CHAPTER VII. SCRIPTURAL DEFINITIONS CONCLUDED. THE word diabolos, usually rendered "devil," signifies, in general, an adversary or enemy with evil motives, and, in the Scriptures, is applied to a deceiver, a traitor, a persecutor, &c., but never to a spiritual being, excepting, possibly, in one in- ́ stance, by a figure of speech, where diseases seem to be ascribed to "the devil." Those desiring to see this subject discussed at length, might do well to read Balfour's "Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine concerning the Devil and Satan." The word rendered "satan" is satanas, which imports an adversary whose motives may be either bad or good; while diabolos, as has been said, imports an adversary with evil motives. Thus Jesus, when Peter opposed Him, addressed him as merely a "satan," the motives of Peter being humanly good; but when He spoke of Judas as an opposer, he styled him "a devil," since, by whatever ethical rule estimated, the motives of Judas were clearly bad.1 In a few texts, satan seems to import a mere physical evil, considered as an adversary to human happiness; as in the case of the woman" bowed together" with infirmity, concerning whom, after 1 Mark viii. 33; John vi. 70, 71. He had healed her, the Saviour said that she had been bound thus by "satan." (It should be rendered "a satan," if it is proper to use this word at all in English.) A like view is usually taken of the "messenger of satan"-literally "angel-satan" complained of by the apostle. In one other text also, as has been said, it would seem that diseases are ascribed to the devil. Thus Peter says of Jesus, that He "went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil." 2 1 As the name of God implies good, so the term devil implies evil, considered in its character of opposition to good. Hence devil, in the Scriptures, sometimes imports the abstract principle of opposition to good; as when Paul, addressing an opposer who "withstood" him and Barnabas, characterized him as a "child of the devil;" or when an other apostle affirms that "whosoever committeth sin is of the devil!" and that "in this" the children of the devil are manifest!!! Sometimes also the term devil seems to stand for the persecuting power, whether that power were considered as concentrated in an individual ruler, or whether allusion were had to the whole body of persecutors taken together; as when Peter, addressing some of the early Christians in reference to the "afflictions" which they, in common with other Christians, were constantly liable to from the persecuting opposers of Christianity, exhorts, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour: whom resist, steadfast in the faith." 4 1 Luke xiii. 11-16; 2 Cor. xii. 7. (See remarks of commentators on this last text.) 3 Acts xiii. 8-10; John iii. 8-10. 2 Acts x. 38. So in the Revelation, a certain power, under the figure of a dragon or serpent, and which is expressly said to be "called the devil, and satan," is as expressly said to have "persecuted" a certain symbolical personage, and sought "to devour her child; " also, as proceeding "to make war with " those having "the testimony of Jesus Christ," that is, with the Christians. And we learn that these did as Peter exhorted to do; for it is added that "they overcame him [the dragon] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony," &c. 1 Though the term Satan, in most English versions, has always as in this work it now, for once, has -a Capital letter for its Initial, and thus appears as a proper noun or name, like Simon or Judas, there is eminent authority for saying that "satan," or the word so rendered, was not a proper name in the language of the Jews, but was a mere appellative, or common name, like adversary, traitor, &c. The word rendered "devil" and "devils" when persons are said to have them, or to be possessed with them, is daimon, (or a kindred term,) which in Latin becomes dæmon, and from this comes the English word demon. "Demon" is clearly the proper rendering of daimon, &c., instead of " devil.” Demons were thought to be the spirits of departed human beings, who were believed to have the power of entering into the bodies of the living, causing strange and incurable diseases, and various morbid affections both of body and mind. Thus Josephus describes "demons" "demons" as being "the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men that are 1 Revelation xii. 4, 9, 11, 13, 17. alive, and kill them unless they can obtain some help against them."* From certain cases in the gospels where the attendant symptoms are incidentally given, it would seem that the diseases believed to be produced by demoniacal agency, were, for the most part, some form of insanity, or of "fits." Thus the man who as probably he and others supposed-was possessed with a whole legion or regiment of spirits, and who is represented as preternaturally strong, and entirely uncontrollable, was doubtless furiously insane. One who had a dumb devil was probably a hypochondriac or melancholy person; an other, having a "dumb and deaf spirit," was perhaps a natural deaf mute; and both he and the boy who is described as "lunatic," both of whom also, when attacked, fell, whether "on the ground," "into the fire," or "into the water," (and who indeed may have been one and the same individual,) were manifestly afflicted with epilepsy or falling-sickness.1 And so of the rest. It is certain that diabolical possessions, in the commonly-understood sense of that expression, are not taught in even one text of Scripture rightly translated and interpreted; yet that demoniacal possessions are wholly unscriptural, the writer hereof does not feel called on to affirm, nor, indeed, to deny. It does not seem likely, however, that diseases were produced in those days by the agency of possessing spirits; nor can it be shown with certainty that the New Testament writers, as also our Saviour, in employing the current phrase * See Jewish War, Book VII. chap. vi. section 3; and the authors quoted and referred to by Whittemore on the Revelation, at xvi. 13. 1 Mark v. 2, 9; Luke xi. 11, 14; Mark ix. 25, 20, 22; Matt. xvii. 15. ology, intended to vouch for the verity of such possessions. But there can be no doubt that possessions by demons or human ghosts, and this operating as the cause of various diseases, was, in the time of Christ, and later, a very generally received and highly popular doctrine. "In one place, "a certain damsel" is spoken of as being "possessed of a spirit of divination, and as having "brought her masters much gain by soothsaying "-in more modern parlance, "by fortune-telling." But the historian goes on to relate that Paul. . . . said to the spirit, "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her;" and that "he [the spirit] came out that same hour;" also, that, ere long, "her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone," from which it is manifest that she ceased soothsaying from that time.1 Query. What really happened to this young woman upon Paul's commanding the divining spirit to leave her? The reason why the demons or possessing spirits believed in by the Jews, were by them deemed and denominated "unclean spirits," was probably because they were supposed to hover around graves, and other depositories of the dead, contact with which rendered any person "unclean" for a time. See the law of Moses on this subject, as referred to below. In accordance with this idea, is the fact that the individual who was reputed to have a "legion" of unclean spirits within him, is described as having his dwelling among the tombs." 3 The word rendered "angel" is aggelos, (com 1 Acts xvi. 16-19. See Mark xvi. 17. 2 Numbers xix. 11-16. 3 Mark v. 2-9. Compare Luke viii. 26-30. |