The Devil

[Resource Manager]

The belief in the influence of “possessions” had became so extended in the time of the Saviour, that the Jews referred their bodily diseases to such “possessions”. It has already been noticed that Ahaziah sent to consult Beelzebub, the chief of the supposed possessing agents, respecting a bodily disease.

Dumbness was referred to “possession”. “As they went, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed” (daimonizomenon). Here it is worthy of remark that the translators have rendered this word daimonizomenon correctly, namely, “possessed”. “And when the Devil (ton daimonion, the possession) was come out, the dumb spake,” Matt. 9v 33. Here, then, is a bodily infirmity distinctly referred, not to the “devil,” but to, the daimonion, the “possession.”

Blindness, as well as dumbness, was referred to the influence of a possession: “Then was brought unto him one possessed-with-a-devil (daimonizomenos), blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw,” Matt, 12v 22. The phrase, “he healed him,” is worthy of notice, ethera peusen auton: a phrase evidently expressing a cure and not a dispossession. The further application of the term to bodily infirmity is seen in the following history: “Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canitan came out of the same coast, and cried unto him, saying, have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David: my daughter is grievously vexed-with-a-devil,” kakos daimonizetai. “But he answered not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, Send her away, for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me! But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs. And she said, truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master’s table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour,” Matt. 15v 21-28. Here again, it will be observed, that the phrase “made whole,” iathe, is used in reference to the possession and the being freed therefrom.

Mark gives some additional facts in connection with this woman’s daughter: “And Jesus said unto her, for this saying go thy way: the devil (daimonion) is gone out of thy daughter. And when she was come to her house, she found the devil (daimonion) gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed,” Mark 7v 29, 30.

The disease called epilepsy was referred to “possession”, as has been already noticed. The following description affords an almost medically-drawn portrait of an epileptic patient: “And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; and wheresoever he taketh him he teareth him: and he foameth and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him and saith, O faithless generation how long shall I he with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him: and he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child: and ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straight way the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus say that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him; and he was as one, dead: insomuch that many said, he is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up: and he arose!” Mark 9v 17-27. The “spirit possessing” is described first as “a dumb spirit,” afterwards as a “foul spirit,” and finally as a “dumb and deaf spirit.”

A passage occurs in which the epileptic is designated as a lunatic: “And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a (certain) man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord have mercy on my son; for he is a lunatic, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation! How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil (daimonion), and he departed out of him,” Matt. 17v 14-18. It is worthy of remark that it is not said, as it is in the Common Version, that Jesus rebuked the devil; but that he rebuked the youth, and when the daimonion, “the possession”, departed out of him, his reason was restored.

The ancients, finding that epileptic seizures were influenced by the moon (selene in Greek, luna in Latin), called epileptics lunatics.

A similar epileptic is described by Luke: “And as he was yet a coming, the devil (daimonion) threw him down and tare [him]. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and, healed the child, and delivered him again to his father,” Luke 9v 42. The spirit is here called “unclean spirit,” and Jesus is said to have “healed the child.”

[Resource Manager]

It is further said, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed-with-devils (daimonizomai), and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them,” Matt 4v 23, 24.

“The-possessed-with-devils” are daimonizamenous; “the lunatic,” seleniazomenous. In reference to both these and to the palsied, Jesus is said to have healed, etherapeusen, them. The same again is stated by Matthew: “When the even was
come, they brought unto him many that were possessed-with -devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick.” possessed-with -devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick.” Matt. 8v 16.

The “possessed-with-devils” are daimonizometious; and “healed” is represented by etherapeusen. “And these things were done “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken, by Esaias the prophet, saying, “Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses,” Matt. 8v 17. There is nothing said of casting out “devils” by Isaiah. “Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses.”

It may be inferred from the frequent use of the word “heal,” that these “possessions” were bodily diseases which Jesus cured. This view is strengthened by the following passage: “And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? When the men were come unto him, they said John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another? And in the same hour Jesus cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, go your way and tell John what things we have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me,” Luke 7v 19-23.

It is a curious fact that Christ does not say, “Behold I cast out spirits”: if the doing of this was a positive reality, Christ would have pointed it out; for the historian adds, “he in the same hour cured many of their evil spirits:” but Jesus sends no message as to casting out “spirits.” The conclusion therefore is, that those possessed were afflicted with bodily and mental diseases, which Christ cured.

[Resource Manager]

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.

 

IT has been demonstrated that the daimones, and the daimonia, are not diaboloi, “devils,” “false-accusers.” It has been demonstrated that the first term (daimon) is expressive of a “departed human spirit,” and the second term (daimonion) of such “spirit” supposed to be in possession of living human beings. It has been shown that the belief in possessions prevailed amongst almost all the nations, the Jews included, at the time of Christ and of his apostles; while the assertion that such beings existed was a lie palmed upon mankind by an enslaving priesthood; and Paul, when referring to such “departed human ‘spirits’” deified and worshipped by the Gentiles, as plainly as words can express, declares them to be nothing: declares them to be delusions of the imagination: to be a lie.

 

On this declaration of the apostle we might rest; we might say we know they are nothing: but still though Paul thus asserts, and thus gives the divine sanction to the believer’s freedom from all the absurd bugbears and dangerous errors connected with such “possessions,” some professed followers of Christ still hug the Pagan delusion, and guard its preservation with as much care as if it were one of the gifts of Divine wisdom and of Divine love - as if it were an ark of the Lord too holy to be looked into by any one except by George Fox’s “black bodies.” It is true that they think they have some grounds for their belief in such wanderers from the Hades of “departed ‘spirits’”: No, they say, we do not say they are “departed human ‘spirits’” that wander; but they are devils. But this is not the case: if they will have these “devils” they must have daimones = demons and not diaboloi = “devils”. They say we read of these demons being cast out: and how could they be cast out unless they were there to be cast out? We read, say they, of these demons talking: and how could they talk unless they were there? We read, say they, of these demons acknowledging Christ to be the Son of God: and how could they acknowledge Christ unless they were there? And, to conclude the queries, they ask, Can any one read the history of the Gadarene demoniacs without acknowledging that there were demons; and that, as a consequence (it must be added for them, for they will not so add), Paul made a mistake in saying that they were nothing?

 

It will be necessary, therefore, in replying to all these queries, and, in so doing, to prove Paul’s assertion to be true, to consider the case of these demoniacs. The history is given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke: there is some difference between the history given by Matthew and that given by Mark and Luke: Matthew thus describes the event:-

 

“And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed-with-devils (daimonizomenoi) coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? And there was a good way off from them an herd of swine feeding. So the devils (daimones) besought him, saying, If thou cast us out suffer us to go, away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine; and behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told everything, and what was befallen to the possessed-of-devils (daimonizomenon). And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought [him] that he would depart out of their coasts,” Matt. 8v 28-34.

 

Mark and Luke give the account thus:

 

“And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. For he said unto him, Come out of the man, [thou] unclean spirit. And he asked him, What [is] thy name? And he answered, saying, My name [is] Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea. And they that fed the swine fled, and told [it] in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was-possessed-with-the-devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind; and they were afraid. And they that saw [it] told them how it befell to him that was-possessed-with-the-devil (daimonizomenon),¹ and [also] concerning the swine. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. And when he was come into the ship, he-that-had-been-possessed-with-a-devil (ho diamonisthesis) prayed him that he might be with him. Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.” (Mark 5v1-20).

 

-------

¹ The best Greek texts omit daimon. See foot-note Chapter 5. *The common Greek Text.

[Resource Manager]

“And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware 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. (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil (daimonion)¹ into the wilderness.) And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils (daimonia) were entered into him. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep. And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. Then went the devils (daimonia) out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked. When they that fed (them) saw what was done, they fled, and went and told [it] in the city and in the country. 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. They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils (daimonia) was healed. Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again. Now the man out of whom the devils (daimonia) were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him. (Luke 8v26-39).

 

Matthew, it will be perceived, places the event as occurring in the country of the Gergesenes: Mark, and Luke, as taking place in the country of the Gadarenes; a distinction worthy of record, because Gergesa and Gadara were distinct cities. Matthew makes two to meet the Saviour, “there met him two possessed”: Mark and Luke make one man to meet the Saviour. The other parts of the accounts are very similar, still the; above differences seem to convey that the two events may be distinct. This will not, however, much affect the argument.

 

The whole agree in the possessed being in the tombs, and coming out therefrom to meet Jesus. Matthew describes the two as being so fierce that “no man might pass that way.” Mark states, that he was so strong that no man could bind him, no, not with chains: “Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been, plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces; neither could any [man] tame him,” Mark 5v 4. Luke describes him as being in the tombs or in the mountains, “crying and cutting himself with stones.” Luke describes the man as “wearing no clothes,” and Mark further describes him as a man with “an unclean spirit.”

 

What are these evidences of? What, if a person was observed doing such things in the present day, should we infer? Should we refer the same to demonism? No, every one would call him insane, and he would be confined in an asylum; and now, thanks to science (which is God in nature discovered) would be tamed without any chains at all. These persons were mad, and being so - madness being deemed by the ancients the result of possession - were said to be “possessed” (daimonizomai); but such a belief does not prove “possession” to be actual - it merely shows that it was the belief of the ancients.

 

But say the advocates of demoniacal possession, the demon spoke: How do they know? The Scriptures say so. Matthew is the only place in which the daimon is mentioned, and is said to have spoken. But this does not prove that there were any demons in the possessed to speak: but proves that the opinion prevailed at the time that when the paroxysm of madness was on the individual, whatever he said or did then was believed to be said or done by the demon. That this belief was the prevalent one, full authority can be presented. Lucian expressly, states, “the patient is silent: the demon returns the answers to the questions that, are asked.” Apollonius, addressing a youth who had insulted him, but who was supposed to be possessed, remarks, “Not you but the demon has loaded me with insult” (Philostratus. Vit. Apollon., p. 157, ed. Olear) Plato expressly asserts, “It was not the inspired or possessed person himself, but the demon in him who spake by his voice.”

 

This explains the fact, already referred to, that the daimon, which, as has been shown, occurs only once in Scripture, occurs in connection with these dispossessions now under consideration: and the term expresses, most minutely the opinion, that when a conversation took place, then the daimon spoke: for the use of the word is in connection with the beseeching permission to go into the herd of swine.

 

The daimonia spoke before, namely, “What with us and thee Jesus, Son of God? art thou come to torment us before the time?” records Matthew: and the man himself, in Mark and Luke, is said to have addressed Jesus in a similar way: but when the conversation comes, then the word daimones, by Matthew, is brought in; so very exact was he in recording the opinion prevalent at the time on the subject.

 

But it has been argued in behalf of the existence of the demons in these individuals, and against the doctrine that it was merely madness that possessed them, that the individuals acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God. This, it is maintained, and rightly too, is no sign of insanity - to acknowledge Christ. True, but it would be a sign of egregious folly, yea, of insanity in a demon to acknowledge and spread abroad the knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God. To this it is replied, “but he was constrained to acknowledge the Son of God.” To this, again, there is an immediate answer. It is to be found in the following: “And in the synagogue there was a man, with the spirit of an unclean devil (daimonion), and cried out with a loud voice, saying, let us alone; what have we to do with thee thou Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the holy one of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, hold thy peace and come out of him,” Mark 1v 23-28. Jesus commanded him, “Hold thy peace.” And, in passing, it is worthy of remark, that here the demon, daimonion, is designated as “unclean,” so that the daimonia were not essentially unclean. But what, in regard to this constraining, to testify, is still more striking, is “And unclean spirits” (not demons), “when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, ‘Thou art the Son of God’,” Mark 3v 11.

 

So that Jesus did not want their testimony. In fact, it would have done harm: because if the demons testified in his favour it would, in the eyes of the Jews, be as bad as to us would be a rogue attesting the character of an honest man.

 

-------

¹ The best Greek texts read daimonium, not daimon, as found here in the common Greek texts.

[Resource Manager]

Though the argument of the demons being constrained to attest Christ’s mission is an unsound one, it may be useful to enquire how it came to pass that these insane people did attest the mission of Christ.

 

There is hardly any one insane who has not occasional intervals of sanity. The fame of Jesus in expelling demons, was spread abroad and reached the ears of those affected ones, who, being insane, were deemed by others - and, most likely, by themselves - to be infested. These poor unfortunates were often tormented by the various means used to expel demons - chains, fetters, and various other cruel means of which the history of the treatment of witches in our own country will give some idea. Dreading a repetition of such treatment, when the man saw Jesus “he ran and worshipped him (query: How could a demon worship Christ?) and cried with a loud voice, and said, What with me and thee, the Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God that thou torment me not,” Mark 5v 7. The man was beseeching to be freed from further bodily torment, all means having been hitherto ineffectual; and not knowing the effectual means Christ could use.

 

Another opinion prevailed among the ancients regarding demons, namely, that, if dispossessed, they wandered about, and were subjected to torments. This enables any unprejudiced mind to understand the passage, “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” This will also explain the intense desire on the part of the Gergesene and Gadarene demoniacs to be sent into the herd of swine. The poor insane men fancied that they were possessed by demons, and, as such, fancied that the evils, to which they supposed themselves liable in the imaginary separate state, would be inflicted if dismissed. The fact that the demon was supposed to speak is evidenced by the answer given to Christ when he asked the man his name: instead of giving his name, he answered, “My name is Legion, for we are many”: an answer very similar to what insane people give even now when asked their name - a decided proof of insanity.

 

It is stated Jesus suffered them: and it is stated that “they entered into the swine.” The meaning of the phrase “entered in” was explained in the examination of diabolos entering Judas Iscariot. In this case the demon entering the swine conveys merely that the swine became affected with the same disease as that which the Gadarene and Gergesene demoniacs had been afflicted with, namely, madness: and being mad they ran down the steep into the sea, which no sensible pig would have done. Such, then, is a brief, but, it is hoped, clear explanation of this interesting account of the entering of the demons into the swine.

 

One objection, however, to this view (it applies almost as forcibly to the common view) is, what good was done by destroying such a large number of animals by allowing this madness to affect them? As was said, the objection applies equally to the common view, only substituting this phrase - “by allowing these demons to enter the swine and destroy them.” One reason may be noticed, Gadara and Gergesa were cities in the province of Damascus. Both these, in the reign of Herod, belonged to Judea, and were inhabited by Jews to a great extent. The Jews were forbidden by the law of Moses, as; is well known, to eat pork; and their law-giver, Hyrcanus, had passed laws which forbade the keeping of swine. The Saviour, therefore, in destroying the swine, punished the violators of the law, and that such view is the likely one is evidenced by the fact, that they besought Jesus to depart out of their coasts, for fear he should destroy more. They regarded not the miracle; they regarded the loss of the pigs; and thus their selfishness was punished.

 

Against this view that the history of the dispossession of the Gadarene and of the Gergesene demoniacs is a description of the history of the affection and the cure of madmen, the language of the description being that which the people of that day would understand, it has been asked, how could God in Christ allow such an error to be perpetuated by permitting the writers of the gospels thus to describe such an event?

 

The answer to this is simple, and, it is to be hoped, satisfactory, it is this: Jesus Christ did not come into the world, nor did Moses the prophet, to teach man natural science: that is, God in creation: they came to teach moral and religious truth. This being the case, a very casual examination of the Scriptures will demonstrate that the Scriptures, in referring to natural events, teach what is the opposite to fact: they teach, if such a phrase is permissible, scientific untruths. Thus, the sun is said to go his journey round the earth: to go forth in the morning like a strong man to run a race: which all know, although the same expressions are still used for convenience’s sake, is not true. It is true that the Romish priests persecuted and imprisoned Galileo because he taught the real truth, which, they maintained, was contrary to the Scriptures: whereas, had they understood what Moses, the prophets, and Jesus in the highest degree came to teach, they would not have thus attacked the philosopher. The Saviour told his disciples that there were many things he had to tell them, but they were not able to bear them. This applies extensively; and as he, in his wisdom, thought fit to use the common phraseology in regard to demons, might it not be that to have taught the natural truth that it was mere madness would have been useless to them. The power of Christ was as much manifested in the one way as the other: a man presents with the phenomena of madness, which the Jews referred to “possession;” Christ removes the phenomena; he restores the man to his right mind: in the Jewish opinion he dispossesses the demon. The power is the same: this is the point in which the matter must be looked at.

 

Do not people even now talk of lunacy - that is, “struck by the moon,” though none but the ignorant believe in any power of the moon so to act? And do not people talk of St. Anthony’s fire, without at all believing that St. Anthony has anything to do with erysipelas, for which this is the common name? Do not person’s dilate respecting St. Vitus’s dance, although no one now associates St. Vitus with the dance? Names continue even after the belief in the existence of the things named has ceased; and if because persons used the phrases “lunacy,” “St. Anthony’s fire,” “St. Vitus’s dance,” it should be inferred that if they believed in the moon power, the St. Anthony’s power, or the St. Vitus’s power, it would indeed be absurd: but not more absurd than to imagine, because the evangelists use the phraseology of the time in regard to “possessions,” that we therefore are bound to believe in “possessions” which Paul says are nothing.

 

The whole history of these Gadarene and Gergesene demoniacs may be summed up in this: three madmen presented themselves to Christ: Christ cured them: and to punish the Jews he caused the madness to affect the swine.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER 8

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

THE temptation of Jesus constitutes the most striking of all the series of circumstances in which the word diabolos is introduced. This temptation, to be examined with success, must be preceded by an investigation of the subject of temptation itself: which, being understood, must throw light upon the temptation of Christ, “because he was in all points tempted like as we are,” Hebrews 4v 15.

The matter, therefore, for the present inquiry will be, “What is temptation?”

Fortunately, the apostle James has given us the source of temptation:- “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed: then, when Just hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” Jas. 1v 15. To understand what James intends to convey, the word translated “tempt” must be examined. It is peirazo. This word is itself a derived word, being derived from peiro, “to pass through or along.” From this word is derived the noun peira, which means “a passage through.” As an illustration of this meaning of peira, the following is appropriate: “By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned,” Heb. 11v 29. The term rendered “assaying” is peira, and the passage correctly translated would be this, “through which the Egyptians, making the passage, were drowned.” The same word occurs in the following passage, “And others had trial of mockings and scourgings”: or, as it ought to be, “others bore peiran, the passing through of mockings and scourgings,” Hebrews 11v 36. As, in passing through a passage, there is often danger, peira means “a trial.” From this word peira comes peirao, and from peirao comes peirazo, and the word most frequently rendered “to tempt.”

To show that “trial” or “attempting to do” is the primary idea associated with this word, some passages may be quoted in which peirazo or peirao occurs. “Now when they (Paul, Silas, and Timotheus) had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia, after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the spirit suffered them not,” Acts 16v 7. The word for “assayed” - i.e. “attempted,” “tried,” is peirazo. Again, “And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple e. But Barnabus took him and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord, in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem,” Acts 9v 26-28. The word for “assayed” is peirao - that is, “tried.”

The primary meaning is still further developed in the following passage where it is applied to a mental examination: “Examine yourselves, whether, be in the faith; prove your ownselves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” 2 Cor. 13v 5. Peirazo is the word for “examine.”

The same word occurs in this passage - “And Jesus went up into a mountain, and there he sat with his disciples. And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, ‘Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?’ And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do,” Jno. 6v 3-6. The word for prove is peirazo.

The same word occurs in the record of the orator Tertullus’ speech against Paul. “And after five days, Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy, great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found his man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of Nazarenes: who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took and would have judged according to our law,” Acts 24v 1-6. The phrase, “hath gone about,” is peirazo, and means attempted, “who also hath attempted to profane the temple.”

The same word occurs in the Hebrews, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried (peirazomenos), offered up Isaac,” Hebrews 11v 17.

The same word is rendered “tried” in Christ’s address to the church at Ephesus: “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried (peirazo) them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: and hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted,” Rev. 2v 2, 3.

The same word is rendered “try” in the passage to the church in Philadelphia: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try (peirazo) them that dwell upon the earth,” Rev. 3v 10.

The simple meaning of the word peirazo, translated “tempt,” is to try: and there will not be any hesitation in acknowledging, after examining a few passages in which this word is rendered “tempt,” that, if it was always rendered by its simple meaning (try), the force of the word would shine forth more clearly.

[Resource Manager]

Note, in this view, the following passage referring to the Christ: “For verify he took not on [him the work] of angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in. all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted,” Hebrews 2v 16-18. The phrase “being tempted,” is peirastheis, that is, “when tried;” and the phrase, “them that are tempted” (peirazomenois), that is, “that are being tried.” So (Heb. 11v 37), “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented.” Here “were tempted” is the same word peirazo.

 

From the word peirazo comes the word peirasmos. This is translated “temptation.” It means trial. “And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have, been with you at all seasons; serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews,” Acts 20v 17-19. The word for “temptations” is peirasmon, “trials” - and “trials” “trials” is far more expressive of the circumstances to which Paul refers than is the word “temptations.”

 

Paul, referring to the infirmity which he had, used this word, “and my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel,” Gal. 4v 14. This was his “trial,” peirasmos; a far better term.

 

In the following passage the word peirasmos occurs twice, and peirazo twice. “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is]) faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able: but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it],” 1 Cor. 10v 13. The words “trial” and “tried” would be much clearer.

 

In the following passage “trial” expresses the meaning much better than “temptation.” Explaining the parable of the seed sown, Jesus says, “They on the rock [are they] which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away,” Luke 8v 13. Here the word is peirasmos. They admire the love principle of Christianity; they praise it: but when an act occurs in which, to follow out the principle, they will have to sacrifice self, they find the sacrifice a trial. And the apostle James calls upon the brethren, “Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations,” Jas. 1v 2. The word is peirasmos: he adds, “Knowing [this], that the trying of your faith worketh patience,” ver. 3. The term for “trying” is not peirazo but peripesete, which means “testing,” not merely “trying.” How, if temptations were evil things, could James invite Christians to “Count it all joy when they fell into divers” of them?

 

All these passages establish this, that the proper meaning of the word peirasmos is “trial”; of peirazo, “try.” The objection to the words “temptation” and “tempt” would not be so great if custom had not associated with them improper meanings; but what is necessary is, that the words should be translated uniformly throughout.

 

One would infer from the frequent occurrence in common conversation of the words “tempted,” “temptation,” that the words occurred in almost every page of the Bible, whereas the fact is, that the word “temptation” does no occur more than twenty-one times in the New Testament. And, in all the cases the passages would be much more clear if the word “trial,” as the word is rendered in passages already quoted, were introduced in its place.

 

Having thus demonstrated that the word peirasmos means “trial,” and that “temptation” is not the meaning, the next step in the inquiry, necessary to make clear to the understanding the trials of the Lord in the wilderness, will be to examine the source of trial.

[Resource Manager]

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.

 

IN the previous Chapter the subject of temptation was considered. It was shown that the word peirasmos, translated “temptation,” and peirazo, translated “to tempt,” are derived from peiras, to make a passage through; the word peira meaning passing through. It was further shown that as, in making a passage through anything, some difficulty is experienced, the word peirao means to try, and viewed mentally in reference to the passing of the mind through observation to gain experience, it means to experience. It was shown also, that peirasmos means, strictly speaking, a trial, and peirazo, to try; and that these two words are, in the Common Version, sometimes translated “trial,” “try.” The passages quoted were demonstrated to have greater clearness when these words, instead of being translated “temptation” and “tempt,” were translated “trial” and “try”; in fact, it was proved that “trial” and “try” are the proper renderings of these words. These remarks were made as preparatory to the inquiry into the, so-called, temptation of our Lord On the present occasion the source of trial, miscalled “temptation,” is to be considered as absolutely necessary to know, in order to understand the nature of the Saviour’s trial, more particularly as he is said to have been tried according to all like things with us. Hebrews 4v 14-16 - “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”

 

The source of trial, as being from ourselves and not from God, is specifically attested by James: ch. 1v 13— “Let no man say when he is tried, I am tried of God, for God cannot be tried with evil, neither trieth he any man.” That is the negative part of James’s declaration: the positive follows: 5v 14— “But every man is tried when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” The source of this trial when operating injuriously is then detailed: 5v 15— “Then, when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

 

“One’s own “lust” is the source, then, of trial: and the question occurs, “What does lust in this passage represent?” The common meaning attached to this word is decidedly unfavourable: it is one associated with vice. The word used is epithumia. It is compounded of two words, epi, upon, and thumos, breath. As man becomes a living soul by God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, this word thumos came to be applied to that which proceeds from breathing, namely, the life, the mind, the soul, the individual life, the self, the movements or emotions of the soul, the affections, the desires: and as the passions, particularly anger, strongly active, swell up the mind, this word came to signify more specially anger, and is so translated in many passages in the Common Version.

 

Epithumia is the mind, the self, resting upon something: that is, the setting the mind upon any object: and, as when the mind is set upon any object, that object is desired, the word means simply a “desire.” The word implies nothing bad. “Desire” is the correct meaning, and therefore James asserts that “every man is tried when he is led away of his own desire, and enticed.” It is not enough, as will be seen from the passage, that the man is led away: there is a second step: he must be enticed.

 

What, then, is desire? It is the activity of any power of mind, directed towards an object, between which and it the Creator has established an attractive relation: thus, to speak phrenologically, individuality desires an acquaintance with individual objects: benevolence delights in acts and objects of kindness: conscientiousness desires, and consequently delights in, acts of justice; acquisitiveness desires wealth, which it seeks; love of approbation covets praise; the love of sex seeks a sexual object; the love of offspring desires children; and so with every desire.

[Resource Manager]

No desire - (the desire being the result of the attraction between the power of the mind and the object, a relationship established by the Creator himself) - can, in itself, be bad. In fact, there is no evil in desire: but still desire, when active in an improper way, does bring trial, does induce evil.

 

That the word epithumia is improperly rendered lust, which lust is badly regulated desire, a desire inconsistent with man’s duty to his neighbour and his God, and that the proper meaning of the word is desire, will be apparent from examining a few passages.

 

Luke 15v 16-This word occurs in reference to the prodigal son, who, after spending all his substance, was reduced to so low a state that “he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat, and no man gave unto him.” (He had not small conscientiousness, otherwise he would have taken them.) The phrase “he would fain” is epithumei “he is desiring.” Here the word represents the state of mind as connected with the natural appetite of hunger in which appetite there can be nothing bad.

 

Luke 16v 21-A similar application of the word occurs in reference to the Lazarus of the parable. It is stated, “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores.” — The word rendered “desiring” is epithumon.

 

1 Tim. 3v 1-This word is applied to the desiring after office. Paul writes, “This is a true saying, if a man desire (here it is not epithumce, but oregetai, and means if a man extends his thoughts to) the office of a bishop he desireth a good work.” The word for “desireth” is epithumei. This is a good desire a good lust if lust be the proper interpretation of epithumia.

 

1 Thes. 2v 17-This word is applied by Paul to the desire to see his brethren in Christ: “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.”

The phrase for “great desire” is polle epithumei = much “lust.”

 

Phil. 1v 23-It is applied by Paul to represent the wish he had to be: released from prison: “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain, But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my, labour: yet what I, shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt the two, having a desire to depart (eis to analusai = “for release”), and to be with Christ:¹which is far better, and (de - a small particle which does not mean “nevertheless”)”to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” The words for “a desire” are ten epithumian = the “lust.”

 

Matt. 8v 17-It is used by the Saviour to express the desire which the excellent men of old had to see his day.

 

“For verify I say unto you that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen, them and to hear those things, which, ye hear and have not heard them.”

 

1 Peter 1v12-Peter, referring to the same anxious expectation of the men of old, uses the same word: “Whom having not seen ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you. Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you, by them that have preached the gospel unto you, with the Holy Spirit sent down from Heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.” desire to look into.” Peter thus applies this same word to the intense wish of message-bearers to look into these matters.

 

-------

¹ And yet Paul had no desire to die. He was a prisoner in Rome and while between continued imprisonment and martyrdom he would not choose, yet he greatly desired to be set at liberty, and be once more in active association with the Christ in the proclamation of the Truth.

[Resource Manager]

Luke 17v 20-22-The Saviour, knowing that though the disciples did not value as they ought the privilege of his being with them (the value of which they would not know till he was departed), tells them, in the following account, that they would desire to see one of the days of the son of Man: “And when, he was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with neither shall they say, lo here! or lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And he said unto the disciples, The day will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall not see it.” The word for “desire” is epithumesete.

Luke 22v 15-But what still more positively establishes that the word epithumia does not of itself imply any bad sense -and that therefore “lust,” as long as a bad sense is attached to it, is not the term properly expressive of the use of this word by our Saviour on another most memorable occasion. It was at the last supper and its attendant events. “And they went and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down and the twelve apostles with the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: for I say unto you, I will not eat any more thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. This “desire” is epithumia: this I have “desired” is epithumesa.

Col. 3v 5-That there is nothing bad in desire (epithumia) is proved further by the fact, that when badness is associated with desire, a word is superadded to indicate such addition. Paul, in writing to the Colossians, directs - “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” All these, called members, are activities of desire inconsistent with the law of love to our neighbour, the term for “concupiscence” is epithumia, but it has an adjective, kaken, “bad:” an addition which would not have been needed if epithumia meant “lust,” that is, “a badly-regulated desire.”

Tit. 2v. 12- In Paul’s letter to Titus an addition is made: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly ill this present world.” Here the word epithumias occurs: it is rendered “lusts” but the world “worldly” (kosmikos) is added to designate the inferiority of those desires.

1 Pet. 2v 11- Peter, in his first letter, defines these desires (lepithurnion) as (sarkikon) “lusts” All these additions demonstrate, it is repeated, that desires are not bad in themselves but are bad only when the objects on which they outgo, or the means by which they are gratified, are improper.

1 Cor. 10v 6- As a further proof, Paul writes of “lusting after evil things.” Referring to the destruction inflicted upon the Jews in the wilderness on account of their wickedness, he remarks, “Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they lusted.” The words epithumetas and epithumesan occur here: but there is the addition to damnify the desire “after evil things.” If epithumia were “to have evil desire,” and as such bad in itself, the addition of “after evil things” would have been quite unnecessary.

Gal. 5v 16, 17- To add, if it be needed, additional evidence that the word epithumia is not necessarily bad in its meaning, the following quotation from Paul’s letter to the Galatians is apposite. “This I say then, Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against tire flesh: and these, are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Here it will be seen that the word epithumei is applied to the activity of the spirit, which is holy, against the flesh, as well as to the activity of the flesh against the spirit; so that if the term epithumia means “lust,” and “lust” is bad, then it most follow that the “lusteth” is as bad in the one as in the other. But as this word has not necessarily a bad meaning, no such inference need be drawn: and it is said in truth that the flesh, that is, the animal nature of man, has desires contrary to the spiritual nature, and the spiritual nature has desires contrary to the animal nature. And it is true “that they that are Christ’s crucified the flesh,” which is not, as some foolishly talk, destroyed, which would be to unman and unwoman mankind, but they nailed to the higher principles of the truth (the “to love mercy,” the “to do justly,” the “to walk humbly with God” principles), the activities of the lower desires of man’s nature, namely, the affections and the desires.

To have a desire is therefore no sin: but to allow that desire to lead away from the higher duties, to entice us to violate the law of love to our neighbour or to our God, is sinful. Happy is the man who has been tried in all points, and without sin. We shall see him soon; the man, Christ Jesus.

[Resource Manager]

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.

 

OUR Lord’s trial, taking the word peirasmos to mean trial and not temptation, is recorded in the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and not in the testimony of John. In Matthew and Luke the description is full; in Mark the narrative is very brief. In Matthew and in Luke three distinct classes of trials are enumerated; in Mark no individual trial is specified. The best plan, therefore, will be to gather the general description by joining all the various facts recorded by the three.

 

Jesus, after being baptized of John in Jordan, received the Holy Spirit without measure. “And then Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, having returned from Jordan, was immediately led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil; and he was there in the wilderness with the wild beasts forty days, tempted of Satan, the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterwards hungered. And when the tempter came to him he said ‘if thou be Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.’ But he answered and said, ‘It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’ Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and, setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, ‘If thou be Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, ‘He shall give his angels charge concerning thee to keep thee: and in (their) hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.’ Jesus said unto him, ‘It is written again, Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.’ Again, the devil, taketh him up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showeth him all the; kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, ‘All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto rue; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.’ And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.” Such is the general account, gathered from the three histories. It may be now useful to point out the differences in the statements. In reference to the being led into the wilderness. Luke represents that Jesus was “led,” egeto; Matthew “led up,” ancethe; Mark “driven,” ekballei: terms expressive of a strong impulse, constraining him to depart from the haunts of the children of men, to be as Mark adds, with “the wild beasts,” these being representative of the animal feelings in man’s nature.

 

Many think that the three great trials that our Lord experienced were the only ones that he had: but it is evident, from the account given by Mark, that he was tried the whole of the forty days: “And he was there in the wilderness forty days tempted by Satan” and the statement of Mark is confirmed by the statement of Luke: “Being forty days tempted of the devil.”

 

It is worthy of remark that, the one who tries is called by Mark “Satan;” . . . by Matthew and by Luke “the devil.”

 

Matthew and Luke both agree in representing that the first trial took place after he had fasted forty days, and when he was hungry: Matthew, in our translation states — “he was afterward an hungered”; Luke, “he afterward hungered”: the Greek words are exactly the same in both and therefore putting aside the bad English of the translation of Matthew, they both can be rendered, “he afterward hungered.”

 

The second temptation, as recorded by Matthew, is the temptation of being carried up to the temple: this is recorded as the third by Luke. Matthew says “Then (tote) the devil taketh (paralambanei) him to the holy city:” Luke writes, “And he brought (egagen) him to Jerusalem.” Matthew adds, “and setteth,” histesin: Luke “set” him (hestesin) on a pinnacle of the temple.” In reference to temptation, the third by Matthew the second by Luke, there is some difference. . . Luke describes the mountain as high (hupselon). Matthew describes it as exceeding high (hupselon lian). Matthew adds, that “he showed him the kingdoms and the glory of them.” Luke refers to the kingdoms only. Luke adds the time that the devil took to show them “in a moment of time.” Matthew represents the devil as promising to give all these things to Christ. Luke, “to give all this power (it ought to be authority, exousian), and the glory of them:” and Luke adds an assertion of the devil: “for that (hoti) is delivered (paradedotai) unto me; and to whomsoever I will, I give it.” Matthew gives Jesus’s answer, “Get thee hence (hupage), Satan”; Luke, “Get thee behind me (opiso mou)”. At the conclusion of the trials Matthew represents that — “the devil leaveth (aphiesin) him.” Luke, `”departed from him” (apeste). Luke adds, “for a season “- (achri kairou) this departure took place. Mark states, in reference to the whole industry, “and the angels ministered unto him”: Matthew, “and behold angels came and ministered unto him.”

 

This analysis of the various accounts of the trials of our Lord has been given, because all the particulars are necessary to enable the mind to ascertain the meaning of the divine writer.

 

The question now comes, “How are these trials to be understood?” The common opinion is, that these descriptions are records of literal events. Is this opinion justified by the narratives? How are we to decide this? Is there any rule by which a question of this kind can be settled? There is! It is this: That no passage of Scripture admits of a literal interpretation, unless all the parts of the same admit fairly, and in accordance with common-sense, of such literal interpretation. It is upon this principle that the Protestant rejects the Papistical interpretation of the statement of our Lord, —”This is my body”; — “this is my blood”; because the phrases do not admit, in all particulars, of a literal interpretation.

[Resource Manager]

Applying this principle to the recorded trial of our Lord, let us see whether literal interpretation can be admitted. That our Saviour might be led, led up, or driven, into the literal wilderness may be admitted, although this admits of some objection; but let this pass. It is there that, it is supposed, a being came to him in person, appearing before him in visible form, speaking to him with an audible voice, removing him also corporeally from place to place, and presenting himself in his real character: this being is called “Satan,” also “the devil.” This person, or being, is represented as trying our Lord by certain suggestions. The circumstances connected with these suggestions will be hereafter noticed: the attention may, for the present, be confined to the personal appearance of the devil to Christ.

 

Can his be true? If so, it will accord with common sense as applied to the point in relation to which the devil appears. It was to deceive our Lord, to induce hint to act in a way contrary to the laws of the Moral Governor of the Universe. If a well-known knave wished to deceive a person, would he come as a knave? If a noted debauchee, such as the late Marquis of Headford, wanted to obtain possession of any innocent female would he tell his name, would he come as a debauchee? If a gamester, such as Lord Rous, who, having been found guilty of using false dice, was obliged to flee the country, wished to win money by gambling, would he proclaim himself Lord Rous? And is the devil, taking him as a being so intelligent, so shrewd, so talented as he is represented to be, so stupidly blind as to be less cunning than a frail man? Would he, by a personal and undisguised appearance, attempt the virtue of one who had the spirit beyond measure? Even when he attacks a frail mortal, not endowed as was the Saviour, he is supposed never to attack him except by secret suggestions, which are so akin to the thoughts of his own mind that he cannot very well distinguish the passage through which the false-accuser has entered - the seducing object is held forth, but the hand that holds it is concealed. No; the popular devil would have too much sagacity and policy to attempt to try our Lord by making himself known: as Dr. Secker remarks, “The devil did not appear what he was, for that would have entirely frustrated his intent.” But it has been asserted that he did not appear as the devil. Both Archbishop Seeker (Secker’s Sermons, vol. 2., p. 113) and. Chandler (Chandler’s Sermons, p. 177, 178) assert that he came to Christ in the form of a good angel. The only answer to such assertion is, Who told them so? The same reply applies to the conjecture that Satan appeared as a man! No, no; this concealment of a difficulty will not do; for Jesus knew who be was, “Get thee behind me, Satan”; that is, supposing the personal appearance to be true. It appears then that, in this particular, to take the account as literal is unreasonable in reference to the first point, unreasonable in reference to the first point, the appearance of the devil as a personal being before Christ: such appearance would have defeated the devil’s very object.

 

The next trial that this being is supposed to have presented to our Saviour is that he brought or took him, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple. Some people have interpreted this bringing, this taking as carrying Jesus. Though many hold this, it is so ridiculously absurd as hardly to merit refutation. But, as even absurd things act as impediments to the discovery of truth until driven from the mind, it will be well to ask, first, What would have been thought of Jesus being carried by the devil and placed oil a pinnacle of the temple? And it may be asked, as a second point, Can it be supposed that the devil could possess the powers of carrying a being through the air? This might be believed by those who believe in witches riding on broomsticks and such priestcraft nonsense of the middle ages but to believers, enlightened by the truths of the volume of creation, such absurdity must he scouted. But, say the more enlightened advocates of the personal appearance of the devil, we do not mean that the devil carried Jesus, but that, as the passage reads, he brought or took him to the pinnacle of the temple. But, then, if he had a personal appearance, he must have been visible, and what would the Jews have thought to see the Lamb of God, so described by John walking with Satan? It will not do.

[Resource Manager]

But how would Jesus be persuaded to go with the devil when he knew it to be a duty not to court trial? Here he would put himself in the very jaws of the enemy. Instead of resisting the devil, which he commands through his apostle, here Christ accompanies him of his own accord; for, although the devil may, for the sake of argument, be able to force us, how could he force him who had the spirit beyond measure? Oh, say those who advocate that did go with the devil, “it was done to show the power Jesus had to resist the trial; and the more difficult the struggle, the more glorious the victory.” But to this it is answered, We are taught to follow Christ’s example; and if Christ was at liberty to enter into the sphere of bad company, we may too. No wonder that people, believing this, believe in the power of the being they call the devil, and fear him almost more than they fear God; because if Christ “was in all points tempted as we are,” the poor terrified believer in a personal devil may expect some dreadful trials from this devil.

 

But to return. Others who believe in the literal account of the trial of our Lord by a personal Satan maintain that Christ was led to the temple, and then ascended of his own accord to the pinnacle. To ascertain whether this was possible the following facts are worthy of record. Josephus states:

 

(Josephus’s Antiq. Jud. 1. 15, c. 11. 5 § B. J. 1. 5. c. 5), — “Some parts of the temple (being built upon the edge of a rock, under which was a valley of prodigious depth), were of a height so vast that it was impossible to look down without making the head to swim.” It appears by the description given of the temple by Josephus and from some from other Jewish writers, that it was so encompassed by walls, and, so guarded, that all access to it was impracticable but by such persons, and under, such conditions, as the law allowed. Now, by law, no foreigner could pass the first enclosure or court under pain of death; the Jewish people could not pass the second; the priests alone could enter the third. The temple itself was within this court, from which Christ was excluded, not being a Jewish priest. As, to the devil, those who know under what different disguises he imposed upon Christ can with equal certainly inform us by what stratagems he might advance forward to the temple. Christ, however in whom there no guile, could not have been permitted to follow. With regard to the temple itself, properly so called, on the top of it there were spikes, with sharp points to prevent so much as a bird from resting upon it. The wings of the temple stretched out on either side at the eastern front of it, which was by far the most magnificent, and commanded a view of the entire body of worshippers. These wings were twenty cubits higher than the temple; the height of the temple being one hundred cubits, and the height of the “pinnacle” (pterugion) one hundred and twenty cubits, at the top of which, the narrative (according to the common interpretation) affirms the devil did set our Saviour. That the word ptertugion denotes the wing (not the pinnacle) of the temple, that most valuable expositor, Dr. Lightfoot, long since observed (Works, vol. ii., p. 130). And his opinion was adopted by the learned Dr. Prideux (Farmer on the Nature and Design of Christ’s Temptation, 5th edit., 20, 21-Connect. vol. i., p. 200), and lately by Dr. Benson (Life of Christ, p. 35). It is impossible, therefore, that Christ could have reached the pinnacle of the temple, except the devil carried him through the air in his arms, which it is too ridiculous, too blasphemous, too atheistical, for any Christian man to credit. From these facts it is quite certain that the second trial of our Saviour is not to be understood literally.

 

The third trial may now be noticed. “The devil taketh Jesus into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.” This is the statement. Is it literally true? It cannot be. Where is the mountain from which any man can see one thousandth part of the earth, the mere solid earth? There is none: and therefore the statement is at once seen to be literally untrue. God showed Moses from Mount Nebo the land of Canaan, narrow indeed; but for the devil to be able to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world would have been a miracle so stupendous as to surpass the miracle performed by the Almighty. If a man were placed in the sun, and could see the world thence, he could see but one half of the world at a time.

 

Dr. Macknight, to get rid of the difficulty, translates the word to mean the kingdom of Judea, or rather the land of Judea; but there was no mountain from which Christ could see the whole of the land of Judea: for the land of promise, in its largest signification, reached from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, east and west, and from Egypt, on the south, to beyond Sidon northwards, a tract of country that no mountain commands, and no eye could take in (Macknight, p. 67). That this limitation to the kingdom of Judea, however, is not proper, is proved by the phrase, “All the kingdoms of the world,” [oikouincile = inhabited (earth)]: a phrase demonstrating that all the various parts of the world, where rule existed, are referred to. From what mountain could such kingdoms be seen, embracing both hemispheres?

 

But that the literal interpretation cannot be the correct one, it is stated that the devil showed Jesus the glory of them. The glory of a kingdom consists of its institutions, its wealth, its power, its intellectual character, and a multitude of matters which could be seen only in close position: the very height of the mountain, necessary to see the territorial kingdom, would exclude the power of seeing the glory of the kingdom.

 

To meet this difficulty, some persons have laboured to prove that the showing was merely a description. But then why take Jesus to a high mountain, if it was merely to be by a description? Here they desert the literal interpretation and fly to a figurative one. But this will not do. One or the other must be adopted: and that the literal cannot be recognised as the proper one needs no more argument.

[Resource Manager]

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.

FULL particulars of the trials of the Lord Jesus in the wilderness were brought to notice in the last Chapter: and the query occurred: “Are these trials to be regarded as outward occurrences that look place literally, as many believe, or are they to be regarded as figurative representations?” In connection with this query, it was stated that no passage of Scripture can be interpreted one part literally and one part “spiritually”; that is, if it is to be literally understood throughout; if it is to be “spiritually” understood, it must be “spiritually” understood throughout. A query arose out of these views, namely: “Is there any rule by which we can be guided in deciding whether any passage is to be literally or figuratively understood?” The answer was given in the affirmative, and the rule was stated to be, “That no passage of Scripture admits of a literal interpretation unless all the parts of the same admit fairly, and in accordance with common-sense, of such literal interpretation.”

It was shown in conjunction with this rule that the gross absurdities, the palpable contradictions, the positive unsuitableness to the character of Christ of many of the facts recorded, if the account be taken literally, are such as completely negative to the possibility of its recognition as a literal statement by any simple-minded and intelligent believer.

The inquiry is therefore now to be made, ‘Can the same rule which, being applied, proves that the narrative cannot be regarded as literal history, be applied to justify the adoption of the view that the account is figurative?’ To answer the question and to demonstrate the affirmative, will occupy this Chapter.

The narrative presents us with the fact that the Lord Jesus had just been anointed by Holy Spirit, “To preach good tidings unto the meek: he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified,” Isa. 61v 1-3.

This was the work he had to perform. To fit him for this work he was “led,” “led up,” “driven” into the wilderness by Holy Spirit, in order that there he might contemplate carefully all the various duties, scan all the mighty difficulties which, in the performance of the office for which he was anointed, he would be called upon to perform and to teach. He went, before beginning to build that house which was to be the temple of the living God, to count the costs of the building. He went, before entering on the warfare he had to wage, into the calculation how he should be able to compete with the foes with whom he must strive.

Any prudent commercial man, before entering upon any speculation, carefully weighs in his counting-house, where he shuts himself up, all the points connected with the speculation about to be entered upon. A certain philosopher, it is recorded, before admitting any among his disciples, required that they should be tested by keeping silence for years. Every sane man carefully reflects on any course he purposes to pursue before he fixes upon the pursuit of that course.

We have every reason to believe that Jesus was led into the wilderness for this purpose; and it is not presuming too far to add, that that spirit which drove him into the wilderness might have pictured before his mind all the scenes that be would have to pass through, even to the end of his career, even to an ignominious death.

For forty days he was engaged in this heavenly contemplation - embracing a view of all the duties to be performed, of all the difficulties to be realized in the development of the new law: and as Moses was forty days in the Mount Sinai, to receive the law of Sinai (and we do not hear of his eating while there), so Jesus was forty days in the wilderness to receive the view of the struggle necessary to realize the law of love. At the end of this time the natural appetite of hunger developed itself; “And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended he afterward hungered,” Luke 4v 2

This appetite, which Christ possessed as a human being, and which, therefore, was naturally active after so long a fast, created an impulse within him to seek to relieve it. He was in the wilderness. There was nothing there to supply his wants. Stones, it is true, were around him. How were his wants to be supplied? This query makes it necessary to make a few remarks upon a subject over which much mystery has been thrown, and that very injuriously. I refer to the work which Christ had to perform.

[Resource Manager]

Christ had to reconcile man to God. He had, in so doing, to restore in his humanity the image of the divinity, which mankind had lost. He had to demonstrate the problem that man can, as a man, be obedient to the law of his Maker. To do this, Christ could seek no aid from his divine side, except in the character of a man, nor could he derive any advantage in the contest on the score of his relationship to God, except that which was his duty, as a man, to take. Hence we find Christ praying to the Deity: a fact which many have ridiculed as God praying to God: but Christ in praying to the Deity was performing a man’s duty; a duty essential to enable a man to obey the law of God: and had not Christ prayed to the Deity he could not have gained the victory over death and Hades. Christ, therefore, in the struggle which he had to go through, had to go through the struggle in his humanity: and he was: to have no aid but that which came to him through the character of his humanity. His divine power (bestowed at his baptism) as a prime party in the contest was to be laid aside, so to speak: he was to fight the battle in his humanity, and, by fighting it successfully, demonstrate that man, aided by God (that aid being sought in the way God has appointed), can and did obtain the victory and resist the evil. One of the conditions, therefore, was not to use his divine power in relation to himself and in support of himself, but to rely solely on his humanity, aided by the help obtained from the Deity in the way in which every man must obtain aid from God.

 

This view will unfold the nature of the trials through which Christ passed; it will help to the understanding of the figurative meaning of the trials under consideration.

 

In regard to the first trial. The self-principle, the desire-principle in the Christ, when he felt hungry, suggested at once what was a truth, surely, “seeing thou art Son of God, command that these stones be made bread,” Matt. 4v 3. That is, the self-principle, awakened by the natural and proper appetite suggested a means by which the appetite could be satisfied, and that in a way which demonstrate Christ to be the noble and exalted individual he was. Here then the self-principle sought to violate the compact, the condition; sought to bring a new element into the matter, which would have spoiled the whole. The self-principle wished to bring in the divine power to get out of a natural difficulty—this state of mind (a state in which God, as the promised provided for the wants of his children, would have been accused by the supposition that He, who has promised his aid, would not aid His Son) was the devil, or the false-accuser, that tried Christ. The self-principle, the epithumia, the desire-principle, was to get the bread in a way not authorised: this was the desire: but in Christ it was not embraced; it did not conceive; it did not bring forth: he was tried in all points like as we are, but without sin. His answer was, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matt. 4v 4.

 

So that Christ, instead of having the devil talking with him, is represented in this account as having something passing through his mind: a state which all have, and he, to repeat, was tried in all points like as we are: he had a desire: he had a power to satisfy that desire in a miraculous way: but his object was to gain the victory over all his desires through his humanity and by means in accordance therewith, and therefore he did not gratify his desire, but, as a man, waited for deliverance from the Lord.

 

The suggestion was a very natural one. It needed no Devil. It needed only the natural desire acting with the intellect and will. “Seeing I am Son of God, what more easy than for me to make the stones bread, and realise at once the gratification of my appetite? and in the gratification thus obtained demonstrate my Sonship.” In other words, Jesus had a desire for food; that desire called into activity the knowledge which he possessed, namely, that he was Son of God with, power: these two, acting together, suggested the obtaining of the end by a way which would have swallowed up the humanity in the divinity; would have a practical denial to the belief in the superintending providences of God, in the providences of Jehovah, by obtaining that by his divine power which he should obtain by his human dependence on Divine aid. Jesus was tried by his desire: but he did not embrace it, and therefore it was not sin; no, he met, the falsely-accusing state by a truth: he demolished the rising selfish state by a truth, the fruit of the higher love state.

 

The first Adam was actuated by the desire of knowledge; that desire conceived and brought forth the eating of the forbidden tree—that is, the violation of the command of God.

 

The second Adam, Jesus, was tried by the sensual principle, the adversary, and the seduction was through knowledge, acting through want in the first instance; through a truth in the second; and Christ’s knowledge overpowered the adversary.

[Resource Manager]

What, then, is the interpretation? Jesus, fatigued by the long-continued meditations on the duties of his office, had come into that condition of mind which leads a person in difficulty to receive suggestions as to deliverance from the same from sources which may be perfectly good in themselves, but which are not good in their individual application. Thus, that state of desire for relief, a selfish state of mind suggested to Jesus’ mind those passages of Scripture which favoured the gratification of that selfish state. But as the proposed use of such passages would have implied a doubt of the promises of God, which would have been a falsely-accusing state (diabolos), the Saviour resisted the trial, and, by the sword of the Spirit, conquered the foe. Such was the first trial.

 

The second trial represents the progress of his mind in contemplating the means by which he must proceed in performing his mission in demonstrating himself to be the Christ. The natural self-love suggestion is this, Is there no plan by which I can at once effect my purpose: some decisive act which will at once settle the question, even to the most incredulous? This state directed his intellectual powers to search, and this falsely-accusing state immediately discovered a plan: a plan which, at first, appears quite suited to demonstrate that he was the Christ: “Seeing thou art Son of God, cast thyself down,” Matt. 4:6. This plan would have been seeking to attain the elevation promised to him by a course inconsistent with the principle regulating the struggle, namely, that he was to struggle as a man and not to use his divine power in matters in which his humanity was the element of the contest.

 

It is true that Jesus was promised to be king of Israel. What better means to astonish the people into an acknowledgment of his right, than to throw himself from the battlement of the temple and to escape unhurt, and this too, apparently sanctioned by the promise “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Matt. 4:6.

 

The Saviour soon detected the origin of the suggestion, and demolishes the whole theory by expressing his conviction that he had no right thus to test the divine power: “It is written again, Thou shalt not try the Lord thy God,” Matt. 4:7.

 

The third trial was the third step in the progress of his mind in the contemplation of his course. Jesus was promised all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them This prospect elevated his mind: it figuratively placed him on a high mountain: and before that mind’s eye passed, with the rapidity of thought “in a moment of time,” these kingdoms and the glory of them Carefully scrutinising them, Jesus saw that the whole were in a state of direct opposition to the principles of the kingdom; that they were under the domination of the self-love, the falsely-accusing principle, figuratively represented by the devil. The thought came across the mind of Jesus - Well, what must be done? Here is a contest: I have to conquer the self-love principle by the universal love principle. Every man is against me: shall I join in with the principle that rules? Shall I flatter the Scribes, the Pharisees? Shall I make use of selfish means to gain the kingdom? Shall, I bow to the ruling power? Shall I worship it, and shall all be mine by this means? These suggestions are the natural suggestions of a human mind in such a condition. How many people now say honesty is an excellent thing but men cannot be honest; it is no use attempting it; the present state of society laughs at honesty. And thus they justify their dishonesty.

[Resource Manager]

The devil is represented as promising to Christ the power and of the kingdoms of the earth. Now the devil could not promise; but the self-love principle detected that that was the moving power in the kingdoms of the earth; in fact, to it the whole was delivered; so to whomsoever the self-love principle may outgo the party gets the power and the glory: and thus the whole passage is merely a figurative description of the result of the mental examination by Christ of the prevalent worldly system, of the suggestions which his self-love principle made on the first examination; and then, at the conclusion, he denounces obtaining the kingdom by any worship of the self-love principle, and adds, “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,” Matt. 4:10.

 

“The devil leaveth him”- that is, these states of mind ceased to trouble him; he gained the victory, and angels, i.e. messengers, came and ministered unto him. Many think that Christ was troubled no more; but it is added, “Satan departed from him for a season.” Luke 4:13. The self-love principle might make other suggestions.

 

Great, indeed, was this victory: a three-fold victory, embracing a view of all the trials to which a man can be exposed; for the lust of the flesh - that is, the desire after animal gratification; the lust of the eyes, the desire after elevation; and the pride of life, the desire for rule - are the three great trials of man.

 

The second Adam went through the whole unscathed. The first Adam was tried in being induced to eat forbidden fruit; he was enticed, and sinned. The second Adam was tried by the suggestion to ‘make fruit’ in a forbidden way; he was not enticed, and did not sin.

 

The whole account of the trial of our Lord admits of an easy, clear, and conclusive explanation when viewed figuratively as a picture of the thoughts that passed through his mind in the survey of his great struggle.

 

Perhaps the only objection that will be urged against this view is that such view supposes that Christ had wicked thoughts. It supposes no such thing; it supposes that he had the thoughts of a man in contemplating human things; it supposes that he must have had these thoughts to have been tried on all points like as we are; and it supposes that, having examined all his thoughts, he discountenanced all those which, if carried out, would have been falsely-accusing God, and consequently sinful.

 

And, let it ever be remembered, that the victory was gained through the written word; Jesus fought his enemies in the mental battlefield with the weapon, the Scriptures.

 

May it not be suggested, as the conclusion of the examination of this most interesting mental struggle, that a similar retiring into, not an Eden, but into the wilderness of confused thought produced by the conflict of error and truth, of love and of selfishness, becomes each man, there to decide, after a calm consideration, what course to adopt; and it is to be hoped that it will be said of him what was said of Mary, “She hath chosen the better part:” If following Christ, ‘tis sure.

[Resource Manager]

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.

 

IN the preceding Chapters we have endeavoured to demonstrate that there is no such being as the Devil, and have opened up the true meaning attached to the terms “devil,” “satan,” “demon,” and have shown that these are applicable to conditions in which the primary idea represented in each has appended to it some particularity justifying the distinct appellation.

 

Little or nothing has been noticed in reference to the absurdity connected with the belief in a devil; the atheistical tendency of such belief; the utter contradiction of such belief to all true notions of God. These points have been particularly avoided and that principally on the ground that no sound and fair reasoner will ever attempt to show the absurdity of an opinion until he has demonstrated its untruth. Untrained and consequently vulgar minds always begin the examination of a question by showing its supposed dangerousness or absurdity, thus awakening the fears or; exciting the laughter-state of mind, both of which are sufficient so far to warp the mind as to prevent its fair course to a legitimate conclusion. Many will, no doubt, attack these expositions in the latter way; will denounce them as dangerous: and those who cannot or will not, or who are afraid or are not allowed to think, will settle the question to their own minds by uttering, with the peculiar conceit which always attends utterance under such circumstances, “Be not led away by strange doctrine.”

 

Leaving such persons to their own complacency, reminding them, at the same time, of the remark of Lord Bacon, “There are two ways of getting peace, the one is by shutting the eyes, the other is by opening them,” it will be well to exhibit the absurdities, the impossibilities, the atheism connected with the belief in the supposed being called the Devil.

 

Creation and revelation both teach that God is a God of order. The laws of the creation are the means by which He makes that order manifest. No part of the creation can exist but by the permission of God, and, in existing, must it be regulated by the laws He has appointed for the regulation of that existence. These laws discovered, constitute, in relation to man, truth, and become to man, when used, the source of all physical comfort and of all intellectual and of much moral and religious progress.

 

God’s laws, whether in the world of creation or the world of revelation, are for the production of good; and as nothing can operate in opposition to the laws of God, all the operations of the universe must be for good.

 

The Devil (supposing him, for the sake of showing the absurdity of his existence, to exist) must, in acting, act through, and by means of, the laws of God: and since he acts - as all his advocates so allow - for the production of evil, he must actually, so to do, make God’s laws, appointed by Him for good, turn to a quite different purpose, namely the production of evil; which is an absurdity, and is the first step to the dread groundwork of atheism. This recognises the Devil as more powerful than God; because, before a person can make a machine serve a purpose directly opposite to that for which it was made, be must have vanquished the original contriver in order to be able to turn that machine to a different purpose. The Devil has the power, according to the common view, of setting aside the laws of God. He can work “miracles” - for a “miracle” is, according to the common view, a subversion of a law of the Creator - and if so, then what becomes of “miracles” as a demonstration of Divine revelation?

 

In fact, almost all the ideas associated with the Devil are such as to make him equal with God.

 

Thus to the Devil is ascribed omnipotence; if not quite, almost. He is said to have power over the whole of mankind, except a certain few, who are freed from his control; he is said to have thousands of angels, who minister to his royal will and pleasure; he is engaged, it is said, in convulsing kingdoms. He can act on people through the air: he can afflict them with diseases: he can turn the laws of God to purposes for which God did not make them.

 

He has the character of omniscience. He knows the thoughts of every man, woman and child. He knows the exact moment when to whisper into the ear the seducing error, and he knows also the exact amount to introduce at a time. What is this but omniscience?

[Resource Manager]

He has the character of omnipresence. He is said to be here, there, and everywhere. He is seducing a human being here, and another at the antipodes at the same moment. He enters the heart of the Laplander and of an African at the same precise time. He is constantly watching in every street, lane, alley, glen, not merely of this great kingdom, but of all the kingdoms of the world, at the same time and at the same moment: for, be it observed, we are told that he acts upon men when asleep as well as when awake.

 

Here then, is a being who, possessing the attributes which those who believe in his existence give to him, has Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, and yet these very people, so advocating his existence, proclaim themselves as the only Christians, and denounce all those who disbelieve in the Devil as infidels. These devil-holders are practical atheists; and they who do disbelieve in the Devil are far farther off from atheism than they who believe in such a being.

 

If there is a God, there cannot be a Devil.

 

There cannot be two Omnipresents, two Omnipotents, two Omniscients.

 

The two cannot co-exist. If the Devil is, and is such a being as he is represented to be, God must have created him. But can goodness create badness? Can mercy create cruelty? Can virtue beget vice? Can fullness of happiness create envy? Call truth create error? Can rectitude create deceit? When these can, then God can create a devil.

 

But it is said that God permits the Devil to act, Then God rewards him. The common idea is, that the Devil was cast out of heaven for his rebellion, and God sends him to the earth to create a rebellion here! What a method to punish a rebel! - to give him a wide, broad field upon which to carry on his hate. Talk of punishing the Devil by casting him from heaven to earth; it was a reward: the very thing, no doubt, had he existed, he would have wanted. Dismissed from heaven for disobeying God, he comes down to earth to teach men to disobey. If he is an enemy of God, God gives a field on which to show his enmity; if he has malice, here he has abundant opportunity to gratify his malevolent passion. It is absurd.

 

But there is another point of view in which the absurdity of the belief in a being called the Devil becomes apparent. It is this, that there is no necessity for a Devil.

 

A heathen writer remarks: “The Deity should not be called in unless he is needed.” This principle is an excellent one. Let us seek its application in the present instance. There is a certain recognised source of evil, of sin. It is the flesh - that is, active by itself and not in conjunction with the higher faculties. The works of the flesh are described to be these – “For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led by the spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God,” Gal. 5v 17-21.

 

Now, may it not be asked with confidence, if the flesh is capable of producing all these, what is left to the Devil to do? Is there any vice, my deviation from virtue, which will not come under one or the other of these heads? The phrase, too, “suchlike,” is very expressive.

[Resource Manager]

Let any one detail a vice, “a suggestion of Satan,” which is not a suggestion of the flesh and then will be the time for calling in the aid of a being called the Devil. But what need is there of having two causes for the same thing? If the flesh does it, why have recourse to the “Devil”? Why go a-begging after a “supernatural” agent, when a natural agent is sufficiently causative?

Notwithstanding the previous demonstration of the non-existence of a devil, notwithstanding the present demonstration of the absurd atheism of such belief, notwithstanding the establishment of the non-necessity of such a being to produce the manifestations which are referred to his agency, yet still the Devil will be bugged by many who profess to hate him most. Though the belief in him is the nightmare of the soul, and though thousands groan, mentally oppressed by such belief, still they will not let the monster go. Why? Because men cannot easily shake off their early-received opinions. It is a hard thing to tear away from early associations. But because some men have not courage or power to do this, are those who are able to remain bound in chains? No, surely.

A second cause is, that the Devil forms a part, as some State-made bishop writes, of “the economy of grace”; that is, it is so tied up in the bundle of beliefs, that the good are afraid, if they lose one stick in the bundle, the whole would tumble to pieces. Therefore, they wilt not run the risk of touching it, and thus a mere form deprives them of their liberty.

But the most powerful obstacle to the expulsion of the Devil is the paid parsonry. They cannot afford to give up the invisible Devil. He is one of the best articles of their stock-in-trade; through this article they are enabled to hoodwink mankind; and men, when thus hoodwinked, can be pillaged; they therefore take the Devil under their special keeping: they are regularly sent for (just like a physician to a patient) when a house is supposed to be haunted, or visited by supernatural beings: and instead of telling the people honestly “there are no such beings,” they go through a long rigmarole of prayers to God to remove the evil, whereas the evil is altogether dependent upon natural causes, and would, by the removal of these natural causes, disappear. This they know, but take care not to let the people know; or if they do allow that many such peculiar matters do depend upon natural causes, they keep a little store of “ devildom” behind, in maintaining that supernatural agency in certain cases cannot be denied. They leave the particular cases undefined; and thus this little rider to their bill of deliverance from these “supernaturals” renders the deliverance in effect, null and void; for who is to tell what are the causes?

However, the axe is laid at the root of the tree; it has been done with hearty good will and most diligent perseverance; and that the blessing of Him who is truth may attend the labour has been the encouragement throughout, and is the hope in this investigation.

FINIS

Hard Copy of this Booklet is also available from Printland Publishers

TheDevil_MrJohnEpps.pdf

 

Note: The below is 1899 Version also includes other Notes - and as such trust nearly all or all the scanning errors have now been rectified (as example: bath = hath) which were in the earlier softcopy. 

TheDevilEpps1899.pdf

 

Edited August 9, 2015 by Resource Manager
New File Added (1899)