The word
"devil" is used by some flippantly and frivolously, and the subject
of the devil is regarded as one to excite laughter and derision. While there is
some excuse for this because of the absurd theories set forth in the religious
world, theories in which there is a strange mixture of the sublime with the
ridiculous, yet the subject deserves and demands a most serious consideration;
and it is this demand which renders it necessary for us to include the
investigation of it in our dealing with the great problems of the world's
redemption.
The word
"devil" comes from two Greek words in the Scriptures. It is not
properly a translation of either of them, and its adoption by the translators
of the Authorized Version to represent two words, which are of different
meaning, is quite confusing. It would have been better had the two words been
transferred, or if even one of them had been represented by "devil"
and the other transferred, so as to put the English reader on his guard and
enable him to make a proper distinction.
DIABOLOS
AND DAIMON
The two words are
Diabolos and Daimon. Diabolos is the one demanding the more elaborate
treatment, because it represents that from which the world, in the broad sense,
needs redemption. When redemption takes place from the universal evils
represented by the word diabolos, those evils, which may be termed
incidental and special, which are represented by the word daimon, will
necessarily be included, upon the principle of the lesser being involved in the
greater.
The meaning of the word
diabolos is, that causing to pass over, to cross the line from right to
wrong, to overstep. A diabolos is an accuser, calumniator, slanderer, a traducer. The meaning of daimon is, as used by
those who believe in disembodied spirits, deified spirits or spirit entities,
which were supposed to be able to enter the bodies, singly or in companies, of
mortal people and to afflict them with various diseases, such as blindness,
deafness, madness, etc. Hence one so afflicted was called a demoniac,
one possessed. The word daimon or demon occurs about sixty times in the
New Testament, and the word diabolos thirty
times. The apostle Paul uses the latter in the plural number three times--I.
Tim. 3: 11; II. Tim. 3: 3; Tit. 2: 3--and applies it to both males and females.
The two words must be kept distinct, for diabolos is never applied to demoniacs
as descriptive of their condition or affliction.
As already observed, diabolos
is the word which stands for the great evil of the world, from which the world
needs redemption and which it is the purpose of God, in carrying out His great
plan of salvation, finally to destroy.
Whether we view the
subject of the devil from a Scripture standpoint or from the point of so-called
orthodox religion it will be seen to be of vast importance; so much so that the
plan of salvation, from either point of view--and they
are widely different--cannot be understood apart from it. It may be said to be
the cause or reason of religion, which is designed to cope with the devil,
whatever it is or he is, or whether it is an it
or a he.
As to popular religion,
its aim is to save immortal souls from being dragged by the devil into a hell
of eternal torment. The aim of the religion of the Bible is to save men from
the devil, which it is said "hath the power of death," and to give
them a life free from all the evils of the present and a nature invulnerable
against temptation, sin and death.
In considering the
subject it is necessary to compare the devil of the Bible with that of popular
belief so as to accept the truth and reject the error; and by such a comparison
the striking contrast will largely help to a clear understanding of the truth
concerning the entire subject--the origin, nature and end of the devil.
The devil of popular
religion is a personal being, an immortal being, an omniscient being, an
omnipresent being. He is said to have a kingdom of his own, quite well
regulated, with the reins of government well in hand; and although the kingdom
proper is located in a place called hell, supposed to be in the heart of the
earth, its dominion extends throughout all the earth's surface. This devil,
though personally located, it is asserted, can be present in hell and on
earth--in all parts of the earth--at the same time; in hell tormenting, and in
the earth influencing, enticing, deceiving and deluding millions of men, women
and children. His success in this world-wide wicked work, if it be judged by
the numbers of the subjects of his kingdom as compared with those of the
His power is
represented as being sufficient to miraculously appropriate the laws of God to
his own use in carrying out his evil designs, and thus to change laws which
were designed for good into the perpetration of evils the most deplorable,
either in defiance of or by the permission of the Great Creator.
His advantage in his
antagonism against God and in his contest for the greater number of souls, in
addition to his marvelous power, his omniscience and his omnipresence, is in
the fact that he finds mankind already to his hand, in that they are naturally
weak and prone to do evil rather than to do good. The battle is therefore half
won for him before he begins; and man, poor creature, already possessed of a
sin-perverted and sin-disposed nature, finds himself pitted against the most
subtle and powerfully wielded hypnotic influence imaginable in his struggle to
save himself from an eternal abode in a hell of indescribable torture.
IS THE
DEVIL FROM HEAVEN?
The possession of such
wonderful power as is attributed to the popular devil, and his vast kingly
possessions in hell and upon earth, are said to be due to a rebellion which in
a very remote past, long before the creation of man, he was guilty of inciting
in heaven, where he had previously enjoyed the glories of a holy angel. As
"Brighter once
amid the host
Of angels, than that
star the stars among."
As a punishment for
this rebellion it is asserted that he was cast out of heaven, upon his
declaring that "he would rather rule in hell than to serve in
heaven," and was given power and authority to rule in hell and to perform
his wicked work in the earth in the furtherance of a great kingdom of evil
which is to be as eternal as heaven against which he rebelled. Since that
expulsion,
"Satan, so call
him now, his previous name
Is heard no more in
heaven, he of the first,
If not the first,
archangel; great in power,
In
favor and pre-eminence."
In the alleged fall of
the devil from heaven it is asserted that others of his kind, but of lower
rank, fell with him. Alexander Cruden, M. A. says: "By collecting the
passages where satan or the devil is mentioned, it may be observed, that he
fell from heaven, with all his company; that God cast him down thence for the
punishment of his pride, that by his enraged malice sin, death, and all other
evils came into the world; that by the permission of God he exercises a sort of
government over his subordinates; that God makes use of him to prove good men
and chastise bad ones; that his power and malice are restrained within certain
limits by the will of God; in a word, that he is an enemy to God and man, and
uses his utmost endeavors to rob God of his glory and men of their souls."
If we reason upon this
theory of the devil we shall be driven to ask, Is it
possible that "he of the first, if not the first archangel" in heaven
could, with his company, be transformed into such a monster of evil? Is it
possible that evil can even, arise in the thoughts of one who has presumably
after a successful probation, been admitted into God's holy habitation? If so
heaven itself is not secure from evil passion, and if one prominent angel with
his followers can thus transform the whitest of holiness into the blackest of
wickedness, why may not all the immortal angels, and even the mortals who shall
"put on immortality" in the resurrection morn, be corrupted with evil
thoughts and transformed from happy beings walking with the Lamb in the
whiteness of the "righteousness of the saints" into the blackness and
darkness and wickedness of this devil and his subordinate outcasts from heaven?
Moreover, here we are
asked to believe that the flaming passions of the devil for power and dominion
in opposition to God were punished by giving him exactly what he desired. He
desired rulership in hell rather than to serve in heaven; and as punishment he
is given hell inside of the earth as a kingdom and a free scope on the earth to
play upon the weaknesses of its habitants in what must surely be a successful
effort to add to the population of his kingdom in the dark and fiery regions he
so well likes and fully enjoys. Was it not a most singular way of punishing
this disobedient angel to give him the very thing his wicked ambition craved
and to thus gratify his most ardent desires?
If the devil is a being
possessed of the marvelous powers attributed to him by popular belief, the
question will obtrude itself upon reasonable minds, without in the least deserving
the charge of irreverence, Why did God, who is the source of power, give such
powers of evil to a being bent upon war against all that was good, even against
God Himself? Of course if the devil was once a holy angel, he was immortal;
and, indeed, he is declared to be immortal and therefore possessed of the power
of endless life--to live as long as God lives--to live, too, in the hottest
fire imaginable, according to the literal theorists of hell, and therefore he
must be constituted of a fire-proof nature, which can be none other than
immortal nature; and that is the nature of God Himself. Then comes the
question, Why did the All-Wise God ever impart His
holy and pure nature to a devil of any kind, to say nothing of such a fiend as
that under consideration? If He did not impart his holy nature of immortality
to this being when he was a devil, but before he became one, then, since He
knows the end from the beginning, why did He impart his nature to one who He
knew would become a devil notwithstanding his consubstantiality with God? But
we cannot continue such questions as these without appearing irreverent, and so
let no one say that the All-Wise God of heaven ever did or ever will impart His
pure and holy nature to any but those who are worthy and who will, after the
possession thereof, and by reason of the possession, forever continue worthy,
since one possessed of Divine nature is so possessed because he has
"escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust" and cannot
then sin, any more than he can die; for the Divine nature is as sinless as it
is deathless. It is therefore nothing short of blasphemy to declare or to
believe in the popular theory of the devil.
As already observed,
man is in a fallen state, possessed of the "carnal mind, which is enmity
to God," and if in addition to this he is constantly exposed to the
hypnotic powers of such a being as the popular devil, what chance has he to
overcome? His case is a hopeless one indeed; and to add to this the horrible
thought that the result of captivity to the carnal mind, enticed and inflamed
by such a powerful external influence from a being who plies his wicked work
from behind the scenes invisible to the victim--I say, the very thought that
the victim's eternal fate is one so fearful, so terrible, so horrible that
tongue or pen cannot describe it and eternity cannot end it, is most revolting
to reason and a manifest libel upon the character of a just and beneficent
Creator.
To a reasonable mind,
therefore, a naked statement of the popular belief of the devil is all that is
required to secure its rejection, and at the hands of men who have escaped the
superstition of the world's darkest ages the theory is relegated to the myths
of pagan and Roman traditions to renew its companionship with Pluto, Pan and
Nox, and with all other myths of ignorant and superstitious inventions.
The truth concerning
the origin, nature and end of the devil can be learned from the Bible only.
With this subject, as with all others which relate to man's fall and ultimate
rise through the beneficent plan of salvation, the rule must be, "To the
law and to the testimony, if they speak not according this word, it is because
there is no light in them." But it is claimed that the theory of the
popular devil is derived from the Bible, and Cruden, in our quotation from him,
says, "By collecting the passages where Satan or the devil is mentioned,
it may be observed, that he fell from heaven, with all his company," etc.
So we must examine the passages supposed to teach this and see wherein lies the mistake, for before we turn to them we may
be sure they do not teach a theory so at variance with all that is reasonable
and all that is revealed of the justice and wisdom of God.
LUCIFER'S
FALL FROM HEAVEN
One passage relied upon
is Isa.
How art thou fallen
from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the
ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I
will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will
also sit upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou
shalt be brought down to hell (sheol) to the
sides of the pit, etc.
Now we need not seek
outside this chapter to discover who this Lucifer is. In the margin it is
"day star" instead of "Lucifer," an epithet which in no
sense can apply to a being who is said to love darkness and hate the light of
day. This "day star" is spoken of as aspiring to "ascend into
heaven" and to exalt his "throne above the stars of God," while
the devil of popular belief first comes into view as already in heaven,
expressing a preference for rulership in hell. The Lucifer of the passage seeks
to ascend; the popular devil desired to descend. The one desired to exalt his
throne above the stars of God; the other preferred to have his beneath the
stars in a kingdom of darkness as deep down as possible, the deeper the better
to suit him. This day star was to be brought down to sheol,
to the sides of the pit, which is the grave (verse 11), which is no
place for an immortal being. But, to cut the matter short, the fourth verse
leaves no room to doubt who this Lucifer is; for it
says: "Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of
The Lord hath broken
the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people
in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is
persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet; they
break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee and the cedars of
Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller
is come up against us. Hell (sheol) from
beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead
for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their
thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art
thou become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is
spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O
Lucifer!
Here is very glowing
and highly poetic language describing the fall of the king of
Where now is there room
in this passage for the devil of popular belief? If it be said that the devil
is prompting the king, then we ask, Do kings, judging
from their history, need such a devil to make them proud, ambitious, covetous
and tyrannical? Are not all these natural to the hearts of kings? What is the
need of calling in a supernatural devil when the natural devil is equal to all
the requirements of the case? In any event, we must abide by the testimony, and
to him who would read into it what is not there it
might well be said, "Get thee behind me Satan."
Whether we consider the
existence of evil in all its forms and the perpetrations of the many crimes of
this wicked world as they are seen in high places of power or among the lower
masses in their gratification of lust, we shall find a palpable cause for it
all without seeking for an omniscient, omnipresent person possessed of power to
tempt nations and individuals to do wicked things. Man in his fallen state,
degenerate man, giving unrestrained liberty to the promptings of the lower
faculties and freely allowing the passions to play according to their natural
tendencies, will be found to be of sufficient causative power to produce all
that is to be seen in the phenomena of evil and therefore there is
NO NEED
FOR A SUPERNATURAL DEVIL
Some thoughtlessly say:
"If there is a God there must be a devil." If this were true the
heathen notion of the eternity of two great antagonistic powers would be true.
If there must be a devil because there is a God, then since there never was a
time when God was not, there never could have been a time when the devil was
not. Of the popular devil it might be safely said, If there is a God there
cannot be such a devil; for God would not allow such a being existence, to say
nothing of a co-eternity of existence of such a monster with God Himself.
As already observed,
there is no need for calling in the supernatural where the natural will answer
all the requirements of the case. There is no difficulty in accounting for the
origin of evil and the universal existence of sin. This is easily done without
calling in the aid of a supernatural wicked one. The Scriptures tell us that it
is the flesh, the lower propensities of the flesh, uncontrolled by the higher
faculties, which is the source of sin. Paul says, "For I know that in me, that
is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." "I find then a law in
my members, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." "But
I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind" (the higher faculties imbued with truth and righteousness), and
"bringing me into subjection to the law of sin which is in my members"
(Rom.
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. * * * 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 which I tell you before, as I have told you in
time past, that they that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God.--Gal. 5: 17-21.
Let there be a careful
examination of these things which flesh can do and which it does
do--yea, which are characteristic of the flesh uncontrolled, and then the
question may well be asked, Wherein does the flesh
need the help of a supernatural devil? What is there for such a devil to do? Is
there any vice which he can add to those which the flesh is capable of? Surely
there is no need of calling in a supernatural devil when we find the natural,
the flesh, equal to the production of all the
categories of evils which are in the world. In discovering the source, the
cause, the fountain of all vices in the flesh, have we not discovered the real
devil--that which causes to cross the line from right to wrong, from
righteousness to wickedness, from virtue to vice?
If we keep in mind what
the lust of the flesh is capable of doing, yea, what it is natural for it to do, we shall have no difficulty in finding a proper
explanation of passages of Scripture which refer to persons, kings and nations
as "devils" or "satans." The diabolism of any form of
wickedness will be found rooted in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes
and the pride of life, in antagonizing that which is good and right, and in
inciting to that which is bad and wrong.
As a person, Judas was
a diabolos, a traducer, a calumniator, because he betrayed his Master; and that
which was the cause was the lust of the flesh, assuming the form of
covetousness.
As a king, Herod was a
diabolos, in that his lust for political power and his fear of being supplanted
by him "who was born King of the Jews," incited his cruelty upon the
little children.
As a nation,
When Jesus said,
"I have chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil," there was no
thought of Judas being such a devil as that of popular belief. Judas himself
became a diabolos by yielding to evil thoughts; and this instance will
illustrate all others of a similar character, and it will render it useless to
seek for a cause beyond the lusts of the flesh. We must not forget that man is
in a fallen state--a state in which his passions are inflamed and his natural
proclivities bent upon wrong-thinking and wrong-doing.
This evil condition
varies in different persons. One man may be possessed of a very "bad
temper," another of a "good temper." What makes the difference?
Is it that a separate personal devil excites the "bad temper" in the
one and not in the other? Not at all. The difference
depends upon the phrenological make-up of the men; and this, too, depends upon
the extent to which the passions have been yielded to on the one hand and
curbed and controlled on the other. A "bad temper" allowed full scope
will grow worse and worse and will create a condition of mind that will be
transmitted to future generations, and thus the diabolism of a "bad
temper" becomes a "family failing." The same is true of all the
vices. Cultivate them and they will become master of the man; check, curb and
control them and the man will, to a degree, become master of them--never, however,
so long as he is in the flesh, will it be safe to be off his guard; and with
the utmost watchfulness his mastery over himself will only be to a degree; for
only one was ever able to overcome completely and that one was Jesus Himself.(1)
(1) It is of course,
not necessary that one should accept the theory of Phrenology or any other
scheme of Psychology, in order to be saved and have a place in God’s Kingdom.
The theory of Phrenology never was popular, and it has become even less so as
the years have rolled by--which is not the slightest evidence that it is not
true. It nullifies the theory of the immortality of the soul, and sort of
brings men to judgment before the time--neither of which effects are or can be
popular. And as to the systems of Psychology now in vogue, there are
probably no two leading Psychologists who are in perfect agreement. These
systems of character analysis are arts, rather than sciences: which is to say
that they depend for their successful application upon the skill and
intelligence--and experience--of their practitioners: their ability to balance
one faculty or one influence against another.
No, it is not necessary
that one should be an expert in these matters in order to be saved; but some
understanding of the causes and effects of sin on human-nature is essential. It
must be recognized that the human species, individually and collectively, is
degenerate in mind and body, through sin. Solomon says, "Lo, this only
have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many
inventions." A similar truth is voiced by Jeremiah, "The heart is
deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" This
is confirmed by the Savior, when he declares: "Out of the heart proceed
evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." To this we may add the testimony of Paul:
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me . . .
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
Now these mental
phenomena of human life as it is seen at present will help us to discover the
mode by which the diabolos originated.
TRUE
ORIGIN OF THE DEVIL
Let us call the present
mental state of man an abnormal state; for we may safely conclude man
was not created in his present mental state. Then we can call his original
state, before he fell, when "every thing was very good," the normal
state. The difference between the two states will then appear to be that one
was not naturally bent in the wrong direction, while the other is. To cause the
change from the normal to the abnormal, something must have occurred to affect,
pervert, unbalance the mental and moral faculties and
to cause evil results also in the physical man. What will intensify the
abnormality of the mind now? The answer is, A breach
of law--sin. Passion propagates passion, theft
propagates theft, and so on with all other things that are wrong to do. So we
may safely conclude that the mental and moral abnormality of the human race was
originally caused by sin. The mind having perverted itself, it became hard to
control and thus brought the flesh into such a state that, in order to do good
and obey righteous law, the abnormal lusts, now impregnated in the very being,
must be "overcome," "crucified," "kept under";
and this because sin is now inherent in the flesh and antagonizes right
thinking and right doing and is therefore the diabolos.
There was therefore a
time when "everything was very good," and
therefore when there was no devil, or diabolos; and in the account of creation
the Scriptures are as silent upon the creation of a devil as they are upon that
of a hell. So now the question is, When and how did
the devil originate? The history is clear as it is; any mystery about it is the
result of an attempt to be wise above that which is written. Here it is:
Now the serpent was
more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he
said unto the woman, yea, hath God said, Ye shall not
eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of
the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye
shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent
said unto the woman, ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day
that ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one
wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also to her husband
and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they
were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. And
they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the
day; and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God,
amongst the trees of the garden. (Gen. 3: 1-8.)
Now we need not
speculate about what kind of a creature this "serpent" was, what his
manner of locomotion was before he was cursed to go upon his belly and to eat
dust. The testimony declares his subtlety was greater than that of the
creatures of his kind, and informs us that he talked with the woman. That no
such a creature exists now possessed of the same powers in no way lessens the
truth of the history of the case as God has given it to us. God has spoken; it
is for us to believe. To those who go further back than this history goes,
seeking for a devil that will answer to the description of the popular monster,
and who is supposed to have used the serpent as a medium, all we can say is,
you presume to go further than the inspired Word permits you, and your
devil-hunting in the garden of paradise, at a time when God pronounces
"every thing very good," is a reflection upon the work of the
Creator. Let us give Him the credit due to His Holy name in admitting that He
gave us a "very good" start; and let the fact of a subsequent
existence of a diabolos or of a million of them be attributed to sin upon the
part of the creature rather than to an evil work of a beneficent creative hand.
Keeping within the
limits of what is written, limits which the wisest man has no more power or
right to go beyond than has the simplest child, we have a creature which could
talk and reason and hereby tempt Eve to cross the line from right to wrong by
telling her a lie, the first lie we ever hear of. That lie is the father of all
evil, the cause of sin; and that serpent lie became sin on the part of our
first parents in the transgression of the first law we have any record of. They
were tempted, drawn away of their lust, the lust becoming inordinate by
believing the lie, it conceived sin, and the sin, in accordance with the law,
brought death. Here is the serpent begetting, and the woman giving birth to
sin--a crossing the line from right to wrong, from which birth sin has been a
power to propagate itself and therefore in forms innumerable it is the
diabolos, the great enemy of mankind. Hence to the wicked Jews who yielded to
sin's influence against Jesus, our Lord said, "Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the
beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of
it,"--Jno.
Now the origin of the
whole matter is given clearly by the apostle Paul in the words, "By one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned"--Rom. 5: 12. Man, according to this, was in
the world before sin entered and therefore before there was a diabolos, and the
order of entry into the world was, first, man; second, sin; third, death; and
now we have discovered an adequate cause for all evil and man's great enemy,
death, and it is needless to seek for a personal supernatural, omniscient,
omnipresent devil. A comparison of Scripture with Scripture will make this
still clearer. We are told that Jesus came as the "Lamb of God to take
away the sin of the world"; and we are also told that He came to
"destroy the works of the devil" (
THE
PERSONALITY OF THE DEVIL
When the lamb of God shall have "taken away the sin of
the world," he will have "destroyed the works of the diabolos;"
and when he has removed from the world the cause of death, he will have brought
sin to an end and destroyed the devil. Since there is only one cause of death, sin
and diabolos must be two words for that one cause. A person, a society
or nation becomes a diabolos by becoming a sinner, and becomes a sinner by
becoming a diabolos. The great evil of the world consists of all evil things in
their many and various forms; and since these are inseparable from persons
their aggregation as the world's great evil, or the "sin of the world,"
is personified and called the "evil one" and sometimes represented by
personal pronouns, similarly to the common way in which we speak of drunkenness
and mammon. All drunkards and every case of individual drunkenness are
comprehended in the word "drunkenness," which we sometimes term
"King Alcohol;" and every act of covetousness is involved in the word
mammon when we say "Mammon is the curse of the world." So every act
of sin is involved in "the sin of the world;" and every influence and
incident which causes to cross the line from right to wrong and incites to
slander, to calumniate and traduce is a manifestation of diabolism and the
aggregation of all these is the diabolos which Christ came to destroy and which
he will have completely destroyed when "he hath put all enemies under his
feet and the last enemy is destroyed, which is death." Then, having passed
from paradise lost to paradise restored, every thing will again be "very
good" and there will be no more devil or diabolos.
The personification of
principles and inanimate things is quite common with all good writers; and to
this is largely due the poetic power of the Scriptures. For instance,
"Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming."
Again, "Yea, the fir trees rejoiced at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon
saying," etc. In the New Testament we have those eloquent words of the
apostle Paul, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory?" In all these instances we have a personification of sheol, trees, death and hades, without the remotest thought
of their being real personalities. Then, too, we have sin and obedience
represented by personal pronouns, in the words, "Know ye not, that to whom
ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye
obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto
righteousness?" (Rom.
Now with these thoughts
kept in mind we shall have no difficulty in understanding scriptures which have
been erroneously applied to a fictitious devil.
In Luke 10: 18, the
Saviour says, "I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven," and in
this there is a supposed support for the popular theory of the devil's origin
in heaven. The mistake on this verse arises from a wrong view of the two words
"satan" and "heaven." As to "satan" we will only
say here that it means adversary, leaving the proofs to be considered further
along in our investigation under its proper heading. But the word
"heaven," as we have already seen in the case of the king of Babylon
falling from his throne, in which he is spoken of as falling from heaven, must
be viewed in the scriptures in two senses--first, as a name for the physical
expanse above and the place of Deity's dwelling; and second, as representing
power and position, or rulership in the kingdoms of men. In modern phraseology
this is termed the political heaven or heavens.
Of the physical heavens
it says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule by day,
and the lesser light to rule by night; he made the stars also. And God set them
in the firmament of heaven to give light to the earth"--Gen. 1: 16-17.
Analogous to this the exalted position of rulers is termed heaven and the
ruled, the people, or subjects of a kingdom, are called the earth. By referring
to what we have said under the title "The Heavens and the Earth, New and
Old" the reader will see this more fully elaborated.
The Apostle Paul says,
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places, or in the heavenlies. The
"wrestling" was with rulers, both of the Jewish heaven and the Roman
heaven, which were adversaries or satans against the
work of Christ and his apostles.
In verse 15 of the
chapter in which the words of Jesus occur with reference to satan's fall from
heaven, we read, "And thou Capernaum, which art exalted up to heaven,
shalt be brought down to hell, or hades, the grave; and the work of
establishing Christianity in the place of Judaism and paganism was to result in
like manner in the fall of the rulers of both the Jews and the Romans who then
ruled, and they were satans in that they combined as an adversary against
Christ first and his apostles afterwards. Therefore, foretelling the triumph of
Christianity over this political and spiritual satan he
said, "I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven."
This fall, so far as
pagan Rome was concerned, was also symbolized to John when on the isle of
Patmos, in signifying to him things that should be hereafter (Rev. 1: 1; 4: 1).
In chapter 12, it is said there appeared to him "A great wonder in
heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet,"
etc. Here is the church in an apostate state exalted to political eminence in
contrast to the pure woman which "as the chaste virgin espoused to Christ"
was not of this world, and against whom the door in the political heaven is
closed till the Lord comes to open it as a way into the "new heaven
wherein dwelleth righteousness" (Rev. 4: 1; II. Pet. 3: 13). This exalted
woman gave birth to a political "man child" (verse 5) when
Constantine, the child of the church, was politically born, and he was caught
up into heaven, nominally, "to God and to his throne;" for He who
"ruleth in the kingdoms of men" had decreed that paganism should be
dethroned by nominal christianity. The result was that
there "was war in (the Roman) heaven," "Michael and his
angels," who were for God as Cyrus and his armies had been his
"sanctified ones" in the destruction of ancient Babylon, "fought
against the dragon; and the dragon (the pagan Roman power) fought and his
angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out that old serpent called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole (Roman) world; he was cast
out into the earth." Thus satan as lightning fell from heaven and the
"principalities and powers in the heavens" with which the apostles
and all the followers of Christ for over two centuries had to
"wrestle" went down when this satan, or adversary, the dragon, or
pagan power of Rome, fell before the powerful wave of christianity headed up in
Constantine the Great in A. D. 312. The fact that there had been a departure
from the simplicity of the Truth and that a perverted christianity was the
means of the great overthrow of the dragon power is not inconsistent with its
being "on the Lord's side," since it was for a time the means of
protecting the "remnant of the woman's seed," or the faithful
adherents of true christianity.
It is remarkable that
History often repeats
itself; and since He who inspired the scriptures could foresee all events, a
record of one future event is often analogous to another more remote. When
Christ comes to "reign till he hath put down all enemies under his feet"
satan, diabolos, and daimon or evil in any form will
"be bound." At the end of the days of the kingdom of men the diabolos
spirit will assert itself in its struggle for political eminence, even against
Christ, a greater than Constantine; but the "prince of Rosh" who will
be the leading power of the nations and who will become the dragon power by his
conquest of the seat of the dragon--Constantinople--will be "cast out of
the political heaven," and again the world will behold "satan as
lightning fall from heaven" when the "new heaven and the new earth
wherein dwelleth righteousness" shall be established in "the kingdoms
of this world becoming the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ."
THE
DEVIL THAT TEMPTED CHRIST
Many suppose that the
devil that tempted Christ was the monster of popular belief; and some who have
abandoned that fiction have a difficulty in understanding the narrative. Deity
decreed that the plan of salvation should depend upon a complete victory over
the evils which sin had subjected man to. The execution of this plan must
therefore entail suffering under trial. None of the mere sons of Adam could
meet the requirements without falling helplessly under the load; and therefore
God, in His love, laid help upon one born of the fallen race, who, by faithfulness, would be able to endure the trials and
thereby be "made perfect through suffering," and become the
"Captain of our salvation."
In the origin of the
evils which salvation is designed to eliminate, there was temptation, sin and
death; in the removal of the evils, there must be temptation, righteousness and
life. The first Adam when he was tempted was "drawn away of his own
lust," his lust conceived sin, and sin brought death. The second Adam
refused to allow lust to draw him away, or to conceive
sin; and therefore sin, on his part, did not bring forth death. Hence, though
he suffered death because sin had brought it upon the entire race, of which
race he was a member, he "could not be holden of death;" and
therefore he triumphed over sin and death and thereby "destroyed him that
hath the power of death, that is the devil"--destroyed him so far as
Himself was concerned first, in order that he might destroy him for his people
finally in a complete "taking away of the sin of the world."
In considering the
temptations of Jesus we must keep in mind the fact that in order to destroy the
devil he was made of flesh and blood (Heb. 2: 14); and that he was in "all
things made like unto his brethren" (Heb. 2: 17); and that therefore he
"was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:
15).
Now this would be a
singular way to cope with an omniscient, omnipresent, immortal devil. How could
it be possible for one made of flesh and blood, in that fallen state
susceptible of temptation in all points like to ourselves,
to destroy such a powerful monster? Is it not evident that the devil is a thing
of the flesh, from the fact that Jesus was made flesh and blood in order that
he might destroy the devil? What is it that tempts a man to do wrong? Answer,
"A man when he is tempted is drawn away of his own lusts."
Then lust is the tempter, and lust has been inordinate ever since it was
inflamed by the first sin committed. This is the devil, therefore, to be
destroyed; and since it is in the flesh, called sinful or sin's flesh, Jesus
was made of that very flesh in order that he might overcome and destroy lust,
in the nature which had, by the first sin of man, become sinful. Therefore His
destruction of the devil must be by the overcoming of the temptations which the
flesh would naturally suggest and finally by voluntary submission to that death
which would impale sin's flesh upon the cross as a manifestation of God's
displeasure with the nature of a fallen, perverted sinful race and yet exhibit
His pleasure with a character which was "holy, harmless, and
undefiled," developed in that nature.
Now it will readily be
seen that Christ's temptation was necessarily a thing of the flesh, as all
temptation is, and that there is no reason to seek further for an adequate cause;
and now let it be observed that his temptation was such as to appeal first to
the cravings of hunger; second, to presumption; third, to forbidden ambition,
involving covetousness.
It does not require a
supernatural devil to tempt a flesh and blood man who is suffering from the
pangs of hunger to seek means whereby he may satisfy his cravings. No such a
devil is necessary to tempt flesh and blood to show off, by the performance of
a startling deed that will attract and arouse the wonder of the world. Nor is
it needful to seek beyond flesh and blood for ambition for greatness and power
in the political world.
It is not wrong to
satisfy hunger; but it is wrong to employ forbidden means to do so. It is not
wrong to work miracles, when a manifestation of God's power and glory is the
object; but it is wrong in one possessed of miraculous power, when the object
is the ostentation and the gratification of a love for notoriety. It is not
wrong to strive for exaltation to rulership of the world to come, but it is
wrong for a child of God to aspire to rulership in the kingdoms of this evil
world.
Jesus was suffering
hunger. He possessed the power to miraculously satisfy it; and therein was the
trial, the temptation to be overcome by such an implicit trust in God as could
exclaim, "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone; but by every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." By the way, it did not even
require any external personal natural tempter to urge this
temptation--the natural cravings of the flesh, with the consciousness of the
possession of the power to satisfy was an all sufficient-tempter, and the right
and duty overcame, the diabolos received his first blow, and the victor was, by
his success, in this his first trial, in measure strengthened for to meet the
next.
Not only did this first
temptation appeal to the appetite of the natural man; but it involved trust in
God, a trust which had examples to strengthen it. For had not Moses fasted
forty days and forty nights and yet the Lord sustained him? (Ex. 34: 28). Had
not the Lord provided ravens to carry bread to Elijah? Had not manna from
heaven been given famishing
In the wilderness our
Lord is contemplating, and preparing for the great work before him, having just
passed from private life into the official performance of the great work he
came to do. He must meet the gaze of the world, though he was just emerging
from obscurity. How could it be done? In a moment, the flesh would be ready
with a plan by which he would quickly become a hero in the eyes of the masses.
And then, had not scriptures declared that God would give his angels charge
concerning him? By one act he could test the truth of scripture and make a hero
of himself. Would not this be what the flesh would naturally suggest?
Did it require a supernatural devil to invent this temptation? And suppose it
had been suggested by such a devil or even by an external personal natural
devil, would it have been any more of a trial? Jesus was not yet an angel
possessed of impeccable nature. He must be tempted in all points like unto his
brethren, and therefore sin's flesh was his nature purposely in order that it
might do just what it did do--suggest, in this case, a presumptuous test of the
truth of scripture by a misapplication of scripture. But quick as a flash, the
mind of the spirit was ready to resist the devil and make him flee--drive the
fleshly thought out of the mind. Jesus was fortified with the knowledge that
the promises of the scriptures were predicated upon a performance of duty, and
realizing that "the path of safety was the way of duty"
he quickly drove out the fleshly thoughts and braced himself with the words,
"It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Another
victory was won--over what? Over the flesh; whose desire for unlawful notoriety
by unlawful means had been peremptorily rebuked, and a noble, faithful and
abiding trust in God was exhibited for our example.
One more trial must be
met, and here again we may ask, did it require a supernatural devil to suggest
this? Did Jesus depend upon such a devil for power to take the kingdoms of the
world? Did he depend upon even a natural personal devil in the form of a
king or any living man? Jesus knew very well that no such a devil as the
popular personal monster had the power to give him the kingdoms of the world;
and with such knowledge wherein would be the temptation? He knew likewise that
no man had the power, even if it could be supposed that he had the will, to
give Jesus the kingdoms of the world. One would only bestow a laugh of contempt
upon any kind of a devil that might offer what it were well known he had no
power to give. There would be no real trial in such "temptation." To
give edge to a temptation the tempted must believe that the tempter has the
power to fulfil his part of the contract. Now search for the power to take the
kingdoms of the world, and the only one in whom you will find it is Christ; and
in the fact of his consciousness of the possession of such power and yet that
he resisted, and manifested the resignation to abide the Father's time, is seen
the real merits of the victory. To have allowed the Jews to "take him by
force and make him a king," or to have exercised
his miraculous power to seize the kingdoms of this world would have been
worshipping the flesh instead of serving God. The flesh could easily, as it
always does, quote scripture to prove that to the Messiah belonged the kingdoms
of this world, and why not take them? But the mind of the Spirit knew the time
allotted for each part of the mission of the Saviour--that in which he must be
"made perfect through suffering;" and that in which he will
rightfully transform "the kingdoms of this world into the kingdom of our
Lord and his Christ."
The
"orthodox" theory is that Christ was "God very God;" and
that the devil is a hideous, cloven-footed, powerful personality. If these two
theories are true the temptation of Jesus was a sham. How could such a devil
tempt God to sin? Just imagine such a devil offering God the kingdoms of this
world. If it be said that God had assumed human form, that will not explain how
He could cease to be God and forget His former omniscience and omnipotence and
become actually a man, and really susceptible of such temptations as
Jesus was subjected to. Jesus was begotten of God, born of a woman and
"made like unto his brethren;" and his temptation was "in all
points like unto theirs, yet without sin." His education and preparation
for the ordeal of his trial would forewarn and forearm him against temptation
from such a being as the popular devil. He would know who he was the moment he
presented himself, and he would have disdained to talk with such a creature for
a single moment. For a low, besotted man to suggest an evil act to a
respectable upright man would be no temptation at all. The very sight of the
sot would be enough. If it be claimed that the devil had the power to
hypnotize, then again there was no real trial in the case; for one hypnotized
is not a subject of a mental and moral trial; he is a helpless victim.
To claim that it was
the popular supernatural devil that tempted Christ is to exalt the devil above
one who, according to the popular belief, was "God very God," and to
represent the devil as offering to give kingdoms to God himself. The temptation
of Christ cannot be explained upon any other basis than that it was a struggle
of the mind in determining whether to yield to the natural inclination of the flesh
to seize present, temporal gratification at the cost of future and eternal
blessings, or to deny the promptings of the flesh, though for the time it would
necessitate great suffering, in order to attainment to the eternal and glorious
reward which God had in His wisdom and goodness placed, not at the beginning of
probation, but at the end. Jesus, therefore, succeeded as the "seed of the
woman" against the "seed of the serpent" in a hard-fought battle
which manifested that "enmity" which God in the beginning had
declared should exist between sin's flesh and the spirit of truth and
righteousness. After this great victory the adversary, satan,
or diabolos, would be certain of defeat throughout the Lord's entire probation
till he would attain to the "joy that was set before him" beyond the
cross.
If in the Saviour's
overcoming the diabolos--destroying him and all his works--we find no place for
any sort of a devil except the sinful proclivities of man's fallen nature, is
it to be supposed for a moment that we shall find any other devil as an enemy
with which we must contend? When from scripture, observation and experience we
learn the sinful tendencies and capabilities of the flesh, it will be useless
to look further for a satan, a diabolos or a devil. If
in the "war in our members" which must be waged in every one who
strives to do the right we give the mind begotten by and imbued with the spirit
of truth and righteousness the preeminence, we shall have done our part in
"resisting the devil" and in causing him to "flee from us."
Let us therefore consider well the task before us and we shall find where our
enemy is, and what he is, and thereby half the battle will have been fought.
A
CORRECT TRANSLATION OF DIABOLOS
As a further means of
understanding the meaning of the word diabolos, which is rendered devil in our
translation, we will now examine the use of the word where it has been properly
translated. This translation will show that when there was no possible way to
make the word mean the same as the word "devil" was intended to mean
the translators could be true to the original word; for the translation in the
cases we are about to consider gives the true definition of Diabolos. It
is by comparing Scripture with Scripture that we can best arrive at the correct
doctrinal meaning of Scripture words. Dictionaries and lexicons often give
theological meanings opposed to the Biblical meaning, and therefore they are
not always safe to follow. This is apparent in the meanings given of
"soul," "spirit," "hell," etc.
In 1842 there was a
book anonymously published on the subject of the devil. The author was
evidently a scholar, and he treated the subject masterly and elaborately,
though on other matters incidentally introduced he was in error, which somewhat
hampered him. The book has been republished by brother
Thos. Nisbet, of
What, then, is the word
rendered "devil" in these passages? It is diabolos. What does
this mean? It is derived from diaballo, this itself being compounded, or
made up, of two words, dia, through, and ballo, to strike, to pierce
(as with an arrow): diaballo, therefore signifies to pierce through:
and as, when a man's character is attacked by the false charges of another, his
character is pierced through with darts of calumny. And, as the idea of this
calumny implies that the accusations are false, the term diabolos means
a false-accuser, a calumniator. The proper meaning of the word diabolos
is, therefore, FALSE-ACCUSER, CALUMNIATOR; the improper meaning is
"devil"--this improper interpretation having been first given
by the translators of the Scriptures into Greek; a rendering Leigh remarks,
"nowhere else sampled (i.e., so used) in any Greek author."
The derivation of this word thus proves that false-accuser, calumniator, is the
correct translation.
Additional evidence
that "false-accuser" is the correct translation of diabolos is
offered in the occasional use of the proper meaning of the word in the common
translation. A few passages may be noted. Paul, in writing to Timothy
respecting the wives of deacons, observes, "Even so must their wives be
grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things,"
Paul, in writing to
Titus, uses the same expression: "The aged women, likewise, that they be
in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false-accusers," Tit. 2: 3.
The phrase rendered "not false-accusers" is me
diaboloi, not devils--if "devil" be the proper meaning of the
word diabolos. The translators, however, have here again, by the
undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to translate the word
properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second evidence that diabolos
means false-accuser.
A third passage,
confirming this as the proper interpretation, is the following:--"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall
come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural
affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers, incontinent, fierce,
despisers of those that are good: Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of
pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the
power thereof: from such turn away," II Tim. 3: 1-3. Here the word,
correctly rendered "false-accusers," is diaboloi, "devils"--that
is, if "devils" is the proper interpretation--the interpretation
given to it in thirty-five other passages in the common translation. But
it is not the proper rendering: the proper translation has been given in this
passage, thus affording a third confirmatory evidence that
"false-accuser" is the meaning of the word diabolos.
In all the passages
thus quoted the word is applied to human beings, and not to any
supernatural, invisible beings--a fact well worthy of being noted.
The question here
occurs, If the phrase "false-accuser," or
that of "slanderer," is the proper translation in these passages, why
should not a similar rendering be given throughout the Scriptures? Why should
the Translators, or, more correctly, the Revisors of the Scriptures, not have
rendered the word uniformly throughout? The answers are left to be supplied by
the common-sense of each inquirer.
It will be seen from
the preceding remarks that false-accuser, slanderer, calumniator
is the primary meaning, and, it may be added, the proper meaning of the word diabolos--a
meaning which has this advantage, that all can understand it; a statement which
cannot be made in reference to the word "devil;" for does any one,
adopting the common notions, understand what the "Devil" is? Do any
two people agree on his character, his existence, his
attributes? Seeing, then, that there is a simple meaning, and seeing there is a
mysterious meaning, can it be proper, can it be advantageous, to substitute a
word which has no definite meaning for one which has a fixed, a practical
meaning?
Now with this
definition of the word diabolos there is no difficulty in understanding any
passage in which the word occurs. If it be Eph.
That devil that
contended with the angel about the body of Moses (Jude 9) could not have been
the creature of popular creeds for if the "body of Moses" means
Moses' corpse, what would such a devil contend about a corpse for? No doubt
"the body of Moses" means the body politic; for it is said,
"They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I
Cor. 10: 2). Moses was the head and
That which incites to
do evil is diabolos. Let any honest man take a retrospect of his life and
consider well the trials he has passed through in refusing to do wrong and in
determining to do right; and let him ask himself what was the tempter in all
cases. Persons may have tried to allure him by apparently fair words, but these
persons would be natural tempters and not supernatural. Any tendency to yield
to them would be characteristic of his own fleshly
nature, and not of an invisible supernatural devil. An honest man, with the
experiences of his life before him, will be frank enough to admit that in every
case of temptation, wherein he had failed he had himself to blame; and wherein
he overcame, he did so by a strength of mind which determined to do the right.
Such men as commit murder and other crimes of the grosser sort, either from
delusion or dishonesty, shift the blame from themselves to an imaginary
supernatural devil; and they are encouraged in this cowardice by the popular
religious leaders. Were the civil government to admit the claims of popular
religion, it would have no right to punish a man for a crime; for how can a man
be held responsible for what he does while hypnotized
by a being possessed of supernatural power? Viewed from any reasonable
standpoint the theory of a supernatural devil must be seen to be a pagan
fiction disguised by its devotees in garments made of scripture words. Every
intelligent, enlightened man will find enough to do in the struggle between right
and wrong, if he overcome his own fleshly
proclivities; and in proportion to his failure will be his blame; and in
proportion to his success will be his merit.
DAIMON
The word
"devil" in the English version of the New Testament is also used to
represent the original word daimon; and the translation is tainted with
the theory of the translators concerning disembodied spirits, or ghosts. We can
the more boldly say this now, since the Revision has exposed the same weakness
in the use of the word "hell" for two words in the original--gehenna
and hades. While the modern leaders still hold to the ancient theory of
disembodied spirits, they have made such changes in their belief as the result
of superstition giving place to education that they have no longer any use for
disembodied spirits for the purpose supposed to be involved in the New
Testament account of demons. The prevalent idea in the days of Jesus was that
diseases were produced by "spirits." Blindness, dumbness, insanity,
etc., were all the work of "spirits" possessed by the unfortunate
victims; but now religious leaders know better, and are able to dispense
entirely with such "spirits" in accounting for the same diseases.
With the ancient mythologists "spirits" were essential in accounting
for diseases; now they are not; therefore their existence is no longer
necessary. If it is superstition to believe now as in the past that diseases are inflicted by disembodied spirits, may it
not be superstition also to believe in the existence of such spirits? The supposed
utility of their existence having been seen to be a delusion, why retain them
without any thing for them to do in the line of employment in which they were
once supposed to be engaged?
Our language is full of
words of heathen origin; but such words no longer mean what they did on the
lips of a heathen. Our meaning is well understood now when we call an insane
person a "lunatic," without retaining the theory that the person is
moon-struck. One using the word "lunatic," would not thereby be
committed to the ancient theory. So with our use of the names of the days of
the week, as well as many names of diseases, for example, "St. Anthony's
fire," "St. Vitus dance." We accommodate ourselves to the
phraseology of our times without being held to the original meaning thereof.
Now what is permissible
in our times in this respect was also so in the days of Jesus and His apostles.
When a disease was miraculously cured, the act was described in the language of
the times. Then as now, some held the heathen view, others the reasonable and
truthful view. The words "soul" and "spirit" are used
to-day by some wrongfully, by others rightfully; and the latter cannot be held
responsible for the former. So with the words daimon
and demoniac in the days of Jesus. Suppose we transfer the
phraseology of those times down to our own times and use it in the description
of curing diseases, would not the facts be precisely the same? The use
of the words now would no more make the cure of disease a literal casting out
of demons or "spirits" than the use of the words then and vice versa.
The facts represented by the words are what we must seek to find, and not
stumble over the words into the delusions generally associated with them. The
following quotation from "Yates's History of Egypt" will illustrate
the truth in this matter very clearly:
It would seem that the
same diseases prevailed then in
I have known the Rev.
Mr. Wolff ridiculed for stating that one evening when he was passing between
Now let us examine, for
example, the first instance in the New Testament of casting out a demon. In
Matt. 9: 32 we read, "As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb
man possessed of a devil (daimonizomenon--being demonized), and when the
devil (daimonion) was cast out, the dumb man spake." What really
was the matter with this man? He was dumb; and the very same affliction is the
sad lot of many persons today. Shall we say of the dumb of today that they are
demonized? Yes, if the word is used to describe dumbness; no, if it is used as
meaning that every dumb person is possessed of a "disembodied
spirit," or ghost afflicting a man with dumbness. To "cast out a
demon" now, in a similar case, would be to cure the afflicted of dumbness;
but a "spirit," called a "demon" would no more be an entity
leaving the cured person than fever would be a "spirit" or
"demon" as an entity leaving a person of whom we may say, "Her
fever left her." So when it is said, "He has lost his speech,"
"he lost his hearing;" or "his speech returned," "his
hearing came back to him." A comparison of the facts in the case
will show that it is only a difference in phraseology in different times, in
different countries to describe the same facts.
The relation of the two
words--diabolos and daimon--may be said to be that of cause and
effect. Therefore when the former came into the world, the latter followed; and
in the same order they will go out of the world. The Apostle Paul says,
"Sin entered into the world," and when "the sin of the world is
taken away," sin will have gone out of the world. When sin entered,
diabolos entered, and thereby man's nature became afflicted with diseases, or
we may say, became demonized. When the diabolos is destroyed, the demonized
condition of the fallen race will cease. No one supposes that when Paul says,
"sin entered into the world" he meant that sin was a
"spirit" or an entity coming from one world to another. So when the
"Lamb of God" shall have "taken away the sin of the world,"
no one supposes that sin is an entity taken from one world to another. If sin
could be said to have entered the world, and yet the statement not mean that an
entity entered, then if we call sin diabolos, we can say diabolos
entered; and when sin is destroyed and is no more in the world, diabolos will
have been destroyed and will be no more in the world. Since the disease of the
human family--mortality--is the result of sin, disease may be said also to have
entered into the world, and, using the heathen word, we may say that thereby
the race became demonized, or became possessed of a demon in the form of
mortality. Now the work of the Redeemer is to cast out this demon; and in the
casting out of the demon there will no more be a personality or a million
personalities than in the coming in.
Now transfer this from
the race and the universal affliction of man with the demon of mortality to an
individual afflicted with one of the many diseases resulting from a mortal
state, and we can say of a certain disease that it entered man and that, when
the man is cured, it left the man; or, to change it into Eastern phraseology of
New Testament times, we would say a demon entered a man, and, when he is cured,
a demon was cast out.
If a superstitious
person were to say of a certain woman, "She is possessed of seven
demons," that person would have in mind that seven immaterial entities had
entered the woman and that they were afflicting her with seven diseases. A more
enlightened person might not deem it needful, and indeed might know it would be
impossible for the time being, to correct the superstitious idea, and might use
the same language, the "seven demons" meaning to him seven diseases.
So even now in this western world and in this boasted age of enlightenment some
who still hold to the fag ends of heathenism, despite their education and their
advantage in the advancement of science, say of a person when he dies,
"His soul left him," meaning that an immaterial, conscious entity had
left him; but the language to one enlightened in the Bible and in true science
would mean that the man's life had gone out or had been extinguished.
A
DIFFICULTY
The greatest difficulty
in understanding some of the New Testament accounts of casting out demons is in
the fact that the language sometimes seems to make them appear to speak
independently of the person whom they are supposed to possess. Allowing that
this difficulty forces the conclusion that the demons were entities and that
they actually did speak, the question will arise, Why
is the same phenomenon not to be found in similar afflictions today? We may
visit an insane asylum and hear much strange talk and see many distressing
actions, but all would clearly be the talk and actions of the poor unfortunates
who would be distressingly visible and not a word would come from invisible
entities, demons or "spirits." Have facts changed? Have the
"spirits" who talked in times of yore become dumb, or gone off on a
journey, while the same diseases still remain to afflict mankind? No one is
foolish enough to answer yes. The facts are the same
now as then; and therefore the difficulty is in the phraseology only, and it
may be removed by a careful consideration of facts, with the mind freed from
superstition.
Now let us examine a
case where the demons appear to speak. Matt. 8: 28-34 will illustrate all other
passages of similar phraseology. Even in this, however, some allowance must be
made for coloring on the part of the translators--not necessarily intentional;
but because of their holding to heathen demonology. In this passage we have a
description of two insane men. They are said to be possessed of demons. Verse
31 says, "So the devils (demons) besought him" etc. If there were no
demons there as separate entities or "spirits" how could they talk?
Here is the difficulty. But we must not forget that we are in the presence of
two insane men, and therefore we may not hope to listen to rational
speech; but we may expect to hear them speak in accordance with the deluded
state of their minds. Even in our day some men profess to be
incarnations of women. What is this, but a delusion (or a fraud) that
the disembodied entities of the dead women have entered into these men? One
professes to be an incarnation of Christ; another of Elijah, etc. Now it would
not be strange if these women-incarnated men should personate the women and use
the feminine gender in speaking of themselves; nor if
the pretended Christ-incarnate man should try to personate and speak as if he
were Christ. It would be consistent with the delusion, but not with reason and
facts, and that is all that can be expected in such cases. We have heard of an
insane man who supposed himself to be Queen
Before dismissing this
part of our subject it may be well to give a short history of demonology, as a
means of showing that the popular theory of our times is identical with that of
heathenism so far as the existence of departed disembodied spirits is
concerned, the very theory to which demonology owes its origin. The absurdities
associated with the theory by the ancient Greeks, Romans, and by the Jews after
they became idolators, are now ridiculed by people of education, and yet many
of them still cling to that which was responsible for those absurdities. The
foolish tales told about demons and the attributing of jugglery by the ignorant
to their supposed occult powers are no more absurd
than is the theory of departed disembodied spirits itself. Perhaps the reading
of the short history we are about to give will make this manifest; and the
truth of the prediction of the Apostle Paul will be found exemplified in
quarters that will be a surprise to many. He declared, "Now the Spirit
speaketh expressly, that in the latter (later) times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (demons);
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot
iron" (I. Tim. 4: 1, 2). The "doctrine of demons" is the
doctrine of disembodied spirits, with all its attendant lies and frauds about
purgatory, ghosts, apparitions, table rapping, etc. It is all the outgrowth of
the immortality of the soul, which originated in the words of the
serpent--"Ye shall not surely die; but ye shall be as gods." This
doctrine, Gibbon says, the Jews did not believe till
they went to
The following concise
history we quote from the book previously referred to, entitled "The
Devil, an Expose":
HISTORY
OF DEMONOLOGY
In what sense then, was
the word Daimon used by the Greek writers? A most extended inquiry by
Mr. Farmer has established that the Greek writers used this word to express
HUMAN "SPIRITS" of departed people. Many such
"spirits" of departed human beings the ancients deified and
worshipped: and hence the word daimon meant to the Greek and those who
used their language, human departed "spirits," raised to the rank
of gods and deities. "Homer calleth all his gods, daimones, and
Hesiod, the worthies of the golden age."--Leigh's Critica Sacra,
Article Daimon. Hesiod maintains, indeed, that whenever a good man dies
he becomes a demon: and Plato praises him for the sentiment.
The heathen had two
classes of gods: the world, together with all its constituent parts and
principles, and the demons. "They conceived the world to be pervaded and
animated by a vital and intelligent substance they regarded as a divinity which
contained, framed, and governed all things." Farmer on
Miracles, p.107.
A further consideration
affording very strong evidence that these "demons" meant the
"spirits of departed men" is that the parentage and,
consequently, the human origin of almost all the heathen deities were
known and recorded. Philo Biblyus, the translator of Sanchoniathon's History of
the Gods, expressly asserts, "That the Phoenicians and Egyptians, from
whom other people derived this custom, reckoned those amongst the great gods
who had been benefactors to the human race: and that, to them, they erected
pillars and statues, and dedicated sacred festivals."--Apud Euseb. Praep. Evangelica, lib. I, c. ix, p. 32. Diodorus Siculus states, "That there
were two classes of gods, the one eternal and immortal, the other such as were
born on the earth and arrived at the titles and honours of divinity on account
of the blessings they bestowed on mankind."--Lib. i and v. This writer
describes Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, and others (the primary gods of paganism) as
illustrious men. Plato remarks, "All those who die valiantly in war
are of Hesiod's golden generation, and become demons; and we ought
forever to worship and adore their sepulchres, as the sepulchres of
demons."--Plato de Republica, c. v. 468, tom. ii,
editio Serrani. This transference of warlike heroes into gods, and the worship
of them, many regard as belonging peculiarly and solely to paganism: but have
we not the same things in our day? Do we not see statues erected in our streets
to those chargeable with legal murder which are raised for the mental worship
of our children?--the
To return from this
digression on modern hero worship, it is apparent that among the Greeks the
term daimon expressed a "departed human ‘spirit,’"
DEIFIED. The Greeks held further that these daimones, or "departed
human ‘spirits,’" had the power of TAKING POSSESSION of other
HUMAN BEINGS, and that they could be expelled from these beings so
possessed. Hence Lucian, writing respecting an exorcist, one who so
dispossessed the possessed, remarks: ekselaunei ton daimona = he expelled
the demon (Lucian's Philospeudes, p. 338, vol. ii.,
edit. Amstelodami). Lucian affords, in a dialogue in
the works from which the above is a quotation, the view entertained in his day
regarding demons. Four parties are introduced in the dialogue; three, Ion,
Eucrates, and Diognotus, being believers in demons, and the fourth, Tychiades,
who is not a believer therein. Ion, after he had given an account of the person
who cast out demons, adds that he himself had seen one (that is, a demon) so
ejected. "Many others as well as you," said Eucrates,
"have met with demons (daimosin). I have a thousand times seen such
things." In proof of this assertion, he assures the company that he and
his family had often seen the statue of Pelchus descending from his pedestal,
and walking round the house--pp. 338-339. In the sequel of the dialogue,
Eucrates, who had been defending the doctrine of apparitions, says, "We
have been endeavoring to persuade Tychiades (who sustains the character of an
unbeliever in these points) that there are demons (diamonas tinas einai)
and that the phantasms and souls of the dead wander upon the earth, and appear
to whom they please," p. 346. To confirm this sentiment, Diognotus, the
Pythagorean, bids Tychiades go to
The Latins also
entertained the idea that "departed human ‘spirits’" sometimes
possessed the living. Those so possessed among them were so called the Cerriti
and Larvati: the Cerriti from the goddess Ceres, who was supposed to possess
them; the Larvati from the laros, gods, who were supposed to be the possessing.
The correspondence between the possessing beings, the lares,
and the daimones,
Opinions similar to
those held by the Greeks and the Latins, were
entertained by the Jews. Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, asserts
that those called daimonia are the "spirits" of wicked men who
enter the living, and kill those who receive no help (De Bell. Jud., lib. vii, 2, 6, 3). Very
early in the history of the Jews they had become acquainted with the gods of
the heathen, and showed a lamentable proneness to adopt the principles and the
practices of their superstitious and idolatrous neighbours. The philosophy of
the East was greatly studied and admired by the Jews, and they came to regard
persons possessed as possessed by the same "spirits" as those which
their neighbours regarded as possessing. So strongly was this opinion rooted in
their minds and so generally diffused among the people, that when the Saviour
cast out daimonia, the Pharisees observed, "He casteth out daimonia
by Beelzebub, the Prince of Daimonia" (Matt. 9: 34), a statement at
which no astonishment was expressed; which, had not the knowledge of the doctrine
of possession by "departed human spirits" been general among the
Jews, would have excited astonishment.
Who, then, was this
Beelzebub, the prince, not of devils, as the Common Version renders the word,
but of demons? We read in the Old Testament that one of the kings of
BEELZEBUB
It will be seen from
the foregoing that Beelzebub, or Beelzebul, was the heathen fictitious god of
the fly. Of course it was not a god at all--had existence only in the demonized
minds of pagans. This which is now admitted is quite helpful to us in
understanding the Saviour's use of words without being responsible for the
errors associated with them. Even modern believers in demonology will not claim
that He committed himself to the heathen theory by not protesting against the
use of the word Beelzebub, or even by using it himself, when He said, "And
if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" In
this passage we have the words "Beelzebub" and "cast out
demons." It would be quite as unreasonable to claim that the Saviour
believed in the heathen god of the fly because He used the word Beelzebub as it
is to claim that He believed in the heathen theory of "casting out
demons" because He used their words.
That there are
difficulties it cannot be denied; but the difficulties arise from perversion of
language by heathen dogmas, thousands of words having been invented to suit
thousands of heathen fictions; and so Jesus and His apostles in their times,
and we in our times, are forced by stubborn circumstances to use an impure
language, saturated with heathenism. All we can do is, keep the mind in a
higher atmosphere than the tongue or pen, and, "as through a glass
darkly," see truth in words which originated in lies. If any object to
this, let them ask what they mean when they name the days of the week.
When the glorious time comes to put an end to the "strange language"
of an idolatrous world, He who in the days of His humiliation was compelled, in
measure, to take the language as it was, will "turn to the people a pure
language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with
one consent" (Zeph. 3: 9).
SATAN
Satan is a Hebrew word
(Sathan), and it did not originate as a name for a heathen fiction. It had a
legitimate birth; but it has not escaped improper use at the hands of a
perverted theology; for it has been tagged on to the fictitious devil of
popular dogma. In the use of this word it is a question of the mind as to
whether it is employed truthfully or falsely. The word on the tongue of one
whose mind is imbued with the personal immortal devil theory is a misuse; but
uttered by one who understands its original and true meaning to be the one who
opposes, whether righteously or unrighteously, it is properly used.
The word Satan occurs
in the Authorized Version fifty-three times, seventeen times in the New
Testament and thirty-six in the Old. For the Hebrew word sathan the
translators have not always given us "satan." Instead of thus
anglicizing the word in every case they have, and more frequently, translated
it; and herein they have, perforce, given us the true meaning of the word. They
saw that its use in many passages could not be made to mean the Satan they had
in their theologically perverted minds, and so they were compelled to properly
translate it adversary.
The word has not in
itself a bad meaning; it may stand for a good intention and act as well as for
bad ones; but always meaning that which opposes, and the meaning in any case
can be ascertained by the context. It stands for an angel, whose opposition was
for good, and of the Lord, in Numb. 22: 22, 32 where the messenger said to
Balaam, "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? Behold,
I went out to withstand (or to be an adversary unto) thee," (see margin).
Persons, good or bad, may be satans, and so may
principles, or dispositions, or circumstances--any thing that stands in the way
or opposes. The use of the word, however, is more frequent in relation to evil
or unrighteous opponents or adversaries.
An examination of one
or two instances where the word has been properly translated will serve to
illustrate all others. For instance, the princes of the Philistines were afraid
that David would turn out to be a satan to them; and
therefore they said, "Make this fellow return * * * lest in the battle he
be an adversary (sathan) to us" (
In
The facts in these
cases interpret the word, and there is not the slightest hint that it means the
devil of popular belief. A case in the New Testament will help further to put
the matter in the true light. When the Apostle Peter, with good intentions,
said of the Saviour's predicted death, "Be it far from thee, Lord, this
shall not be unto thee" (Matt. 16: 22), the Lord answered, "Get thee
behind me satan; thou art an offense unto me; for thou savorest not the things
that be of God, but those that be of men." It was not a separate
supernatural satan that inspired the words of Peter.
No such satan is needed here in order to understand
the words. It was Peter's love for his Master and, no doubt, his thought of
fighting for his protection that prompted the words. Nevertheless the apostle
was opposing the right and was therefore an adversary. With these clear
testimonies in mind as illustrative of the meaning of "satan" it is
not difficult to understand any passage where the word is employed. It may
stand for a state of mind adverse to one's intentions and efforts; for a state
of the body, adverse to health; for a state of society or politics adverse to
the performance of duty or the belief of truth; and in no case is it necessary
with "satan" any more than with "diabolos" to imagine the
existence of the devil or satan of popular delusion.
PASSAGES
EXPLAINED
In the days of Job
angels were "ministering spirits sent forth to minister to those who were
heirs of salvation," and their visits were sometimes personal, as in the
case of Abraham. The conversation between the Lord and satan
was very likely between an angel of the Lord and an adversary who thought that
Job served God for temporal and selfish ends.
The passage reads as
follow:
"Now there was a
day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan
came also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest
thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From
going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the Lord
said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like
him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and
escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the Lord and said, Doth
Job fear God for nought? And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath
is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine
hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord."--(Job 1: 6, 7, 8, 9, 12.)
A very good description
of this satan and Job's trial at his instigation, is
given in a book entitled, "Diabolism" by Edward Turney, of
If the reader had not
harbored an idea of a supernatural, black, malicious devil, taught him from
childhood, I venture to assert that out of these verses it would be impossible
for him to invent such a being. There is no more ground for concluding that
this Satan is such a monster, than there is for believing that "the Sons
of God" were such in a literal sense. These appear to be Job's family; we
might say a company of true believers, while the adversary, or Satan, was a
person of nomadic habits, and evidently a hypocrite, envious, etc. It does not
at all appear that he was more than an ordinary man; that is, a human being;
and it would be a perversion of reason to assume that he was a fallen angel, a
supernatural, powerful, malignant being. It does not even appear that Satan
possessed any extraordinary power whatever, but was merely permitted to be the
instigator of Jehovah to put His servant Job to the full proof. "Thou movedst me against him" (Job 2: 3).
The evil which befell Job was not from Satan, but from God. "What! shall we receive good from the hand of the Lord, and shall
we not receive evil?" (chap. 2: 10). This is abundantly manifested from
the following statements in the nineteenth chapter. In reply to the speech of
Bildad the Shuhite, Job says, "Know now that God hath overthrown me,
and hath compassed me with His net. He hath fenced up my way. He hath
stripped me of my glory. He hath destroyed me on every side. He hath
also kindled His wrath against me. His troops come together, and raise up their way against me, and encamp round about my
tabernacle. He hath put my brethren far from me. Have pity upon me, have
pity upon me, O ye, my friends: for the hand of God hath touched me."--(Verses 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21). This is always the
case; evil does not come from the devil, but from God. Of good and evil God is
the author; man is the author of sin. Evil is the punishment of God upon man
the sinner. "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create
evil. I the Lord do all these things"--(Isaiah 45: 7). "Shall there
be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?" (Amos 3: 6).
"Therefore, thus saith the Lord, Behold, against this family do I devise
an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks" (Mic. 2: 3), and so
forth. The testimony before us conveys not the least suspicion that Job's Satan
was superior or inferior to man; my own conviction is that he was a
fellow-worshipper, like Peter and Judas, who was full of envy at the favour and
prosperity of Job, and insinuated to the Elohim that what Job did was from
selfish motives. "Doth Job serve God for nought? But put forth thine hand
and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."
Whereupon, the faith of the patriarch was put to the test, and what a noble
example of patience and confidence in God he furnished for all after time, and
how wonderful was it made manifest that "the Lord is very pitiful and of
tender mercy toward all them that trust Him." With the supposition that
the book of Job is a drama, I have no sympathy. Parable is indeed common, both
in the Old and New Testament; but the connection in which the man Job is
mentioned, seems to me to show conclusively that the book is a narrative of
facts. In his denunciation upon
In Zec. 3: 1, we read
of Joshua the high priest standing before the Lord, and satan
standing at his right hand to resist him. "And the Lord said unto satan, the Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that
hath chosen
In
II. Sam. 24: 1 we read that satan (see margin) moved David to number
In Luke 13: 11 we read
of a woman who had a "spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was
bowed together, and could not lift herself up." To her Jesus said,
"Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity." This
kind act displeased the ruler of the synagogue, and to him Jesus said, Ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom satan
hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on
the Sabbath day?" There are many such afflictions as this poor woman had
suffered from. What are the causes? Do even the devotees of his supposed
Satanic Majesty believe that similarly afflicted women are "bound" by
their supernatural satan? Many old women in obscure
parts of the world who still ignorantly believe that the popular satan is the author of such afflictions are looked upon with
an eye of pity by modern religious leaders; and they are called "poor
superstitious old things." Yet, the old women may consistently ask, What is your supernatural satan for if he is not doing these
deeds? The woman was cured of an "infirmity" of the body, a state of
body which was an adversary to a normal state and that "bound" her so
she could not perform the acts which life's duties require. Her satan was purely of the flesh, and it would be superstitious
now as then to attribute it to a supernatural being.
We will examine one
more passage, and then, we think, we shall have a sufficient variety of
instances to illustrate any aspect of the question which may present itself, in
all of which it will not be difficult to find that satan and satans belong to
the natural world, and it is folly to explore unknown regions in a "world
of spirits" in search of a personal supernatural monster.
In
THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT
Salvation is predicated
upon a belief of and obedience to the one gospel. The gospel consists of
"the things concerning the
Now, according to this
passage and the Scriptures generally, we must believe:
1. That Christ's work
was and is to "destroy the devil."
2. That He was made of
the same flesh and blood as are the children of the fallen race of Adam.
3. That this was a
necessity in order that He might "condemn sin in the flesh"
and by His death "destroy him that hath the power of death, that is the devil."
4. That the devil is
destructible and will when the plan of salvation is completed be entirely
destroyed.
To believe in
traditions which make the word of God of none effect is almost equal to denial
of God's word; and the applicability of this fact to the doctrine of the devil
is seen when we consider that the popular devil is believed to be immortal and
indestructible, while the destruction of the Bible devil is the great object of
the plan of salvation. Hence no one can understand the plan of salvation who holds a false view of the devil; and since the plan of
salvation is the gospel and salvation in any case depends upon a belief of and
obedience to the gospel, the subject of the devil is one of vital importance.
Now in conclusion, the
devil primarily is "sin in the flesh," by which is meant all the
mental, moral and physical consequences, direct and remote, of the federal sin
of the race in
1. That inborn bent of
the mind in the direction of wrong, which has to be overcome by a will-power
begotten by a realization of right and duty as divinely revealed.
2. It is something
manifested in persons who try to entice and allure others to think falsely and
to do that which is wrong.
3. It is manifested in political
form in the principalities and powers of the world, in a usurpation of power on
the part of the great, unrighteously wielded over the weak and downcast, and in
the flattery, and pomp of flesh, wherein the true God is ignored and
dishonored.
4. It is, in its
physical effects, to be seen in the many diseases which afflict mankind, and
which believers in the "doctrine of demons" attribute to possession
of disembodied spirits.
The devil in all these
forms will be destroyed when sin and death shall come to an end. Then there
will be no lust (inordinate desire) in the nature of the survivors of the
fallen race and they will be free from temptation from without and within.
There will be no person disposed to tempt another to think or do that which is
contrary to the Divine will, which is always the standard of right. There will
be no more kingdoms of men to flatter and gratify lust, and the