Archived
Post
|
The
New Testament often speaks of "demons." What are
they - and did the early Christians believe in
them?
Let's begin with the definition from Thayer's
Greek Lexicon:
δαιμόνιον
daimonion
1) The divine power,
deity, divinity.
2) A spirit, a being inferior
to God, superior to men.
3)
Evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of
the devil.
Notice that although (1) & (2) are perfectly legitimate,mainstream
Christains have a tendency to view (3) as the primary
definition. That is why, before we approach the
Biblical use of the word daimonion,
we need to appreciate the socio-historical context
of the 1st Century AD.
Those "demons" to which popular Christianity so
frequently refers, were nothing more than false
gods. In the minds of those who believed in them,
"demons" were actually "lesser gods", i.e. supernatural
beings of limited power, around which various religions
had sprung up. Temples and idols were built and
worshipped in honour of these "small gods", but
the Christians were adjured by Paul (and others)
not to worship them because they were false
gods, i.e. non-existent gods.
The word used to describe them is daimonion,
for which the authoritative Liddell-Scott-James
Greek Lexicon
provides the following definition:
daimonion , to, divine Power, Divinity,
Hdt.5.87, E.Ba.894 (lyr.), Isoc.1.13, Pl.R.382e,
etc.; to daimonion ar' ę theos ę theou ergon
Arist. Rh.1398a15 , cf. 1419a9; hoi theoi eisontai
kai to d. D.19.239 ; phobeisthai mę ti d. pragmat'
elaunęi some fatality, Id.9.54; ta tou d. the
favours of forlune, Pl.Epin.992d.
II. inferior divine being, metaxu theou
te kai thnętou Id.Smp.202e ; kaina d. eispherein
X.Mem.1.1.2 , Pl. Ap.24c, cf. Vett. Val.67.5,
etc.; applied to the 'genius' of Socrates,
X.Mem.1.1.2, Pl.Ap.40a, Tht.151a, Euthphr.3b.
2. evil spirit, d. phaula Chrysipp.Stoic.2.338
, cf. LXXDe.32.17, To.3.8, Ev.Matt.7.22, al.,
PMag.Lond.1.46.120 (iv A. D.).
This word appears in the KJV most often as "devils"
- which is highly misleading, because that's
not really what it means. To the 1st Century "man
on the street", daimonion
meant "small god", or "inferior divine being" -
which is is precisely why people worshipped them.
After all, you don't worship something that
is actually antagonistic
to you - you worship something that you believe
is "on your side."
The apostle Paul deals with the subject of small
gods in his epistles to the Corinthians. Thus:
I Corinthians 10:20 & 28.
The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to daimonion, and not to God:
and I would not that ye should have fellowship
with daimonion...if any man say unto you,
This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not
for his sake...
Notice that Paul says they sacrificed “to daimonion
and not to God” - the daimonion
are not God
(or even "other gods"), and as there is only one
God, it follows that daimonion
have no real power at all; they are not real gods,
not even literal entities.
The point is really driven home in I
Corinthians 8:4:
As concerning...those things that are offered
in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol
is nothing in the world, and that there is none
other god but one.
Paul elaborates in verses 5-6:
For though there be that are called gods...(as
there be gods many and lords many,
But, to us there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and we in him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
we by him.
Of course, the Greeks worshipped a pantheon of deities
(they were henotheists) so they didn't have
a problem with the idea that other gods existed.
The scope of their mythology was broad enough to
accommodate the existence of a Father God (Zeus),
a Mother God (Hera), and a vast array of lesser
divinities (Apollo, Hermes, Poseidon, etc.) as well
as the "small gods" such as titans, dryads and hamadryads.
Other small gods were more specific in their designation.
The Greeks believed in the Graces (also known as
the Muses), which gave inspiration to artists, musicians
and men of literature. They also believed in various
"household gods", whose influence was limited to
domestic affairs. Hestia (goddess of the home and
hearth) is just one of many examples I could present.
Daimonions,
in their vocabulary, were just "other small gods",
not the imaginary "devils" or "demons" which the
Medieval Christians later invented. (As we find
in Malleus Maleficarum.)
By this stage your're most likely saying to
yourself "But all he's done here is to equate
demons with his alleged 'small gods', and
I can show that this isn't justifiable!
Demons aren't
'small gods', or even 'other gods',
and nobody ever believed such a thing!"
In anticipation of this possible response, I direct
your attention to Acts
17:18, where we read:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,
and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some
said, What will this babbler say? other some,
He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange
gods: because he preached unto them Jesus,
and the resurrection.
So we see that some of the Greeks thought Paul was
offering them "other gods." But the word used for
"gods" in this verse, is daimonion!
These Greeks actually believed that they were being
presented with "other daimonion."
If we accept the mainstream Christian interpretation
of daimonion,
we are left with the uncomfortable conclusion that
men of Greece believed Paul to be preaching a religion
of demon-worship! But this is not true. The
men of Greece simply believed that Paul was introducing
them to two new Gods.
Not "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit"; not "God the Father and God the Son"; not
even "God the Father and Jesus His Son, who is not
God." They actually believed that Paul was talking
about two new gods.
What were those "new gods"? B. W. Johnson speculates
in his People's New
Testament:
A setter forth of strange gods.
He spoke of God and the risen Jesus. Some have
thought that they mistook Anastasis, the Greek
for resurrection, for the name of a goddess.
A highly plausible suggestion, with which John Wesley's
Commentary
agrees:
He
seemeth to be a proclaimer -
This he returns upon them at Acts 17:23;
of strange gods -
Such as are not known even at Athens.
Because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection
-
A god and a goddess. And as stupid as this mistake
was, it is the less to be wondered at, since the
Athenians might as well count the resurrection
a deity, as shame, famine, and many others.
John Gill also subscribes to the "Jesus/Anastasis"
interpretation:
because he preached unto them Jesus, and
the resurrection:
The Syriac version reads, "and his resurrection";
that is, the resurrection of Christ; the Arabic
version renders it, "the resurrection from the
dead"; the general resurrection; both doubtless
were preached by him, see Acts 17:32. Jesus
they took for one strange and new God, they had
never heard of before, and "Anastasis", or "the
resurrection", for another; which need not be
wondered at, when they had altars erected for
Mercy, Fame, Shame, and Desire; see Gill on Acts
17:16.
Albert Barnes (Notes
on the Bible) concurs:
Of strange gods -
Of foreign gods, or demons. They worshipped many
gods themselves, and as they believed that every
country had its own special divinities, they supposed
that Paul had come to announce the existence of
some such foreign, and to them unknown gods. The
word translated “gods” (δαιμονίων
daimoniōn) denotes properly “the genii,
or spirits who were superior to human beings,
but inferior to the gods.” It is, however, often
employed to denote the gods themselves, and is
evidently so used here. The gods among the
Greeks were such as were supposed to have that
rank by nature. The demons were such as had been
exalted to divinity from being heroes and distinguished
men.
Adam Clarke (Commentary
on the Bible) likewise:
A setter forth of strange gods - Ξενων
δαιμονιων
Of strange or foreign demons. That this was strictly
forbidden, both at Rome and Athens, see on Act_16:21
(note). There was a difference, in the heathen
theology, between θεος, god,
and δαιμων, demon:
the θεοι, were such as were
gods by nature: the δαιμονια,
were men who were deified. This distinction
seems to be in the mind of these philosophers
when they said that the apostles seemed to be
setters forth of strange demons, because they
preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to
be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards
raised to the throne of God. This would appear
to them tantamount with the deification of heroes,
etc., who had been thus honored for their especial
services to mankind.
Horace expresses this in two lines, 2 Epist. i.
5: -
Romulus, et Liber pater, et cum Castore Pollux,
Post ingentia facta, deorum in templa recepti.
“Romulus, father Bacchus, with Castor and Pollux,
for their eminent services, have been received
into the temples of the gods.”
As a Trinitarian, Clarke believes that the apostles
"showed [Jesus] to be a man... raised to the throne
of God." But there is really no justification for
such a view. Nowhere in the book of Acts
do we find the apostles teaching any such thing.
A. T. Robertson (Word
Pictures of the New Testament) agrees
with our previous commentators in principle, but
begs to differ on a significant point:
He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange
gods (zenōn daimoniōn dokei kataggeleus
einai).
This view is put cautiously by dokei (seems).
Kataggeleus does not occur in the old Greek, though
in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (Light
from the Ancient East, p. 99) gives an example
of the word “on a marble stele recording a decree
of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus,”
where it is the herald of the games. Here alone
in the N.T. Daimonion is used in the old Greek
sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad,
not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this
word and kataggeleus are used from the Athenian
standpoint.
[...]
Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection
(hoti ton Iēsoun kai tēn anastasin
euēggelizato).
Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle
indicative of euaggelizō, to “gospelize.”
Apparently these critics considered anastasis
(Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus.
The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract
truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul
on this subject. They will leave him as soon as
he mentions the resurrection (Acts17:32). It is
objected that Luke would not use the word in this
sense here for his readers would not understand
him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension
of this group of philosophers and this interpretation
fits in precisely.
Robertson claims that the use of daimonion
in this chapter is unique. Believing that "daimonion"
is always
a reference to evil, supernatural beings, he therefore
views Luke's use of the word here in Acts
17 as a variation from the use of the
same word elsewhere in the NT (i.e. in reference
to evil spirits.) But this is demonstrably false.
While it is true that daimonion
are always represented in an bad light throughout
the NT, this is not because daimonion
were always believed to be evil, but because God
hates the worship of false Gods. I therefore side
with Gill, Wesley and Robertson, arguing that the
daimonion
here referred to, are "Jesus and Anastasis"
- two "new gods" (or so the Greeks believed.)
Hence the corresponding footnote in the New English
Translation:
The meaning of this phrase is not clear. Literally
it reads “strange deities” (BAGD 169 s.v. daimovnion
1). The note of not being customary is important.
In the ancient world what was new was suspicious.
The plural daimonivwn (daimoniwn, “deities”)
shows the audience grappling with Paul’s teaching
that God was working through Jesus.
We see, then, that it is unjustifiable to read the
word daimonion
as a perfect equivalent to the word "demons" (or
even "evil spirits"), since it actually means "lesser
deities" or "small gods" (whether good or
evil.) Indeed, the modern English word "demons"
has no Biblical counterpart; it is nothing more
than a transliteration of the original Greek word
(daimonion)
with an erroneous theological veneer.
May we say, then, that the 1st Century Christians
believed in daimonion
as literal beings? No, we may not - for daimonion
were lesser deities, and the apostles plainly refuted
the existence of any other God but Yahweh.
The denial of false gods (whether lesser or greater
deities) begins in the Old Testament, and continues
in the New.
Thus:
- Genesis
35:2.
Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all
that were with him, Put away the strange
gods that are among you ,
and be clean, and change your garments:
- Genesis
35:4.
And they gave unto Jacob all the strange
gods which were in their hand
,
and all their earrings which were in their ears;
and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by
Shechem.
Deuteronomy 28:14.
And thou shalt not go aside from any
of the words which I command thee this day,
to the right hand, or to the left, to go
after other gods to serve them.
- Deuteronomy
28:36.
The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which
thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which
neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and
there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and
stone.
- II
Kings 17:29.
Howbeit every nation made
gods of their own, and put them in the houses
of the high places which the Samaritans had
made, every nation in their cities wherein they
dwelt.
- II
Kings 17:31.
And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak,
and the Sepharvites burnt their children in
fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods
of Sepharvaim.
Note that these "other gods" are said to be made
by their own believers. Obviously this refers primarily
to the idols which were constructed in their honour
- but by extension, we know that these "other gods"
were literally
the products of their believers' imaginations!
Thus:
- II
Kings 18:33-34.
Hath any of the gods
of the nations delivered at all his land out
of the hand of the king of Assyria?
Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad?
where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and
Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine
hand?
- II
Kings 19:17.
Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have
destroyed the nations and their lands,
And have cast their gods into the fire: for
they were no gods, but the work of men's
hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed
them.
- I
Chronicles 16:26.
For all the gods of the people are idols:
but the LORD made the heavens.
- Isaiah
44:8-19.
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told
thee from that time, and have declared it? ye
are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside
me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
They that make a graven image are all of them
vanity; and their delectable things shall not
profit; and they are their own witnesses; they
see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven
image that is profitable for nothing?
Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and
the workmen, they are of men: let them all be
gathered together, let them stand up; yet they
shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.
The smith with the tongs both worketh in the
coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh
it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is
hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh
no water, and is faint.
The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh
it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes,
and he marketh it out with the compass, and
maketh it after the figure of a man, according
to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in
the house.
He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress
and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself
among the trees of the forest: he planteth an
ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will
take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth
it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god,
and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image,
and falleth down thereto.
He burneth part thereof in the fire; with
part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth
roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself,
and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
And the residue thereof he maketh a god,
even his graven image: he falleth down unto
it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it,
and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
They have not known nor understood: for he hath
shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their
hearts, that they cannot understand.
And none considereth in his heart, neither is
there knowledge nor understanding to say, I
have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also
I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I
have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall
I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall
I fall down to the stock of a tree?
- Acts
19:26.
Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at
Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this
Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people,
saying that they be no gods, which are made
with hands:
- I
Corinthians 10:19-20.
What say I then? that the idol is any thing,
or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols
is any thing?
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [daimonion],
and not to God: and I would not that ye should
have fellowship with devils.
- Galatians
4:8.
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye
did service unto them which by nature are
no gods.
The apostle Paul denied
the existence of daimonion,
referring to them as "idols" and "them which by
nature are no gods." He had not abandoned his strict
monotheism; he had not abandoned the consistent
teaching of the OT.
Thus we are brought full circle:
I Corinthians 8:4-6.
As concerning therefore the eating of those things
that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know
that an idol is nothing in the world, and that
there is none other God but one.
For though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods
many, and lords many,),
But, to us there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things, and we in him; and one
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
we by him.
Conclusion.
What have we learned about daimonion?
- That
they are not always evil. (Socrates himself
was believed to have been inspired by a benevolent
daimonion.)
- That
they are lesser deities (not "demons", as commonly
understood by popular Christianity.)
- That
they do not actually exist.
- That
the apostle Paul categorically denied their
existence on many occasions.
There is, therefore, no justification for believing
in the "demons" of mainstream Christianity.
Evil
Spirits - their Definition and Alleged Existence
Mainstream Christianity has a tendency to treat
daimonion as equivalent to the "evil spirits"
and "devils" which (in Jesus' day) were believed
to be responsible for various ailments (whether
mental or physical.) The popular conclusion is
that these all fall into the category of "demons"
(evil supernatural beings.) But as we have already
seen, this view is quite unBiblical. It is one
thing to speak of daimonion (lesser deities),
and quite another to speak of ponēros
pneuma (evil spirits), which are another subject
entirely. The two should not be equated.
Let's examine the Biblical evidence for "evil
spirits."
- Luke
7:21.
And in that same hour he cured many of their
infirmities and plagues, and of evil
spirits ;
and unto many that were blind he gave sight
- Luke
8:2.
And certain women, which had been healed of
evil spirits
and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out
of whom went seven devils
- Acts
19:12.
So that from his body were brought unto the
sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases
departed from them, and the evil spirits
went out of them.
- Acts
19:13, 15-16.
Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists,
took upon them to call over them which had evil
spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying,
We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
And the evil spirit answered and said,
Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was
leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed
against them, so that they fled out of that
house naked and wounded.
The words highlighted in red are ponēros
pneuma ("evil spirit(s)") - and in every case,
theseponēros pneuma are blamed for
the illnesses which have come upon their "hosts."
The New Testament is consistent in always
referring to these "spirits" as evil. By contrast,
while daimonion certainly come in for their
own fair share of criticism, they are not equated
with ponēros pneuma, and they were
not always believed to be evil.
Notice, however, that Mary Magdalene is said to
have been possessed by a daimonion (here
translated "devil.") The word appears 60 times
in the NT, and is translated by the KJV as "devil"
or "devils" in every occurrance but one (Acts
17:18, as previously observed.) While it is
true that daimonion were certainly believed
to be capable of possessing and influencing an
individual (just as ponēros pneuma
were), they were considered to be a different
class of being altogether. In the time of Jesus,
daimonion were seen as lesser deities -
not "spirits", as we understand the term today.
Their influence was commonly believed to be negative,
even though the daimonion themselves were
frequently regarded as either neutral or benevolent.
Unlike daimonion, the existence of ponēros
pneuma is never actually denied by any of
the 1st Century Christians. Paul consistently
denounces the worship of daimonion, and
insists that they are nothing but idols or "false
gods" - yet he never refers to ponēros
pneuma in this way. For this reason, I conclude
that the Christians of Jesus' day did indeed
believe in ponēros pneuma - not in
any theological sense (for evil spirits play no
part in the theology of Paul or any other 1st
Century Christian) - but in what we, as modern
Christians, would call a "scientific" or "medical"
sense. In other words, ponēros pneuma
were believed to exist as the cause of illness
(whether mental or physical.)
Today, we know that these conditions are the result
of physical and chemical disturbances in the body
- and so a belief in ponēros pneuma
is no longer justifiable for a Christian.
Ephesians
6:12 - a Reference to the Evil Spirit Realm?
One argument for the literal existence of daimonion
and ponēros pneuma comes from a combined
reference to I Corinthians 10:20 & Ephesians
6:12.
Let's examine this argument as it appears
in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures of the
New Testament:
...To demons, and not to God (daimoniois
kai ou theoi).
Referring to LXX text of Deut. 32:17. It is probable
that by ou theoi Paul means ‘to a no-god’ as also
in Deut. 32:21 ep’ ouk ethnei (by a no people).
This is Paul’s reply to the heathen who claimed
that they worshipped the gods represented by the
images and not the mere wood or stone or metal
idols. The word daimonia
is an adjective daimonios from daimon, an inferior
deity, and with the same idea originally, once
in this sense in the N.T. (Acts 17:18).
Elsewhere in N.T. it has the notion of evil spirits
as here, those spiritual forces of wickedness
(Eph. 6:12) that are under control of Satan.
Notice that Robertson has not presented any evidence
which might prove that the "spiritual forces of
wickedness" (so-called) of Ephesians
6:12, are "evil spirits" (let alone daimonion.)
If Paul had believed them to be evil spirits, he
would have said so.
Remember also, that "evil spirits" in the NT, are
never called daimonion.
They're described as πονηρός
πνευμα (ponēros
pneuma; "evil spirit") as in Acts
19:16, or ακάθαρτος
πνευμα (akathartos
pneuma; "unclean spirit") as in Matthew
12:25.
As for the "spiritual forces of wickedness" in Ephesians
6:12 - well, this is a peculiar way to
argue for the literal existence of daimonion, because
Robertson has completely ignored both the context
and the language.
Let's take a closer look:
Ephesians 6:12.
For we wrestle, not against flesh and blood, but
against principalities,746 against powers,1849
against the rulers2888 of the darkness4655 of
this world,165 against spiritual4152 wickedness4189
in high2032 places.
The word "places" is not in the original Greek,
which is why it has been italicised in the KJV.
"Heavens" or "heavenlies" is a legitimate translation,
although I would prefer "on high." (But I won't
be dogmatic, since this isn't an essential part
of my argument.)
Now let's examine the highlighted Strong's
numbers.
From Thayer's Greek
Lexicon:
746
αρχή
archē
1) Beginning, origin.
2) The person or thing that commences,
the first person or thing in a series, the leader.
3) That by which anything begins to be,
the origin, the active cause.
4) The extremity of a thing.
4a) of the corners of a sail.
5) The first place, principality, rule,
magistracy.
5a) Of angels and demons.
We can ignore 5a) since, this is merely Thayer's
opinion concerning the application
of this word - it is not the actual definition
of the word itself. The most important thing to
notice about this definition, is that it has nothing
to do with "demons", devils, or "evil spirits."
Next, the "powers" of Ephesians
6:12:
1849
εξουσία
exousia
1) power of choice, liberty of doing as
one pleases.
1a) leave or permission.
2) Physical and mental power.
2a) The ability or strength with which one is
endued, which he either possesses or exercises.
3) The power of authority (influence) and
of right (privilege.)
4) The power of rule or government (the
power of him whose will and commands must be submitted
to by others and obeyed.)
4a) Universally.
4a1) Authority over mankind.
4b) Specifically.
4b1) The power of judicial decisions.
4b2) Of authority to manage domestic affairs.
4c) Metonymically.
4c1) A thing subject to authority or rule.
4c1a) Jurisdiction.
4c2) One who possesses authority.
4c2a) A ruler, a human magistrate.
4c2b) The leading and more powerful among created
beings superior to man, spiritual potentates.
4d) A sign of the husband’s authority over his
wife.
4d1) The veil with which propriety required a
women to cover herself.
4e) The sign of regal authority, a crown.
Once again, "demons", devils, and "evil spirits"
are notable by absence. All we have here, is a particular
authority. (The same word occurs in the Gospel of
John, where Jesus says that he has authority (exousia)
to take his life up again. It refers to privilege
and jurisdiction.
Thus:
Romans 13:1.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.1849
For there is no power1849 but of God: the powers1849
that be are ordained of God.
In every case, the word which has been translated
here as "power" and powers", is exousia.
Hence:
- Luke
12:11 – magistrates and powers [exousia.]
- Colossians
1:16 – principalities, or powers exousia.]
- Colossians
2:15 – having spoiled principalities and
powers [exousia.]
Who are the "rulers" of Ephesians
6:12?
2888
κοσμοκράτωρ
kosmokratōr
1) Lord of the world, prince of this age.
1a) The devil and his demons.
1a) is nothing more than another useless opinion
from Dr Thayer, but 1) is perfectly legitimate.
"Prince of the age" is a fine translation, and it
does not leave is with any need to insert an arbitrary
"demon", devil, or "evil spirit." The "Prince of
the age" during Paul's time was Nero, who is
elsewhere referred to as a "roaring lion" by the
apostle Peter. (See here.)
Ephesians 6:12
also refers to "darkness." What is that "darkness"?
4655
σκότος
skotos
1) Darkness.
1a) Of night darkness.
1b) Of darkened eyesight or blindness.
2) Metaphorically.
2a) Of ignorance respecting divine things and
human duties, and the accompanying ungodliness
and immorality, together with their consequent
misery in hell.
2b) Persons in whom darkness becomes visible and
holds sway.
The context of Ephesians
6:12 clearly refers to to spiritual
darkness. (See also Matthew
6:23.) Notice that it does not require
the existence of "demons", devils, or "evil spirits",
nor does it imply any such thing.
But what of the "world"?
165
αιών
aiōn
1) For ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity
of time, eternity.
2) The worlds, universe.
3) Period of time, age.
The precise definition is context-dependent, of
course - but aiōn
is obviously intended to be taken as "age" in Ephesians
6:12.
As for the "spirits"...
4152
πνευματικός
pneumatikos
1) Relating to the human spirit, or rational
soul, as part of the man which is akin to God
and serves as his instrument or organ.
1a) that which possesses the nature of the rational
soul.
2) Belonging to a spirit, or a being higher
than man but inferior to God.
3) Belonging to the Divine Spirit.
3a) Of God the Holy Spirit.
3b) One who is filled with and governed by the
Spirit of God.
4) Pertaining to the wind or breath; windy,
exposed to the wind, blowing.
Here we have the adjectival form of pneuma.
Definition 2) is of interest to us here, since that
is concistent with the mainstream Christian interpretation
of Ephesians 6:12
- but but the context demands otherwise. The word
here means "spiritual",
not "spirits." In fact, it is consistently used
in this sense throughout the Pauline corpus. (See
Romans 1, 11, & 15
especially.) Standard commentaries repeatedly assert
that the reference is to "hosts of wickedness" (i.e.
a multitude of evil spirits), but there is no textual
justification for such a view.
For example, the footnotes in the New English Translation
concedes...
BAGD [Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English
Lexicon] 445 s.v. kosmokravtwr suggests
“the rulers of this sinful world” as a gloss.
...but immediately follows this concession with:
The phrase world-rulers of this darkness does
not refer to human rulers but the evil spirits
that rule over the world. The phrase thus stands
in apposition to what follows (the spiritual forces
of evil in the heavens); see note on heavens at
the end of this verse.
And yet, there is nothing to suggest that these
"rulers" are spiritual beings themselves. (Indeed,
if they are,
why does Paul not refer to them as ponēros
pneuma - or at the very least, daimonion?)
Thus it makes sense to accept "the rulers of this
sinful world" (suggested by BAGD) as the most reasonable
gloss.
Having established the context, we are now in a
position to define the "wickedness":
4189
πονηρία
ponēria
1) Depravity, iniquity, wickedness.
2) Malice.
3) Evil purposes and desires.
Again, there is nothing here which requires "demons",
"devils", or "evil spirits." (Men and women are
perfectly capable of being wicked without any supernatural
assistance!)
Finally, the "high places":
2032
επουράνιος
epouranios
1) Existing in heaven.
1a) Things that take place in heaven.
1b) The heavenly regions.
1b1) Heaven itself, the abode of God and angels.
1b2) The lower heavens, of the stars.
1b3) The heavens, of the clouds.
1c) The heavenly temple or sanctuary.
2) Of heavenly origin or nature.
Spiritual wickedness (whether supernatural or
otherwise) could hardly be said to reside in heaven
(the dwelling place of God.) So we must infer
from this that non-literal "heavens" are meant;
political powers - as the use of exousia has already
suggested, and the context itself now demands.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, what have we seen? We have
seen that the magistrates and rulers of pagan
Rome are antagonistic to the Christian community,
and for this reason Paul urged his brethren and
sisters to fight against them with spiritual weapons
(the Word of God), being clothed with spiritual
armour (truth, righteousness, the gospel message,
faith, and the promise of salvation.
These are metaphorical weapons for a metaphorical
warfare - not physical weapons for a physical
warfare, or supernatural weapons for a supernatural
warfare.
For
answers to the various questions raised on this
thread, click here.
|
