Return to Home Page

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

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

III. The term "Satan." Who Satan is must be learned from revelation (i.e. the Bible). Satan applied to express "adversary." No badness of meaning essentially connected with the word satan The satan in the Book of Job an idolator. Peter, the apostle, a "satan."

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

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

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

THE DEVIL

CHAPTER I.

Return to Contents Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DEVIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 "baIlo" - "to strike", "to pierce" (as with an arrow) : diaballo, therefore, signifies "to pierce through": and as, when a man's character is attacked by the false charges of another, his character is pierced through, this word diaballo means also "to calumniate," which is "to pierce through with the darts of calumny." And, as the idea of this calumny implies that the accusations are false, the term diabolos means "false-accuser," "a calumniator." The proper meaning of the word diabolos, is, therefore, "false-accuser", "calumniator"; the improper meaning is "devil" - this improper interpretation having been first given by the translators of the Scriptures into Greek; a rendering 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. *(Leigh’s Critica Sacra, article "diabolos").

*****************************************************************************************

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

Paul, in writing to Titus, uses the same expression: "The aged women, likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false-accusers," Titus ii 3. The phrase rendered "not false-accusers" is me diabolous, "not devils" - if "devil" be the proper meaning of the word diabolos. The translators, however. have here again, by the undoubted application of the term to women, been obliged to translate the word properly, and have themselves thus afforded a second evidence that diabolos means" false-accuser."

A third passage, confirming this as the proper interpretation, is the following :- "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy. Without natural affection, truce-breakers, false-accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; *having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away," 
2 Timothy iii. 1-3.

Here the word, correctly rendered "false-accusers," is diaboloi, "devils" - that is, if "devils" is the proper interpretation - the interpretation given to it in thirty-five other passages in the common translation. But it is not the proper rendering: the proper translation has been, given in this passage, thus affording a third confirmatory evidence that "false-accuser" is the meaning of the word diabolos.

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus had been declaring some of those great truths which certain of those who followed him were "not able to hear," so that "from that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him," John. vi. 66. Their self-love ruling wrongly in their natures deceived them, and hence they falsely accused Christ of deceiving them, and so forsook him. Their departure afforded Christ an opportunity of asking the twelve, "---Will ye also go away?" Then Simon Peter answered him, "Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art the Christ, the Son. of the living God," John. vi. 67, 68, 69. To this rejoinder of Simon was the distressing information imparted by the Lord: "Have 1 not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John. vi. 70. The language is plain in its application. The Saviour is speaking to twelve men, and one of these men, he stated, is a devil? No; he does not so say.

The Common Version makes him thus to speak, but the real expression which Jesus used was, "Have not 1 chosen you twelve, and one of you is a diabolos," a false-accuser. This is what he says; and illustrative of the point of view in which the disciple referred to is a false-accuser, the form is pointed out in which the character was made manifest: "for he" (Judas) "it was who should betray him," John. vi. 70 - pierce him through by false accusation. That diabolos in this passage means "false-accuser," and not "devil," is further evident from this, that if it means "devil," then Judas was a devil: for it is said, "He spake of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon," John. vi. 71; and Judas being a man, a devil must therefore be a man. This conclusion, which at once would overturn the common idea of the devil - that he is a supernatural being - - cannot be got rid of except by doing justice to the word diabolos, and rendering it by the word, properly expressive of its meaning, namely, "false-accuser."

The next step in the betrayal of the Christ still further demonstrates that "false-accuser" is the proper meaning of the word diabolos, and that therefore the introduction of the word "devil" into the passage detailing such step, is incorrect: "And supper being ended-the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him," John. xiii. 2. This passage, many think, argues strongly in favour of a literal "devil," because, it is said, that "the devil having now put into," or entered, "the heart of Judas." But it it is quite clear that this cannot be literally true, for no "Devil" could put anything into the heart of a person; and, it is further evident that if a "devil" is to be regarded as a distinct being, Judas was a "devil," for Jesus called him so; and how could one "devil" enter into another "devil"? and, what is more difficult still, into the heart of that other "devil"; which must have been the case if Judas, already a "devil" ("one of you is a devil") , had a "devil" enter his heart.                                                                                       p11

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

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

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated, but improperly so, "devil," is the following, from Acts xiii, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.:-

What does the whole narrative prove? That Elymas, not content with his sorceries, falsely represented to Sergius Paulus the doctrines which Paul preached, and which Sergius Paulus had believed. What followed this false accusation of Paul? Paul, the account states, set his eyes upon the false-accuser, and said, "0 full of all subtilty, and of all mischief, child of calumny, enemy of all righteousness." There is no authority in the original for the word "the" which, in the Common Version, precedes the word "devil," so that if "devil" were the proper translation, the passage ought to be "child of a devil." But "devil" has no business in the passage at all: Paul charges Elymas with calumny, and personifies him as a "child of calumny," just as we say of a wicked person, he is a "child" of vice."

This exact sense of the word diabolos, namely, as embracing the utterer of false-accusation, develops the force of another passage in which Jesus, after being falsely-accused by the Jews, charges them:-

John. viii. 44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye do" -that is, you adopt the character of a false-accuser in calumniating me: ye, as such, are the children of this state of mind. You, in mind, are led away by the accursed disposition of falsely-accusing: ye are the children mentally of the false-accuser, and being so, your mental perceptions manifest their parentage. And the destructive character of this falsely-accusing state of mind, of this slaying by calumny all that is excellent, of this giving false views of the character of God, is exhibited by the passage in question;  John. viii. 44 - "He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because truth is not in him: when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it."  So that when the mind is in this state, truth is not present: it is banished: the mind generates lies: it murders truth. This selfish state slays the man, defacing the likeness-to-God state: and this, from the very first, when it gained the mastery.                                                                           p12

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

Another passage in which the word diabolos in the Common Version, rendered "the devil," would, if rendered "false accuser," exhibit the sense in its beautiful simplicity, is, 
"And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive; 1 know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich) , and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. Fear none of those thinks which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried: and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life," Revelation ii. 8, 9, 10.

It is quite certain that the "devil," an invisible agent, could not cast them (that is, human bodies) into prison, but a diabolos, a false-accuser, by branding them with charges before a civil magistrate, might obtain their committal: and that such a false-accuser, or such false-accusers, are human beings, is proved by the preceding verse, wherein they are described as "Jews," and are not, but are "the Synagogue, or the assembly, of "the adversary" (tou Satanas - the Translators have left out the tou "thee," which is before "Satan," which latter means "adversary"). The passage, therefore, will appear in its clearness when the word diabolos is rendered according to its simple meaning. "Fear none of these things, which thou shalt suffer: behold, the false-accuser shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried."

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

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

The same idea of a human "false-accuser" is conveyed in other passages where the word "devil" is improperly given in the Common Version. Thus, Peter writes (I Peter v. 8) . "Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring.lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." This passage is very commonly quoted to prove the existence and the power of the Devil; but that the phrase diabolos refers to a human false-accuser is settled by the phrase definitive of an preceding it, namely, "adversary." The word for adversary is 'antidikos', which means an opponent at law. Peter, therefore, is referring to the necessity of believers so shaping their conduct as members of society, that the opponent will have no opportunity of charging them with any violation of the law of moral duty (for ‘dike’, a part of the word ‘antidikos’, means "moral rectitude") before the civil magistrate. How much more simple would this passage be if rendered, as it ought to have been, "Be sober, be vigilant, because your opponent, the false-accuser, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."                                       p13

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

Another passage in which the word diabolos occurs, and is translated "devil," is the following: - "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee," Jude 9. The proper meaning of the word diabolos here is "false-accuser"; and, that Michael, the chief messenger, and also the false-accuser, were individual human beings, will be shown in the remarks to be made hereafter on the word "Satan."  (See Chapter III)

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

The last passage now to be referred to in which diabolos, rendered "devil" in the Common Version, means, and ought to have been rendered, "false-accuser," is that where Paul, addressing the Ephesians, says --"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil," Eph. vi. 11. A previous warning of the Ephesians by Paul against the false-accuser has been already noticed; and in this passage he notices the means by which they can successfully resist all the cunning methods (methodeias) of the false-accuser. The means are the "whole Armour of God." And the necessity of the whole, and not a part, of the armour, is evidenced by the number of enemies with which the false-accuser of the believer is leagued: "For," adds he (verse 12), "we wrestle not against flesh and blood" - that is, against our own selfish desires and our natural feelings - "but against principaIities" (archas - i.e. ‘civil rulers’), "against powers" (exousias - i.e., ‘authorities’), "against the rulers of the darkness of this world" i.e., against those who rule merely, and by means of, the dark ignorance of the age (aion) , and who, therefore, hate the religion of Christ, which is light.

Not only against these has the disciple, who follows the commands of Christ, to fight, as Paul says, but, in his profession and practice of the truth, he has to fight against foes more deadly - the abominable superstitions and priestcraft systems, which cunning knaves have introduced into matters relating to heaven, even into Christianity itself, "against spiritual wickedness in high places," or, as it may be translated, "against the spiritual things of the wickedness in the heavenly matters."

It is true that many may prefer the peculiar unmeaningness and mystery of the passages as rendered in the Common Version; and they may find such obscurity useful in enabling them to apply the phrases to some mystifying beings in "the world of spirits."

*A thief cries, "Stop thief?" - so the ecclesiastics, knowing that as long as the people think that this spiritual wickedness in high places means something going on in a world which none can see, think they can assert what they like as to this wickedness; and, in addition, they know that the people will be thus diverted from examining what is going on in this world which they can see, and will thus be prevented from discovering, by comparing with the original Scriptures, the gross and blasphemous pretensions and wickedness of these ecclesiastics in reference to the traditions and commandments of men with which they have sought to defile the minds of believers." ( *Howitt’s History of Priestcraft. Tracts for the Times).                                                                p14

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

CHAPTER II

Return to Contents Page

The institutions of society are, in general, appeals to man's nature; they patronise self; they give nutriment to self; they draw forth the abundant and destructive fruits of self. The religion of Christ, on the other hand, appeals to man's moral and religious nature; it cultivates universality of feeling and the love-neighbour principle; it draws forth the fruits of kindness, of mercy, of justice, and of true humility God-ward. The distinction between the institutions of society and the requirements of the truth is forcibly depicted by the great teacher:  

This falsely-accusing of God's principles is the source of fear - all fear arising from false notions of God. The mind that falsely accuses God by ascribing to Him the same revengeful disposition that itself feels, creates fear in reference to the future. Hence the glorious mission of Christ, who came to establish the truth that those who believe in and follow him are sons of God, and, as such, shall inherit the kingdom prepared for them. The *writer to the Hebrews appreciated this glorious dilspeller of fear, as when lie writes: "And again, 1 will put trust in him. And again, behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise shared the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death-that is, the devil; And deliver them who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews ii. 13-15). Or, as properly rendered, "make inoperative him having the strength of death-that is, the false-accuser" - the state of mind which leads man falsely to accuse God: and the result of this state of mind, this falsely-accusing state, being done away (Christ having been raised, and thereby having demonstrated the completion of his work) , is to "deliver them who, through fear of death," from this false accusation of God, "were all their lifetime liable to (this evil) servitude" (Heb. ii. 15).

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER III.

Return to Contents Page

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

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

 This Tatnai therefore requests that the records may be searched to ascertain it such degree existed. The decree was found, and the permission was granted, notwithstanding Tatnai's opposition, to go on with the temple. Thus realizing, "Take away the filthy garments from him," Joshua; "So they set a fair mitre on his head, and clothed him with garments."                                                       p23

Here Tatnai is represented as "the devil," because he falsely accused the Jews and insinuated intentions to the ruling monarch quite contrary to their real intention. "The body of Moses" is merely the Jewish church, and the disputation regarding that body is the disputation regarding the building of the temple for the Mosaic system of worship, and thus this passage in Jude, which has been the cause of much perplexity, becomes easily intelligible, referring as it does to the vision of Zechariah; for in that vision we find that, like as in the argument of Jude against the railing accusers, Michael, the chief messenger, did not rebuke ‘Satan’, but said, "The Lord rebuke thee," so it was in the historical case of contention between Joshua and Talnai.

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