisoned. Later, will the imprisoned gain his freedom: he will deceive the nations; and, at length, after the system of Self has been again tried and found wanting, Christ and his truth will triumph, and the adversary, the Diabolos, and his works be destroyed (Heb. 2v 14; 1 Jno. 3v 8; 1, Cor. 15v 54).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER 5


Jesus is never said, in the original Scriptures, to have cast out “devils.” God, the author of language, must know its right use. The universal extension of the Greek language, Daimon, as understood by the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews — a “departed human ‘spirit’,” Natural gods of the heathens. The Cerriti and the Larvati. Beelzebub. Paul’s speech at Athens. Demons believe. The worship of demons. Paul’s answer to the expediency, sham charity men of his day.
 

IT is a common opinion that Jesus and his disciples cast out “devils.” Such a statement is very frequently recorded in the Common Version of the New Testament; and, yet it is a fact, astounding in relation to a translated work (the very words of which translation are regarded with a peculiar reverence) that, not once, in the original Greek Scriptures, is Christ said, or are his disciples said, to have cast out either “a devil” or “devils.”
 

It was noticed that the words “devil” or “devils” occur over one hundred times in the Common Version of the Scriptures, and that in 77 of the number where these so occur, the word is not diabolos at all, but a word altogether distinct therefrom in its meaning.
 

What, then, is the word which is mistranslated “devil” or “devils” in these passages? What is the word that the Divine Mind used as conveying a meaning distinct from diabolos, and which the translators have dared, in the Common Version, to translate by the same word as that which they have used to translate diabolos; thereby practically insinuating that the Divine Mind did not know the use of language; thereby virtually asserting, that though the Divine Instructor uses two words to express his instruction, the English people shall be content with one?
 

The words used in the seventy-seven passages referred to are three - viz., daimon, daimonion, daimonizomai. These are found in the following passages:- 
 

Daimon1 occurs but once in the New Testament, viz., in Matt. 8v 31.
 

Daimonion (63 occ.)



Matt 7:22 Mark 3:22 Luke 8:33 John 7:20
Matt 9:33 Mark 6:13 Luke 8:35 John 8:48
Matt 9:34 Mark 7:26 Luke 8:38 John 8:49
Matt 9:34 Mark 7:29 Luke 9:1 John 8:52
Matt 10:8 Mark 7:30 Luke 9:1 John 8:52
Matt 11:18 Mark 9:38 Luke 9:49 John 10:21
Matt 12:24 Mark 16:9 Luke 10:17 Acts 17:18
Matt 12:24 Mark 16:17 Luke 11:14 1 Cor 10:20
Matt 12:27 Luke 4:33 Luke 11:14 1 Cor 10:20
Matt 12:28 Luke 4:35 Luke 11:15 1 Cor 10:21
Matt 17:18 Luke 4:41 Luke 11:15 1 Cor 10:21
Mark 1:34 Luke 7:33 Luke 11:18 1 Tim 4:1
Mark 1:34 Luke 8:2 Mark 11:19 James 2:19
Mark 1:39 Luke 8:27 Luke 11:20 Rev 9:20
Mark 3:15 Luke 8:29 Luke 13:32 Rev 16:14
Mark 3:22 Luke 8:30     Rev 18:2

 

Daimonizomai (13 occ.)

 

Matt 4:24 Matt 9:32 Mark 1:32 Mark 5:18
Matt 5:16 Matt 12:22 Mark 5:15 Luke 8:36
Matt 8:28 Matt 15:22 Mark 5:16 John 10:21
Matt 8:33            

 

Here are three distinct words, daimonion, daimonizomai, and daimon, the two former being formed from the root-form daimon. As words, distinct from diabolos, they must have distinct meanings; they cannot mean one and the same being or thing. The Divine Instructor, whatever we may do, never uses vain repetitions; if, therefore, he uses a distinct word, it is to convey to us information which a previously used word would not convey; indeed, which no other word but the one used could convey.


What, then, is that which the Divine Mind intended, to convey to us by the use of the words daimon, daimonion, and daimonizomai? It may he noticed here that the Greek language in which the New Testament is written was, at the time of our Saviour and of his apostles, the fashionable language of the day, “being very generally spoken in all the cultivated parts of the world, not only by the Gentiles, but by the Jews also who were dispersed among them, and even by the inhabitants of Judea” (Farmer on the Demoniacs, p. 26) - an extension of the language so great that Cicero himself confesses, that notwithstanding Rome had extended her power over almost the whole earth, the Greek language had spread further than the Latin - (See his Orat., pro Archia Poeta). The word daimon is a word which existed in that language from a very early period; and, as so existing, the true meaning of the word must and can be obtained from the writings of the Greek authors that have come down to us; just in the same manner as we should try to discover the true meaning of any English word by ascertaining its use by the best extant English writers.
 

In what sense, then, was the word daimon used by the Greek writers? A most extended inquiry by Mr. Farmer has established that the Greek writers used this word to express human “spirits” of departed people. Many such “spirits” of departed human beings the ancients deified and worshipped: and hence the word daimon meant to the Greeks, and those who used their language, human departed “spirits” raised to the rank of gods and deities. “Homer calleth all his gods, daimones, and Hesoid the worthies of the golden age.” Leigh’s Critica Sacra, article Daimon. Hesoid maintains, indeed, that whenever a good man dies he becomes a demon: and Plato praises him for the sentiment.
 

-------
1 The Common Greek Text, besides having daimon in Matt. 8v 31, has it also in Mark 5v 12; Luke 8v 29; Rev. 16v 14; 18v 2; but if we are to be guided by what the New Testament writers really wrote, instead of what the “Received Text” makes them seem to have written, there is the occurrence of the term daimon in scripture, Matthew using it in ch. 8v 31. In Mark 5v 12, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles and Westcott & Hort read “they” instead of “demons”, while in Luke 8v 29, Rev. 16v 14, and 18v 2 daimonion takes the place of daimon.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The heathens had two classes of gods: the world, together with all its constituent, parts and principles, and the demons. “They conceived the world to be pervaded and animated by a vital and intelligent substance; they regarded it as a divinity which contained, framed, and governed all things.” Farmer on Miracles, p. 107. Cicero expressly asserts - “There is nothing more perfect than the world - it is wise, and, on this account, a god.”1 He further adds, “that, although a Stoic, he acknowledges that this world is wise, has a mind, which has fabricated both itself and the world, and regulates, moves, and rules all things.”2 Balbus, the Stoic maintains that “the world is a god, and the habitation of the gods.”3 These were designated as the natural gods. Besides these, the heathens maintained that certain “spirits” existed which held a middle rank between the gods and men on earth; and, because they were regarded as carrying on all intercourse between the gods and men, as conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and distributing the benefits of the gods to men, they were called, from daio, to distribute, daimones. The opinion further prevailed that the celestial gods did not themselves interpose in human affairs, but committed the whole management to these daimones and on this account these demons became the great object of religious hope, of fear, of dependence, and of worship.

 

A further consideration affording very strong evidence that these “demons” meant the “spirits of departed men” is that the parentage and, consequently, the human origin of almost all the heathen deities were known and recorded. Philo Biblyus, the translator of Sanchoniathen’s History of the Gods, expressly asserts “That the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from whom other people derived this custom, reckoned those amongst the greatest gods who had been benefactors to the human race, and that, to them, they erected pillars and statues, and dedicated sacred festivals.” - Apud Euseb. Praep. Evangelica, lib. 1, c. 9., p. 32. Diodorus Siculus states, “That there were two classes of gods, the one eternal and immortal, the other such as were born on the earth and arrived at the titles and honours of divinity on account of the blessings, they bestowed on mankind.”-Lib. 1. and 5. This writer describes Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, and others (the primary gods of Paganism) as illustrious men. Plato remarks, “All those who die valiantly in war are of Hesiod’s golden generation, and become demons; and we ought for ever to worship and adore their sepulchres, as the sepulchres of demons.” Plato de Republica, c. v. 468, tom. ii., editio Serrani. This transference of warlike heroes into gods, and the worship of them, many regard as belonging peculiarly and solely to paganism: but have we not the same things in our day? Do we not see statues erected in our streets to those chargeable with legal murder which are raised for the mental worship of our children? - the Wellingtons, the Nelsons, and hosts of others. And with what is the cathedral of our metropolis filled? Is it with the ministers of peace, with the Fenelons, the Oberlins, the Whitfields, the Watts, the Arkwrights, the Townshends, the Benthams, the Adam Smiths, the Raikes’s? No: The interior of Saint Paul’s presents, as Mr. Peter Stuart, of Liverpool, after a visit he paid recently to that splendid edifice, remarked, “an assembly of gladiators.” Add to the look of imitative admiration a mental worship (bestowed by the young on these gladiators), some regular ceremonies, and then there would be no difference between the worship of Hercules and Mars of old, and of the Wellingtons and the Nelsons now.

 

To return from this digression on modern hero worship, it is apparent that among the Greeks the term daimon expressed a “departed human ‘spirit’.” Deified The Greeks held further that these daimones, or “departed human ‘spirits’,” had the power of taking possession of other human beings, and that they could be expelled from these beings so possessed. Hence Lucian, writing respecting an exorcist, one who so dispossessed the possessed, remarks: ekselaunei ton diamona = “he expelled the demon” (Lucian’s Philospeudes, p. 338, vol. 2., edit. Amstelodami). Lucian affords, in a dialogue in the works from which the above is a quotation, the view entertained in his day regarding demons. Four parties are introduced in the dialogue: three, Ion, Eucrates, and Diognotus, being believers in demons, and the fourth, Tychiades, who is not a believer therein. Ion, after he had given an account of the person who cast out demons, adds that he himself had seen one (that is, a demon) so ejected, “Many others as well as you,” said Eucrates, “have met with demons (daimosin). I have a thousand times seen such things.” In proof of this assertion, he assures the company that he and his family had often seen the statue of Pelichus descending from his pedestal, and walking round the house - pp: 338-339. In the sequel of the dialogue, Eucrates, who had been defending the doctrine of apparitions, says, “We have been endeavouring to persuade Tychiades (who sustains the character of an unbeliever in these points) that there are demons (daimons tinas einai), and that the phantasms and souls of the dead wander upon the earth, and appear to whom they please,” p. 346. To confirm this sentiment, Diognotus, the Pythagorean, bids Tychiades go to Corinth, where he might see the very house from which he himself expelled the demon (daimona) that disturbed it, which was the ghost of a dead man, p. 348. Hippocrates expressly states that the Greeks referred possession to the gods and the heroes, all of whom were human spirits. He wrote an essay on epilepsy, which was called hiereus nosos, “the sacred disease,” because the people believed what the priests taught,4 that epileptics were possessed: and the priests, the magicians, and the impostors derived a considerable revenue from attempting to cure this disease by expiations and charms. The essay was written to expose this delusion of his countrymen, he attempting to prove that this disease was neither more divine nor sacred than any other.

 

The Latins also entertained the idea that “departed human ‘spirits’” sometimes possessed the living. Those so possessed among them were called the Cerriti and the Larvati; the Cerriti from the goddess Ceres, Who was supposed to possess them; the Larvati from the Lares, gods, who were supposed to be the possessing, the departed.5 And Crito, a learned writer, wrote: “the larvati are demoniacs Cicero testifies –‘They whom the Greeks consider daimones, we, I consider [call] lares.6 Littleton, in his valuable dictionary defines the larvae as the souls of the dead, which they elsewhere called shades.7 And Arnobius relates that Varro asserts that the larvae are lares, being, as it were, certain genii and the souls of the departed. And again Crito, a learned writer, thus writes: “the larvati are demoniacs; and larvae, by which they are possessed, are human ghost’s (De Crito, vol. i., p. 238). Strabo, who flourished in the time of the Emperor Augustus, calls the goddess Feronia (who was born in Italy) a demon; and says that those who were possessed with this demon walked barefoot over burning coals: and Philostratus, who was contemporary with our Saviour, relates “that a demon, who possessed a young man, confessed himself to be the ghost of a person slain in battle” (Strabo, lib. v., p. 364).

 

-------

1 Nihil mundo perfectius, sapiens est et propterea deus, Cicero Natura deorum, lib. ii. C. 14.

2 Hunc mundum esse sapientem, habere mentem, quae et se et ipsum fabricata sit, et omnia moderetur, moveat, regat. Cicero Acad. Quest. lib. ii. c. 37.

3 Esse mundum deum et deorum domum. Cicero de Nat. Deorum, lib. 2.

4 A dissenting minister at Bermondsey was preaching one Sunday, in 1841, to his people, and a young lady was seized with an epileptic attack. He declared it was the devil, and that he had affected her to interrupt him in declaring the truths which he was then preaching!

5 Arnobious, says Varro, Nunc antiquorum sententais sequens larvas esse dicit lares, quasi quosdom genios et functorum anima morturoum. Adv. Gentes. lib. iii. p. 124.

6 Quos Graeci doimones, nostri, opinor, lares. Cicero in Timae 3.

7 Larvae gentibus errant mortuorum animae, quas aliter umbras vocabant. Littleton’s Dictionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions, similar to those held by the Greeks and the Latins, were entertained by the Jews. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, asserts that those called daimonia are the “spirits” of wicked men who enter the living, and kill those who receive no help (De Bell. Jud., lib. vii., 2, 6, 1 3). Very early in the history of the Jews they had become acquainted with the gods of the heathen, and showed a lamentable proneness to adopt the principles and the practices of their superstitious and idolatrous neighbours. The philosophy of the east was greatly studied and admired by the Jews, and they came to regard persons possessed as possessed by the same “spirit” as those which their neighbours regarded as the possessing. So strongly was this opinion rooted in their minds, and so generally diffused among the people, that when the Saviour casts out daimonia, the Pharisees observed, “He casteth out daimonia by Beelzebub, the Prince of daimonia” (Matt. 9v 34), a statement at which no astonishment was expressed; which, had not the knowledge of the doctrine of possessions by “departed human ‘spirits’” been general among the Jews, would have excited astonishment.

 

Who, then, was this Beelzebub, the prince, not of devils, as the Common Version renders the word, but of demons? We read in the Old Testament that one of the kings of Israel, namely, Ahaziah, “sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of Beelzebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease?” (2 Kings 1v 2). This Beelzebub was esteemed a god - that is, a daimon: that is, a deified human “spirit,” which “spirit” the Jews, like other nations, believed to possess people. The meaning of the word zebub or zebul is a fly, the god which the Ekronites worshipped. History informs us that those who lived in hot climates, and where the soil is moist (which was the case with the Ekronites, who bordered on the sea), were exceedingly infested with flies. These insects were thought to cause contagious distempers. Pliny makes mention of a people, who stopped a pestilence which these insects occasioned, by sacrificing to the flyhunting god. (Pliny. Nat. Hist. lib. x. c., 28 § 40). Influenced by this prejudice, Ahaziah, instead of applying to the true God, Yahweh, applied to this god of Ekron for deliverance, or for a knowledge of his state in reference to the disease, which he most likely considered to depend upon the influence of these flies; and that, on this ground, Beelzebub could inform him of the result. (Beelzebub was, most likely, Jupiter, who is described by the Greeks as muiodes, the god of flies, and the inuiagros, the fly hunter). The fact of Ahaziah applying to Beelzebub shows at what an early period the Jews were acquainted with the demonology of the surrounding heathen nations, and how they had adopted the notions regarding the power of these demons: a fact which explains the use of the phrase daimonion so frequently in the gospels. The existence of these daimones, as possessing and influencing human beings, was recognised so fully among the Jews, that Josephus, already quoted, who was nearly contemporary with the apostles, dwells much upon the expulsion of demons: he gives an instance of successful expulsion when tried by a Jew in the presence of Vespasian: and further declares, no doubt with the view of elevating the great monarch of the Jews, Solomon, that God instructed Solomon in the anti-demoniac art.

 

The use of this term daimon (mistranslated “devil” in the Common Version) among the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews, having been thus explained, reference has now to be made to its employment by Matthew. Did he use the term in the same sense? Some have asserted “No.” How is the question to be answered? Very simply: if he did not use the word in the sense in which those who used it at their time did use it, he would, without doubt, have defined the sense in which he did use it. If no such definition is given, then every sound-thinking mind will decide, without hesitation, that the narrator used the word in the sense in which it was usually understood.

 

The word daimon occurs, as we have seen, only in Matt. 8v 31,2 in the narrative of the “demons” that went into the swine, where the daimones are represented as active - that is, performing acts through the medium of the party or parties possessed: as, indeed, speaking - “so the daimones besought him.” As, therefore, in this case an active condition was referred to, the supposed actor is brought out, namely, the daimon: a proof that the general belief then was that a human spirit possessed the individual, and spoke through and acted upon him. To this passage a more particular reference will be made when considering the dispossession of demons by the Saviour. In all other passages where possessions are referred to, the words daimonion and daimonizomai are used.

 

It is further a curious fact appearing from the examination of the list of passages in which the three words occur, that all, except ten, are in the Gospels.

 

The verb form daimonizomai occurs in the gospels only. Of the ten passages elsewhere than in the gospels in which the word daimonion occurs, one is in the Acts, four in relation to one subject in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, one in Timothy, one in James, and three in the Revelations. It is further worthy of remark that not one of the apostles ever used the word daimon, except Matthew, and he only once; and that Paul, James, and John use seldom, and Peter and Jude not at all, the word daimonion. So that it would appear that, in the advanced state of Christian truth (for who, with the facts before him, can avoid allowing that the Christian body had a greater amount of truth when Christ had risen to receive gifts for men, than before the resurrection?) the doctrine of demons and their actual casting out seems to have died away. The light had then begun to dissipate many delusions, and this among the number.

 

But the probability of this, and, at the same time, the demonstration that no demons really exist, will be afforded by the examination of these passages in which the word daimonion occurs.

 

The daimon was the departed human ‘spirit': the daimonion was the person who was supposed to be occupied by the demon - whether that person was a mere image or a human being: in fact, in whatever was the daimon located, that was a “possession.”

 

“Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics, encountered him. And some said, what will this babbler say? Other some, he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection,” Acts 17v 16, 17, 18.

 

The Greeks thought that “Jesus and the resurrection” were two human spirits which Paul had adopted as deified, and offered to them for reception. They called them “strange gods,” xenon daimonion. The translators, who have rendered this word “devils” in every other passage, were obliged in this case to translate the word properly, or nearly so. The Athenians would never have acknowledged that they worshipped devils3 and the phrase “strange,” prefixed to the daimonion, shows that they did worship daimonia, but that these two Paul preached, namely, “Jesus and the resurrection,” were new, of whom they had never heard before. They would not condemn themselves by calling their daimonia “devils.” Paul, moreover, does not condemn them: “And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, may we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our cars: we would know therefore what these things mean. (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else. but either to tell or to bear some new, thing.) Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, to the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you,” Acts 17v 19-23.

 

-------

1 Arnobious, says Varro, Nunc antiquorum sententais sequens larvas esse dicit lares, quasi quosdom genios et functorum anima morturoum. Adv. Gentes. lib. 3 p. 124.

2 See previous footnote, Chapter 5, *The common Greek Text

3 If our translators had adhered to their method of rendering this word as in every other Instance, and said, “He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange devils”, they would have grossly perverted the sense of the passage. Now this may suggest a suspicion of the impropriety of this version of the word (daimonion, “devil”) anywhere. But especially where it relates to the objects of worship among the pagans, with whom the term, when unaccompanied by any bad epithet, or anything in the context that fixed the application to evil spirits, was always employed in a good sense.” (Professor Campbell’s Preliminary Dissertations, article daimonion, P. 164, 4to edit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The phrase “too superstitious” is deisidaimonesterous, a word, made up of deisis, and daimon: the word deisis being derived from deio, “to fear”. The word has not a bad sense: it means “pious,” in a good sense. The Athenians gloried in the character of being more religious, deisidaimonesteroi, than any other Grecian state. Paul’s concession on this point in their favour would rather gratify than offend them, and would serve to alleviate the censure of carrying their religion to excess.1 This passage therefore demonstrates that Paul makes no reference at all to “devils,” but simply to the “deified departed human ‘spirits’,” whom the Athenians worshipped.

 

In the same sense, namely, as referring to the “deified departed human ‘spirits’,” Paul introduces the word in his epistle to the Corinthians, “Behold, Israel after the flesh, Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” I Cor. 10v 18. Paul is referring to the impropriety of believers joining in the festivals in honour of the false gods, which were, in the estimation of his contemporaries, “departed human ‘spirits’” deified. He meets one of the various objections which such would urge when a man of conscience refused to prostrate himself in adoration of a false god: they, it is likely, would say, “Oh, it is of no consequence: a daimonion, which is an idol, is nothing, and therefore what matters it, if you do join in these festivals? It can do no harm. Come, be charitable to your neighbour.” To such comes Paul’s answer, “What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered a sacrifice unto idols is anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice unto demons and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and the table of demons. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?” 1 Cor. 10v 19-22. Here Paul hints nothing at all about “devils”: he is writing respecting the “deified human spirits” worshipped by the heathens: and maintains that the joining in the worship of the one, although they are non-existent, is inconsistent with the joining in the worship of the true God, who is existent: the word daimonion, and not diabolos, occurs throughout. Banish, therefore, from the mind this word “devils” as a mistranslation of daimonia, and fix the idea “departed human spirit” or the word “possession,” and see how clear other passages will become which contain this word rendered “devils” in the Common Version: thus recognising that daimonion means a “departed human spirit, — resident in a man whom he is supposed to possess, and remembering the fact, that these recognised Christ, and recognised him with fear, from not understanding his character, we can understand well what James says in his masterly denunciation of the absurd speech of those who talk about Faith, and who act not Works. “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can (such) faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart, in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone,” James 2v 14, 15, 16, 17. These “faith” personages are brass-faced people: they pride themselves upon their “faith,” and boast that they will not have the spotted garments of works: but James adds, “Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith and I have works: Shew me, thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works,” verse 18. But, in an argument that settles the whole matter, he concludes, “Thou believest that there is one God:” Well, this is a good thing; no one denies that, there is virtue in such belief: “thou dost well; the daimonia, (the possessions not “devils”) believe”: but, because faith itself is not enough without there is conjoined with it the appropriate attendant, these possessions, these “departed human ‘spirits’” “tremble,” verse 19. Paul, with that far-seeing eye with which he was endowed, foresaw “the man of sin”: he foresaw that the errors and the institutions of idolatrous paganism would hereafter spoil the truth and the simplicity of the Gospel. He therefore warns Timothy against one of the sources, whence these errors would proceed. These “departed human ‘spirits’,” these daimonia, he saw, would form a fruitful hotbed, out of which cunning reverends, would manufacture delusions to keep the people under their power. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that, in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (daimonia)” 1 Tim. 4v 1. Look at the nonsense taught by the Romish priests in reference to the power of “departed saints”: look at the rotten stuff put forth in the temple of their merchandise, and sold under the name of “masses” for “departed souls”: look at the wasting of knees in kneeling upon the board, chattering gibberish, instead of being usefully employed in cleaning the boards: look at the wearying of fingers in counting beads, instead of using them in healthy, domestic, home sided, family-comforting Christian duties: look at the prayers for the dead, in the Anglican daughter of the Romish whore, the mother of harlots, the English church establishment: where one poor sinner, who surely has enough to do to attend to his own salvation, is made busy in praying for the salvation of someone whose account is already closed: where one man, who is head and ears in debt, is busy trying to pay another’s debts as well as his own. Oh these men, who have put forth all this nonsense, who have enjoined all this mummery, who have burned people because they would not submit to it, are well described as “seducing spirits,” and equally well have their doctrines been defined as “doctrines of demons.”

 

To conclude, the great secret of Priestcraft is to attach to the worship of God so many petty accounts, as Milton notes, that “common men cannot keep a stock going in that trade.” Thus the priests have got the trade of religion into their own hands: and the people will never be free, will never be men, till they take back the great business of life, religion, into their own hands.

 

Such then are the words daimon, daimonion, daimonizomai: words, not meaning in any case “devil,” but words, everywhere but in the Acts, that have been rendered so in the Common Version. Erase then such word “devil” or “devils” in all these passages, and put in the Greek word itself, in English character, or put in the word “possession” or “possessed,” making the Common Version nearer to the Divine original, and thus far justify the Scriptures against the attacks of infidelity; and strengthen the mind against the absurdities of devil doctrines, and the horrors of devil fear.

 

-------

1 Professor Campbell’s Preliminary Dissertations, p. 202, 4 to edit., vol. i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER 6

 

Possession indicated by certain signs. Madness an indication. The Pythia. Unusual bodily contortions. The Gadarene and Gergesene demoniacs were madmen. Lunatics. Epileptics.

 

POSSESSIONS, daimonia, must have been indicated by certain signs, otherwise such possessions could never have been inferred. Some deviations from the usual habits of the individual must have been presented to have induced the belief that the individual was influenced by some “supernatural” power. What then were the indications that the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews, beholding in an individual, ascribed to possessions?

 

“And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying. The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out of her the same hour,” Acts 16v 16-18. The phrase, here rendered, “possessed with a spirit of divination,” a spirit of divination,” is echousa pneuma Puthonos - that is, “having a spirit of Python” or “Apollo:” one supposed to be influenced by the god Apollo. The history of this damsel shows that her conduct, in continually following Paul and his companion, was contrary to the usual decorum manifested by her sex. And this deviation was a sign of her being influenced by something not usual; we would say madness: the ancients called it “a possession.” She followed Paul many days, continually crying, “These are the servants of the most high God.” She exhibited, in other words, a kind of insane fury or excitement. And that this exhibition was common to persons supposed to be possessed is evident from the following description of Pythia, the priestess of Apollo at Delphi: “She delivered the answer of the god to such as came to consult the oracle, and was supposed to be suddenly inspired by the sulphurous vapours, which issued from the hole of a subterraneous cavity within the temple, over which she sat bare on a three-legged stool called a tripod. In this stool was a small aperture, through which the vapour was inhaled by the priestess, and, at this divine inspiration her eyes suddenly sparkled, her hair stood on end, and a shivering ran over all her body. In this convulsive state she spoke the oracles of the god, often with loud howlings and cries, and her articulations were taken down by the priest, and set in order. Sometimes the spirit of inspiration was more gentle, and not always violent; yet Plutarch mentions one of the priestesses who was thrown into such an excessive fury that not only those who consulted the oracle but also the priests that conducted her to the sacred tripod and attended her during the inspiration, were terrified and forsook the temple; and so violent was the fit that she continued for some days in the most agonising situation, and at last died” (Lempriere’s Classical Dictionary - Article. “Pythia”).

 

Virgil gives a still more vivid description of the excitement of the priestess or sybil. The Trojan Eneas wishes to consult the oracle respecting his future proceedings. With this view he approaches the cave (after having made the usual offerings-paid priests in all ages requires these)—

 

“Now to the mouth they come. Aloud she cries,

‘This Is the time! Inquire your destinies!

He comes! behold the god!’ thus while she said

(And shivering at the sacred entry staid),

Her colour changed; her face wan not the same.

And hollow groans from her deep spirit came.

Her hair stood up; convulsive rage possessed

Her trembling limbo, and heaved her labouring breast.

Greater than human kind she seemed to look,

And, with an accent more than mortal, spoke.

Her staring eyes with sparkling fury roll;

When all the god came rushing on her soul.

Swiftly she turned, and, foaming as she spoke.”

AEneid - Pope’s Translation.

 

A sort of insane fury was manifested by those supposed to be possessed, and such manifestation was regarded by the Greek as indicative of possession, it was so among the Latins. The Cerriti and the Larvati, already referred to, were supposed by the Latins to be possessed by the goddess Ceres and by the Lares. In the sacred ceremonies of Ceres, Calepinus records, they were seized with fury. “And, in the same manner,” adds he, “as we say a Bacchanal from Bacchus, we say a Cerealian from Ceres.”

 

Pliny, the celebrated Latin naturalist, describes some persons as being agitated by the nocturnal gods, and by the Fauni. These Fauni were the supposed gods of the fields.

 

INSANITY, of which this fury is a beginning, was another indication of possession. Cicero, in regard to the absurdity of this that a person being insane should be regarded as “possessed,” inquires, “What authority truly can that fury which you call divine have, when it happens that the things which a wise man cannot see, an insane man can see: and he who may have lost his human senses, has attained to divine”1 thus demonstrating that the insane were regarded as “possessed”.

 

Such are a few among many illustrations which might be brought to prove that the indications of “possessions” were unusual conduct, unusual mental exhibitions, unusual mental exhibitions, such as insanity presents; or unusual bodily contortions, such as epileptics and the convulsed exhibit.

 

Insanity therefore may be regarded as that which the ancients regarded as most distinctive of possession. This belief prevailed among the Jews: who, holding this view, referred much of the conduct of Christ to insanity. Our Saviour asks the Jews,

 

“Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil (diabolos) , and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you of the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why, do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

-------

1 In Cereris sacris furore corripiebantur. Et sic a Baccho Bacchantem dicimus, sic a Cerere Certium. -Cal pini Dictionar. Quid vero habet auctoritati furor iste quem divinum vocatis, ut, quae sapiens non videat, ea videat insanus; et is, qui humanos senus amisus est, divinos assecutu est.-Cicero de Divinatione, lib. ii. cap. 54.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil (daimonion)?” Jno. 8v 43-48. This argument, so clear to an unbiased hearer, but so obscure to their biased minds, made them reply, “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a possession (daimonion echei).” Jesus answered, “I have not a possession, (daimonion ouk echei), “but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying he shall never see death,”

Jno. 8v 49-51. This last statement astonished the Jews still more, and they exclaimed, “Now we know that thou hast a devil (daimonion). Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying he shall never taste of death,” Jno. 8v 52.

The Saviour on another occasion had been describing himself as “the good shepherd,” as “the door” of the sheep, as having sheep of “another fold” (this touched, it is likely, their Jewish pride), “laying down his life for the sheep,” and further, what, no doubt, startled them, that though he did lay down his life, it was of his own free will: and that, further, the laying down was a matter quite within his own power. The effect was as might be expected: “There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, he hath a devil (daimonion), and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, these are not the words of him that hath a devil (daimonion). Can a devil (daimonion) open the eyes of the blind?” Jno. 10v 19-21.

On another occasion Jesus had astonished them by his knowledge, and yet they were unwilling to give credit to him, although they professed such a reverence for Moses, who spoke of him. He thus reproves them, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet no one of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? The people answered and said, thou hast a devil (daimonion), who goeth About to kill thee?” Jno. 7v 19-20. They inferred that he was insane, because they lid nor know their own intention to kill him.

Jesus was so much the subject of attention, on account of the wonderful cure he performed that numbers gathered about him; “And the multitude cometh together again,” and that in such a constant succession, “so that they could no so much as eat bread,” Mark 3v 20-21. His kinsman (for so the word is) - wishing it may be to take advantage of Jesus’ popularity, and thereby to gain notice through him with the people, or, it may be, influenced by a kindly motive of preventing their kinsman injuring himself, when they heard, “went out to lay hold of him! for they said, He is beside himself” - that is, poor creatures, they thought man would never go without his dinner unless he were mad.

Whenever one gives another a bad name there are plenty who will join in the cry; and the scribes, the divine code explainers of the day, who came down from Jerusalem (the regularly-authorised place for scribes to come from), politely added, “He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils (daimonia) casteth he out devils (daimonia) “ Mark 3v 22. His reply to these fashionable devotionists was a perfect demolition:

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be, divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils (daimonia) through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils (daimonia), by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils (daimonia), no doubt the king -of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger that he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils,” Luke 11v 17-22.

The Jews seemed to have been a most prejudiced people: Our Saviour tells them that not nothing could please them, “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say he hath a devil (daimonion). The son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners? But wisdom is justified of all her children,” Luke 7v 33-35. Blessed Jesus, thy reasoning did not show thee insane: no; wisdom was indeed justified of thee, her child.

But mental obliquity, or insanity, as regards reasoning, was not the only evidence of being “possessed”. Any striking deviation from the usual order of life wits referred to the same cause. Such an exhibition was presented to Christ on entering the country of the Gadarenes: “And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man which had devils (daimonia) long time, and wore no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, what have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not,” Luke 8v 27-28. The wearing no clothes, the abiding in no house, the residence in tombs, were sufficiently striking deviations from the usual routine of every-day life to cause the people to refer such exhibitions at once to the fact that the party was possessed. Jesus freed the man from his insanity. The circumstance became known: “Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils (daimonia) were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind; and they were afraid,” Luke 8v 35. “Clothed, and in his right mind” they found him: a point of observation which demonstrates that they did not before regard him as in his right mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...