« PreviousContinue »
ed, they answer solely the first of these uses, as they come nearer the nature of proper names.
This remark extends to all such words as cherub, seraph, angel, apostle, evangelist, messiah.
2. Alapolos, I observed, is sometimes applied to human beings. But nothing is easier than 10 distinguish this application from the more frequent application to the arch-apostate. One mark of distinction is, that, in this last use of the term, it is never found in the plural. When the plural is used, the context always shows that it is human beings, and not fallen angels, that are spoken of. It occurs in the plural only thrice, and only in Paul's Epistles. I'vvaiκας, says he, ωσαύτως σεμνας, μη διαβόλους, « Even s0 must their wives be grave, not slanderers," i Tim. 3: 11. In scriptural use the word may be either masculine or feminine. Again, speaking of the bad men who would appear in the last times, he says, amongst other things, that they will be άστοργοι, άσπονδοι, διάβολοι, in the coromon translation, - without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers," 2 Tim. 3: 3. Once more, Noxopérdas woatros įv καταστήματι ιεροπρεπείς, μη διαβόλους, «The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers,” Tit. 2: 3. Another criterion whereby the application of this word to the prince of darkness may be discovered, is its being attended with the article. The term almost invariably is o diabodos. I say almost, because there are a few exceptions.
3. It may not be amiss, ere we proceed, to specify the exceptions, that we may discover whether there be any thing in the construction that supplies the place of the article, or at least makes that it may be more easily dispensed with. Paul, addressing himself to Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavored to turn away the proconsul Sergius Paulus from the faith, says, Acts 13: 10, “ O full of all subtilty, thou child of the devil,” vie diapólov. There can be no doubt that the apostle here means the evil spirit, agreeably to the idiom of Scripture, where a good man is called a child of God, and a bad man a child of the devil : “Ye are of your father the devil,” said our Lord to the Pharisees, John 8: 44. As to the example from the Acts, all I can say is, that in an address of this form, where a vocative is immediately followed by the genitive of the word construed with it, the connexion is conceived to be so close as to render the omission of the article more natural than in other cases. This holds especially when, as in the present instance, the address must have been accompanied with some emotion and vehemence in the speaker. I know not whether o avridıxos viuwv diáßolos, “ your adversary the devil,” i Pet. 5: 8, ought to be considered as an example. There being here two appellatives, the article prefixed to the first may be regarded as common, though I own it is more usual, in such cases, for the greater emphasis, to repeat it. In the word os ou didolos xai Garavās, “who is the devil and Satan," Rev.
20:2; as the sole view is to mention the names whereby the malignant spirit is distinguished, we can hardly call this instance an exception. Now these are all the examples I can find, in which the word, though used indefinitely, or without the article, evidently denotes our spiritual and ancient enemy. The examples in which it occurs in this sense, with the article, it were tedious to enumerate.,
4. There is only one place, beside these above-mentioned, where the word is found without the article, and, as it is intended to express a hunjan character, though a very bad one, ought not, I think, to have been rendered devil. The words are, “ Jesus answered, have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? és úuwv diábohós ion; John 6: 70. My reasons for not translating it devil in this place are, first, The word is strictly and originally an appellative, denoting a certain bad quality, and though commonly applied to one particular being, yet naturally applicable to any kind of being susceptible of moral character ; secondly, As the term in its appropriation to the arch-rebel always denotes one individual, the term a devil is not agreeable to Scripture style, insomuch that I am inclined to think, that if our Lord's intention had been to use, by an antonomasia, the distinguishing name of the evil spirit, in order to express more strongly the sameness of character in both, he would have said, o didßolos, one of you is the devil, this being the only way whereby that evil spirit is discriminated. The words ávrídıxos, adversary, naipatwv, tempter, with the article, are also used by way of eminence, though not so frequently, to express the same malignant being ; yet, when either of these occurs without the article, applied to a man as an adversary or a tempter, we do not suppose any allusion to the devil. The case would be different, if one were denominated o neodwv, ó avridexos, the tempter, the adversary.
There is not any epithet (for dáßolos is no more than an epithet) by which the same spirit is oftener distinguished than by that of Ο πονηρός, the evil on Now, when a man is called simply rovnoós, without the article, no more is understood to be implied than that he is a bad man. But if the expression were o rovnoós, unless used to distinguish a bad from a good man of the same name, we should consider it as equivalent to the devil, or the evil one. Even in metaphorical appellations, if a man were denominated, a dragon or a serpent, we should go no further for the import of the metaphor, than to the nature of the animal so called; but if he were termed the dragon, or the old serpent, this would immediately suggest to us, that it was the intention of the speaker to represent the character as the same with that of the seducer of our first parents. The unlearned English reader will object, Where is the impropriety in speaking of a devil? Is any thing more common in the New Testament? How often is there mention of persons possessed with a devil? We hear too of numbers of them. Out of Mary Magdalene went seven ; and out of the furious man who made the sepulchres his residence, a legion. The Greek student needs not be informed, that in none of those places is the term διάβολος, but δαίμων or δαιμόνιον. Nor can any thing be clearer from Scripture than that, though the demons are innumerable, there is but one devil in the universe. Besides, if we must suppose that this word, when applied to human creatures, bears at the same time an allusion to the evil spirit, there is the same reason for rendering it devil in the three passages lately quoted from Paul; for, wherever the indefinite use is proper in the singular, there can be no impropriety in the use of the plural. Both equally suppose that there may be many of the sort. Now it is plain, that those passages would lose greatly by such an alteration. Instead of pointing, according to the manifest scope of the place, to a particular bad quality to be avoided, or a vice whereby certain dangerous persons would be distinguished, it could only serve as a vague expression of what is bad in general, and so would convey little or no instruction.
5. The only plea I know in favor of the common translation of the passage is, that by the help of the trope antonomasia, (for devil in our language has much of the force of a proper name), the expression has more strength and animation than a mere appellative could give it. But that the expression is more animated, is so far from being an argument in its favor, that it is, in my judgment, the contrary. It savors more of the human spirit than of the divine, more of the translator than of the author. We are inclinable to put that expression into an author's mouth, which we should, on such an occasion, have chosen ourselves. When affected with anger or resentment, we always desert the proper terms, for those tropes which will convey our sentiment with most asperity. This is not the manner of our Lord, especially in cases wherein he himself is the direct object of either injury or insult. Apposite thoughts, clothed in the plainest expressions, are much more characteristic of his manner. When there appears severity in what he says, it will be found to arise from the truth and pertinency of the thought, and not from a curious selection of cutting and reproachful words. This would be but ill adapted to the patience, the meekness, and the humility of his character; not to mention, that it would be little of a piece with the account given of the rest of his sufferings.
I know it may be objected, that the rebuke given to Peter, (Matt. 16: 23), “ Get thee behind ine, Satan,” is conceived in terms as harsh, though the provocation was far from being equal. The answer is much the same in regard to both. Satan, though conceived by us as a proper name, was an appellative in the language spoken by our Lord; for, from the Hebrew it passed into the Syriac, and signified no more than adversary or opponent.
naturally just as applicable to human as to spiritual agents, and is, in the Old Testament, often so applied.
6. I acknowledge that the word diáßolos, in the case under examination, is to be understood as used in the same latitude with the Hebrew satan, which, though commonly interpreted by the Seventy diáßolos, is sometimes rendered inteBoūdos, insidiator, and may be here fitly translated into English, either spy or informer. The Scribes and Pharisees, in consequence of their knowledge of the opposition between our Lord's doctrine and theirs, had conceived an envy of him, which settled into malice and hatred, insomuch that they needed no accuser. But though Judas did not properly accuse bis Master to them as a criminal, the purpose which he engaged to the scribes, the chief-priests, and the elders, to execute, was to observe his motions, and inform them when and where he might be apprehended privately without tumult, and to conduct their servants to the place. The term used was therefore pertinent, but rather soft than severe. He calls them barely spy or informer, whom he might have called traitor and perfidious.
7. It is now proper to inquire, secondly, into the use that has been made of the terms δαίμων, and δαιμόνιον. First, as to the word daluov, it occurs only five times in the New Testament, once in each of the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and twice in the Apocalypse. It is remarkable, that in three Gospels it refers to the same possession, to wit, that of the furious man in the country of the Gadarenes, who haunted the sepulchres. There does not, however, seem to be any material difference in this application from that of the diminutive datuóviov, which is also used by Luke in relation to the same demoniac.
8. Aaipoviov occurs frequently in the Gospels, and always in reference to possessions, real or supposed. But the word diáßodos is never so applied. The use of the term diapónov is as constantly indefinite as the term diáßodos is definite. Not but that it is sometimes attended with the article; but that is only when the ordinary rules of composition require that the article be used, even of a term that is strictly indefinite. Thus, when a possession is first named, it is called simply δαιμόνιον, α demon, or πνεύμα ακάθαρτον, αη unclean spirit, never τό δαιμόνιον οι το πνεύμα ακάθαρτον. But when, in the progress of the story, mention is again made of the same demon, he is styled zo datuóvior, the demon, namely, that already spoken of. And in English, as well as Greek, this is the usage with respect to all indefinites. Further, the plural datuóvia occurs frequently, applied to the same order of beings with the singular. But what sets the difference of signification in the clearest light is, that though both words, διάβολος and δαιμόνιον, occur often in the Septuagint, they are invariably used for translating different Hebrew words. Liabolos is always in Hebrew either x tsar, enemy, or 19 satan, adversary, words never translated datuóvior. This word, on the contrary, is made to express some Hebrew term, signifying idol, pagan deity, apparition, or what some render satyr. What the precise idea of the demons, to whom possessions were ascribed, then was, it would perhaps be impossible for us with any certainty to affirm; but as it is evident that the two words diabolos and dauoviov are not once confounded, though the first occurs in the New Testament upwards of thirty times, and the second about sixty, they can, by no just rule of interpretation, be rendered by the same term. Possessions are never attributed to the being termed o draßolos; nor are his authority and dominion ever ascribed to daquóvia: nay, when the discriminating appellations of the devil are occasionally mentioned, datuónov is never given as one.
Thus he is called not only ο διάβολος, but ο πονηρός, ο πειράζων, ο αντίδικος, ο σατανάς, ο δράκων ο μέλας, ο όφις, ο παλαιος, ο άρχων, ιού κόσμου τούτου, ο άρχων της εξουσίας του αέρος, and ο θεός, του αιώνος τούτου, that is, the devil, the evil one, the tempter, the adversary, (this last word answers both to o avtidixos and ó gaiavās, which cannot be translated differently), the great dragon, the old serpent, the prince of this world, the prince of the power of the air, and the god of this world. But there is no such being as το δαιμόνιον, the appellation δαιμόνιον, being common to multitudes, whilst the other is always represented as a singular being, the only one of this kind. Not that the Jewish notion of the devil had any resemblance to what the Persians first, and the Manicheans afterward, called the evil principle, which they made in some sort, co-ordinate with God, and the first source of all evil, as the other is of good. For the devil, in the Jewish system, was a creature, as much as any other being in the universe,
and as liable to be controlled by omnipotence, an attribute which they ascribed to God alone. But still the devil is spoken of as only one; and other beings, however bad, are never confounded with him.
9. I know but two passages of the history that have the appearance of exceptions from this remark. One is that wherein our Lord, when accused of casting out demons by the prince of demons, says in return, “ How can Satan cast out Satan?" Mark 3: 23. There is no doubt that ó gatavās and o diapodos are the same. Here then, say the objectors, the former of these names is applied to daquóvia which seems to show an intercommunity of names. Yet it must be observed, that this term Satan is introduced only in the way of illustration by similitude, as the divisions in kingdoms and families also are. The utmost that can be deduced from such an example is, that they are malignant beings as well as he, engaged in the same bad cause, and perhaps of the number of those called his angels, and made to serve as his instruments. But this is no evidence that he and they are the same.
The other passage is in Luke 13: 11, where we have an account of the cure of a wo