The Jewish Chronicle, we remember, charged the Christian with error for turning an abstraction poetically termed the adversary satan into a real being, and an investigation of the Old Testament references appeared to substantiate the view of our contemporary.
The Christian, however, may feel that whereas the Old Testament does not offer him the support for his belief which he thought it contained, the New Testament makes ample amends. There we find mention of the devil and his angels, and it is supposed that these angels were involved on the many occasions when Jesus cast out devils from suffering humanity. Jesus himself was tempted of the devil ; he saw Satan as lightning fall from heaven ; and we read of war in heaven, when Michael cast out into the earth that old serpent called the Devil, and Satan ; in consequence of which the warning was uttered–“Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea ! for the devil is come down to you having great wrath.”
Such references tend to substantiate a belief which the Jewish Chronicle is glad to repudiate, on the ground that the Old Testament allusions are of a figurative character, and are not intended to represent a real superhuman being. Must we then conclude that the Testaments are at variance on this subject, the Jew being allowed his poetic abstraction, and the Christian his immortal fiend? This would be an unfortunate conclusion. It is an impossible conclusion, for God inspired both records, and He “is not the author of confusion, but of peace.” Both records were written by Jews, so that similar use of language can be assumed. The figurative form of reference, or the method of personifying an accusing, or opposing influence of any kind, would be as familiar a mode of address to Jews of A.D. 40 as it was to Jews of B.C. 400.
Consequently we have the word Satan frequently mentioned by New Testament characters, and used in a manner similar to those occasions in the Old Testament where “adversary” is given as the translation of the Hebrew word. Thus, Jesus rebuked Peter for his too zealous objection to the prospect of Christ’s crucifixion by the words, “Get thee behind me, Satan : thou art an offence unto me ; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” Matt. 16, 23.
The reason for calling Peter a Satan is worthy of note. It indicates that however benevolent and well intentioned in themselves the things of men may be, they are satanic, opposed to God, if they do not comply with His revealed purpose.
It was perfectly natural for the good hearted, impulsive disciple to protest against the prospective persecution which Jesus described ; but that path of suffering had been marked out by God, and Peter should have been aware of it ; hence the form of the rebuke. It was addressed to Peter as “opposing” a certain course of action, and contains no suggestion that Peter was possessed of the devil and was made to protest at his instigation.
The condition of being possessed by devils is mentioned several times in the New Testament narratives, but with a peculiarity which prevents an unguestioned acceptance of the Miltonic view. This, as it is generally understood, depicts the emissaries of Satan active throughout the earth in an endeavour to seduce men to disobedience and sin. Disobedience and sin are matters involving questions of morality ; they are violations of a moral code, which, for Jew and Christian, is established by the law of God.
No moral issues were involved in the cases of those said to be possessed of devils. The effects of “possession” were either physical or mental disorders. This fact is shewn if we consider the following descriptive passages :
“And as they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil. And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake.” Matt. 9; 32, 33.
“Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb : and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.” Matt. 12, 22.
“Lord, have mercy on my son ; for he is lunatic, and sore vexed : for of times he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples and they could not cure him. And Jesus rebuked the devil ; and he departed out of him, and the child was cured from that very hour.” Matt. 17; 15, 16, 18.
“And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad ; why hear ye him?. Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” John 10; 20, 21.
These passages describe affections of the sense organs, epilepsy, and insanity, and it is obvious that moral issues were not involved, although devils were connected with the disorders. Pity and sympathy were aroused for the unfortunate victims of the maladies, but no sense of blame for the condition which they suffered.
On the other hand, we find the word “devil” used with quite a different association of ideas. There is the statement of John “He that committeth sin is of the devil,” 1 John 3, 8; the accusation of Jesus “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,” John 8, 44; and the temptation of Jesus, “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil,” Matt. 4, 1.
These are passages in which moral relationships only are indicated. Sin, lust, murder, falsehood, all these involve moral considerations, and although their manifestation may take the form of physical action, a sense of moral responsibility for their conduct is universally attached to the perpetrator of the deed. Thus we have “devil” associated with deep moral issues, and also with no question of morality at all.
This distinction is explained when we realise that the original Greek words differ.
When people are said to be possessed of “devils” the Greek word is daimon in its various grammatical forms.
When associated with sin and temptation the word is diabolos.
The one word means “demon,” the other “false accuser,” “slanderer.”
A belief in demons, and in possession by demons, is universal in the non-Christian religions of the world to-day. The Eskimos, the Africans, the South Sea Islanders are obsessed by demorology, and the Koreans are said to number their demons by the billion. Advance in civilization tends to diminish the belief, and in the great centres of Christian culture it has become practically extinct. In Gospel times it was general throughout the then civilized world as the result of Greek mythology, which regarded demons as a sub-order of deified beings. Among their activities they were regarded as being responsible for the infliction of certain kinds of disease upon man. So we have in the narrative concerning Christ that “he healed all manner of diseases, and cast out devils.” When we examine the details of the maladies due to demons we find them to indicate forms of nerve disorders. Sight, hearing, and speech were affected, while fits and insanity were common symptoms.
The same symptoms are familiar to modern medical science, but the sufferings of the patients are attributed to physical causes. Physiological and psychological methods of treatment are now applied to effect a return to normal conditions. No thought of ejecting an independent, conscious being, occurs to a doctor when he treats his patient ; he knows that such entities do not exist. To medical science they are, in fact, nonentities.
This being so, the very fact that an Arab imagines epilepsy to be due to a demon does not constitute the demon a reality ; it merely indicates the Arab’s belief. Nor are demons more real because the Korean thinks there are billions of them. Nor were they real because the pagan Greeks attributed diseases to their activity. So when we read in the New Testament “They come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the. legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (Mark 5, 15), we have an expression illustrating the conventional view concerning the cause of the unfortunate man’s insanity, without it being of necessity the real cause. In this form of expression Jesus did not attempt to be different from his fellows, but we should be wrong in concluding that he thereby made the demons real. We see this from the case where the Pharisees attributed his power to “Beelzebub, the prince of the Devils,” Matt. 12.
Beelzebub means “lord of the fly,” and was an old Philistine deity, an idol which, as Paul stated, “is nothing in the world,” 1 Cor. 8, 4. It is impossible to imagine that Jesus believed in the reality of Beelzebub. He would be familiar with Jeremiah’s reference “They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not : they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them : for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good,” Jer. 10, 5.
But Jesus did not refute the charge of his opponents from this point of view. He used a form of argument which exposed the folly of the accusation without attempting to controvert the reality of Beelzebub. An illustration of this form occurs in the answer of Peter to the gibe of mockers on the day of Pentecost, “These men are full of new wine !” which was equivalent to saying, “These men are drunk on lemonade.”
Peter did not meet the gibe by the direct but prosaic method of shewing that, as new wine could not make anyone drunk, the charge must be untrue. By pointing out that the day was too young to have given them time to get drunk on anything, he made the general charge of drunkenness look foolish ; and this was a much more effective rejoinder than that of confining his defence to the particular charge of being drunk on a teetotal beverage.
Jesus used the same kind of argument concerning the power by which the Pharisees said he cast out demons. Instead of taking the direct line by stating that as Beelzebub was a heathen deity he had no actual existence, and therefore their charge could not be true, he said in effect, “If Beelzebub is the power behind me, then what is behind your sons when they cast out demons?” This was much more effective, as it embraced their children in the condemnation they sought to confine to Christ. There is therefore no ground for thinking that Jesus believed in Beelzebub because he did not refute his existence. Nor are we justified in concluding that demons were real because Jesus accommodated his speech to the understanding of the times.
Another point in this incident is worthy of observation. Jests referred to this pagan nonentity as Satan. Something that had no actual existence, but was thought to be a power opposing the well-being of men, was called “adversary” by Jesus. This seems to be a definite case of an “abstraction” being “poetically termed the adversary satan.”
Pagan demonology is referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 10, 19-21, where he states that “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.” Also in 1 Tim. 4, 1, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”
The word occurs in Jas. 2. 19, and Rev. 9, 20; 16, 14; 18, 2. It is evident that belief in demons is a “departure from the faith.” The Jewish Chronicle can justifiably call it an “error,” and if we wish to be true Christians we must eliminate at least this phase of the devil from our belief.
A more important phase is introduced in connection with the word diabolos, for here we become concerned with moral issues. Right and wrong, good and evil, reward and punishment, matters at the very core of the Christian revelation, become involved in our consideration. Shall we find in diabolos the personal being who is the embodiment of evil and responsible for evil in the world?
The word means “false accuser,” “slanderer.”
Satan means “accuser,” “opponent,” “adversary.” The two words are more or less synonymous, as is indicated by the title, “that old serpent, the Devil, and Satan” (Rev. 12, 9); and by the fact that Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus being tempted of the devil (diabolos) while Mark says he was tempted of Satan.
We seem to have in the Greek a similar feature to what we found to exist in the English translators. They sometimes transferred satan into English, and sometimes they translated it “adversary.” The Greek writers in the New Testament likewise sometimes transferred satan and sometimes translated it diabolos. So we have Satan occurring 37 times, and diabolos 38 times. When the Greek came to be translated, their word Satanas, Satan, was transferred into English as a proper name, and diabolos was translated “devil” 35 times, conveying the idea of a personal being.
We might argue that as satan did not denote a real being, but was an abstraction or attitude poetically expressed, diabolos must also be a figurative term, and not a real person ; and, granted the application of the words to the one individual, the case would be logically decided. The case can be more effectively, if less tersely, determined by further Scriptural consideration.
If it were the fact that a great immortal spirit existed from man’s advent on earth, who was actively engaged in seducing human beings from righteousness, we should expect to find him and his responsibility for evil referred to on the occasions when the problems of sin and justification were dealt with in the apostolic arguments. It is something of a surprise then, to find that another view of the origin of evil was taken by the founders of our religion. Human nature with its propensities and complexities was almost analytically considered in connection with human transgression, but no responsibility for man’s sins was ever laid upon other shoulders than man’s own.
In the epistle to the Romans the apostle deals with the glorious theme embodied in the words “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” Rom. 5, 8. In developing his argument to shew how “grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life” Paul goes back to the beginning of things, and makes declarations like these :
“by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” v. 12.
“through the offence of one many be dead,” v. 15.
“the judgment was by one to condemnation,” v. 16.
“by one man’s offence death reigned by one,” v. 17.
“by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” v. 18.
“for as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,” v. 19.
In this fundamental examination of the necessity for justification by the blood of Christ “Adam’s transgression” is stated to be the cause of the evil which was to be removed by the death of Christ. One man sinned, one man disobeyed, one man offended, one man brought condemnation upon all. Why this insistence upon one man’s responsibility if Adam acted at the instigation of Satan? Does not the omission of all reference to that being indicate he was not involved, and that the responsibility was solely human? This point is very concisely stated by James, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God : for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man : But every man is tempted when lie is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then, when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” James 1, 13-15.
Here is an apostolic picture of man’s temptation to do evil. Here, if anywhere, was the occasion in which to introduce a reference to the devil as the tempter. Two beings are referred to, man and God. God does not tempt man to transgress, hence the only other source of temptation is man himself. “Everyone is tempted as he is beguiled and allured by his own desire,” v. 14 (Moffatt).
This feature is alluded to again in Ch. 4, 1.
“From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?”
This was still more emphatically demonstrated by Paul in his discussion on sin and the law, in Romans 7. The whole chapter should be read, but the point we make is shewn in these passages,
“Now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing : for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not,” v. 17-18.
“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man : but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 0 wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me from this body of death?” v. 22-24.
Here again there is no reference to Satan, which we should be justified in expecting in such a ‘discussion if he were a real being. It is “my flesh,” my members,” “my body,” “sin dwelling in me,” which, in the estimation of the apostle, was responsible for his opposition to the law of God. In other words it is human nature, with its propensities and dispositions, which manifests opposition to the law of God. It is this which “accuses,” “slanders,” and antagonises the better things of the divine revelation ; and it is this which is personified by the term diabolos. If we keep this apostolic exposition in mind when the word “devil” occurs in conjunction with moral issues, we shall be relieved of the tendency to imitate the pagan belief in Ahriman and Ormuzd, and be provided with an explanation much more in keeping with the reasonableness of Christian doctrine.
When the apostles wrote, the propensities of human nature had been developing through long centuries, and an interesting distinction might be drawn between its condition then and now and that of Adam. He was made “very good,” and would naturally have no inclination to act against the wishes of God. It was therefore necessary, in order to test his character, to present suggestions to his mind from a source external to itself. The Genesis narrative describes how the trial proceeded, but we wish to note the apostolic references to it.
As a reason for giving certain advice, Paul stated “Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression,” 1 Tim. 2, 13-14. Adam evidently disobeyed the divine prohibition with open eyes, but Eve was deceived. How? “But I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ,” 2 Cor. 11, 3. Satan is not mentioned.
The serpent was the beguiler, and it beguiled by a false accusation, and deceived by a lie. It falsely represented the attitude of God as that of withholding from Adam and Eve something which would have been enlightening, and it lied by saying, “Ye shall not surely die.” By this means God was disobeyed, and there awoke in man’s mind a consciousness of transgression, a beginning of the tendencies of the carnal mind to evil. Their state of nature took on a new significance, and they hid themselves, ashamed to appear before God. From that time forward “the law of sin in the members” provided all the prompting to evil which was needed to account for the lamentable history of mankind.
Because of its calumny and falsehood the serpent became the figure of the state of opposition to divine things as manifested in human affairs, either in the individual, or in organised society. This was early indicated in the condemnation uttered by God, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” An application of this figurative usage was made by Jesus when he said to the Jews, “Ye are of your father, the diabolos.”
Literally they were children of Abraham, but morally they were evil. In slandering Jesus they manifested the characteristics of the first slanderer, and could therefore be described as being of your father the “slanderer,” “false accuser,” who was also the originator of lies.
Jesus himself was not without experience of the influence of the slanderer, for after his baptism he was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of diabolos. Did this experience conform to the idea that human nature with its weaknesses was the diabolos, rather than the immortal fiend of Milton’s imagery? Jesus for thirty years had grown up conscious of “being about his Father’s business,” possessed of a knowledge of the purpose of God which astonished the doctors of the law, when he was twelve years old. He therefore understood his association with the Messianic prospects of kingly glory, and anticipated his preservation until the work of his mission should be accomplished. The day arrived for his manifestation to Israel. In order that he might be manifested, John was sent baptising in Jordan in preparation of the coming of One whose “shoe latchet he was unworthy to unloose.”
Jesus was baptised, and then received the Holy Spirit without measure, that power by which his divine connection could be demonstrated to men. In an ecstasy he went into the desert and after 40 days realised his hunger. Very naturally the first thought that suggested itself was to use the power he possessed to satisfy his need, for miracles were now possible to him. But second thoughts brought a remembrance of his relationship to the divine will. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” It was the will of God that he should suffer the same experiences as the rest of men in whose likeness he appeared. The suggestion that first arose was satanic, because “opposed to” the purpose for which the power had been bestowed. It was therefore put away from his mind. The thought of self-preservation once stirred brought associated ideas into his consciousness. God’s word stated, “He shall give his angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone,” Ps. 91, 11-12. If he were to cast himself even from a pinnacle of the temple, could he not freely rely upon the assurance of safety?
Second thoughts again brought a realisation that such action would be tempting the providence of God. It was prostituting the divine care to expect it to be exercised for rash and suicidal conduct, a “false accusation” concerning the divine intent.
Lastly, after these personal suggestions had been disposed of, his mission was contemplated. Of his kingdom there was to be no end. It was to stretch from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth. All kings were to fall down before him ; all nations to be subservient to him, Ps. 72, 8-11. Why not proceed to put this prediction into execution? By exercising his divine power he could serve this great idea of immediately bringing the kingdoms of the world into submission to his glory. Second thoughts again brought a recognition of service to the will of God. How otherwise could he confirm the recently uttered declaration, “Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world?” What of his name, divinely given, expressing the love of God for the salvation of His people? God’s purpose must be served in God’s way. For this reason he had been sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” so “being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient even unto death,” Phil. 2, 8. The satanic suggestion was put away, and the carnal mind troubled him no more. He was without sin.
The temptation of Jesus illustrates the truth of the apostolic teaching. The propensities of human nature give rise to ideas antagonistic to the divine will. Jesus immediately subjected them and destroyed them before they could be translated into action. He is the only one who has succeeded in doing this. In him diabolos found nothing. In all else it operates too successfully.
The word is used as the personification of a principle in human nature, and a correct translation would have brought this out. This has been done in 1 Tim. 3, 11. “Even so must their wives be grave, not ‘slanderers,’ sober, faithful in all things,” where slanderers is the translation of diaboloi. Also in Titus 2, 3, “The aged women likewise that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not ‘false accusers” or diabolous; a translation which occurs again in 2 Tim. 3, 3. No suggestion of the immortal fiend occurs to the mind in reading these passages, and a consistency of translation would have prevented it doing so in other instances. Jesus, we remember, called Peter, Satan. He likewise called Judas diabolos; “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” John 6, 70-71. When the diabolism of Judas came to be revealed it was referred to by John thus, “the diabolos having now put into the heart of Judas to betray him,” which is obviously a method of personification. The method occurs frequently in Scripture. The experience of Ananias is a case in point. Peter said, “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?” Acts 5, 3. Then the figure is abandoned and the literal method is used. “Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?” v. 4. “How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?” v. 9.
These expressions recall the words of James, “When lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin” ; and also of Jesus, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts thefts, covetousness, blasphemy, pride, foolishness,” Mark 7, 21-22. Ananias and his wife wished to have the reputation of being charitable, without making the necessary sacrifice of having “all things in common.” They allowed their pride and covetousness to sway their judgment, and these promptings of human nature were the “adversary” to the truth, the abstraction referred to by the apostle as Satan filling their hearts. This experience illustrates the point of Paul’s advice, “Neither give place to the diabolos,” Eph. 4, 27. Ananias did so with lamentable results. Moralists tell us that the more we endeavour to subdue evil desires, the easier their subjection becomes. This in apostolic words is rendered, “Resist the diabolos and he will flee from you,” James 4, 7, which is equivalent to Paul’s statement, “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires,” Gal. 5, 24.
Before his conversion we read of Paul that “he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and hailing men and women, committed them to prison”. “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord….” Acts 8, 3; 9, 1-2. This persecution was continued afterwards by the Jewish and Pagan authorities and was referred to by Peter in his exhortation “Be sober, be vigilant, because your adversary the diabolos, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour ; whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world” 1. Peter 5, 8-9.
The Miltonic Satan would be rather absurd in this connection, but not the apostolic “adversary”, the enemies of the church who slandered and falsely accused the believers, “devouring” their freedom and even their lives. So in 1 Tim. 3, 6-7, the “condemnation of the devil” and the “snare of the devil”, and in Eph. 6, 11 “the wiles of the devil”, we have the same idea. Human nature in its various manifestations of mind and habit is the calumniator of the truth and is described and personified by the terms diabolos and satan. An adverse state of the fleshly mind is changed by the Gospel, which “turns from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God” Acts 26, 18.
“Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness” 2 Cor. 11, 13-15. These ministers were slanderers of Paul, and claimed to be apostles that they might more successfully be adversaries to his work. In this course of action their envy and hatred were the instigators of their opposition, traits of human nature which is ever apt to think of itself more highly than it ought to think, and to do that which is right in its own eyes. “Satan transformed into an angel of light.” In what way is the invisible Satan so transformed?
“That Satan tempt you not for your incontinence.” 1 Corr, 7, 5, is an obvious reference to the “lusts of the flesh”, as is also 1 Tim. 5, 15 “For some are already turned aside after Satan”.
The personal being is an impossible conception in 1 Cor. 5, 5, where Paul advises the church to “deliver an evil doer unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” ; and in 1 Tim. 1, 20, where he says he has “delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme”. These results are the reverse of what the devil is popularly supposed to produce. But if we take the apostolic view, a more reasonable interpretation is provided. The Corinthian was to be sent out of the associations of the church and given, as it were, “a dose of his own medicine”, that the discipline might shew him the folly of serving the flesh, and produce a reformation in his character which would be acceptable at the last day. And we know that the reformation took place. Excommunication also was the delivering over to Satan of the blasphemers.
“Adversary” takes a more corporate form in the early chapters of Revelation “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”. Rev. 2, 9. These were men antagonistic to the believers, and referred to in the next verse “behold the diabolos shall cast some of you into prison”.
“Satan’s seat” in Pergamos was not the throne of the immortal devil, but of the pagan power adverse to the Christian religion. In consequence of this opposition, Antipas, the faithful martyr was slain “where Satan dwelleth”. Rev. 2, 13.
Lastly we consider the reference to the war in heaven when that old serpent the Devil, and Satan, was cast out into the earth. This passage is supposed to support the idea so powerfully described in Milton’s Paradise Lost. That it cannot be interpreted in that way is definitely indicated when the object of the Revelation is realised. It was information given by God to Jesus concerning things which were shortly to come to pass, so that he might advise his servants of the approaching events. This was done by an angel, who signified it, that is, expressed it by signs or symbols to the apostle John, Rev. 1, 1. Consequently, the visions seen by John were symbolic of historic events, and all the events were to take place after the time when they were revealed to him. This completely removed the “War in heaven” from pre-Adamic to Christian times ; and no one will contend that heaven has been disturbed by literal war, resulting in the expulsion of rebel angels since our Lord’s ascension. We are thus helped to an appreciation of the symbolic nature of the Devil and Satan of Rev. 12.
The vision depicts a woman about to give birth to a child. A fiery red dragon prepares to devour it. The child is saved and the woman preserved. Then occurs the war in heaven, resulting in the expulsion of the Devil and Satan, on account of which there rises a song of praise that “the persecutor of the brethren is cast down”.
The exposition1 is that the woman is representative of the Christian Church which in the fourth century had risen to considerable eminence in the State. The child symbolised Constantine, the first Christian emperor. In his day a great conflict broke out in the political heaven for supremacy in the Roman Empire. Constantine was victorious, and in consequence the Paganism of the Empire was dethroned from power. It is this Paganism which is represented by “the old serpent the Devil and Satan” ; the power which had for so long been “adversary” to the truth of God, and had inflicted such dreadful persecutions upon the believers in Christ. Behind paganism was the darkness of the debased human mind, the free play of the fleshly lusts, adverse to all that was good, and slanderous of those that endeavoured to be good. So that the Satan of this vision was an historical party in the State, and not the being of popular belief ; but at the root of it we come to the apostolic “adversary”, “the law of sin which is in the members”.
It would seem, therefore, that the word “devil” ought not to appear in our translation. If we supply the correct terms “false accuser”, and “demon”, and instead of Satan we put “adversary”, and consider these terms in association with the New Testament teaching concerning the source of sin, we shall find no basis for a belief in a personal being who is the embodiment of evil. In his Leviathan Hobbes wrote (1651)”Which significant names, Satan, Devil, Abaddon, set not forth to us any individual person as proper names used to do ; but only an office of quality ; and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles, because they seem to be the proper names of “demons” ; and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles and contrary to that of Moses and Christ”.2
Our study shews an agreement between the teaching of Moses and Christ upon this subject, and consequently the Jewish Chronicle is correct in calling the belief in a personal Devil “an error of Christianity”. By abandoning this error we relieve ourselves of contact with pagan mythology, and are the better enabled to understand the method of God and the mission of Jesus who took our nature “that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death diabolos and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage”.
References
1. Eureka, Dr. Thomas
2. This note, and correspondence with Sir W. M. Ramsay and D.M.M.M. of the Daily Mail, was very kindly supplied by R.O. when requesting a New Testament study, while this article was in preparation. These authorities were asked if diabolos was ever used by Greek writers outside the orbit of the Church as a proper name. D.M.M.M. replied that it cannot be found in Greek literature except where it can be directly traced to Jewish or Christian theology. It is properly an adjective meaning “slanderous”, but it is occasionally used as a noun, meaning an “accuser” (generally false). “Diabolus” in Latin is found only in Christian literature, Sir W. M. Ramsay, who, in his Cities of St. Paul, suggests that Satan “approximate to calling the Imperial System by that name”, was of similar opinion, though inclined to believe that there does exist a personal being, the personification of all evil.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One