IN THE WORDS OF JESUS–Part 153

YES, HE is Talking to YOU! (continued)

Love is the Fulfilling of the Law

We have gone a bit astray from our studies on the sayings and the parables of Jesus and have been down a road that started first with the sayings of a preacher that I heard online and then given more fuel with our last parable, the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. This brought us to the idea of deception and how it is that we can know that what we are believing that we  hear from God, or from our Souls, is in fact from that source. We spent two full posts on this theme and there is much importance in it for all of us regardless of our position on the Path. All too often people will believe a thing because of the person who told it to them and this is true in nearly every life endeavor but particularly in religion where, because there is so much uncertainty, people tend to trust the pastor or the priest or the minister implicitly. It is interesting to note that the same pastor that began us on this journey about deception with his comments regarding prosperity also gave me another lesson. A lesson which is an important idea for me as it helps to take away the thought, as we reference above, that a preacher or an authority must be right just because of who he is. He said that (and I paraphrase)  ‘if you don’t see it, you don’t see it; I don’t care who tells you, I don’t care if millions believe it; if you don’t see it, you don’t see it.” This is a valuable lesson for us all.There are times when what we see or hear just seems wrong and other times when we just do not understand the idea because of its presentation or because we are just not yet ready to hear it; it may be best at these times to just let it go and perhaps pick it up again at another time.

I do not often speak of myself or my personal experience but I thought to share this with you all. We recently discussed the Parable of the Friend at Midnight and gave an interpretation of it that may not be in the mainstream of thought but this interpretation worked out in this experience. A friend came to me to ask a favor, something that I had done before but which is burdensome. I responded rather negatively saying can you try this first as this is much easier and she made excuse as to why not. As I arrived at her location I found that she had taken my advice and tried to do what would be easier for me but it did not work out. Seeing no other way I went about to prepare and to do as she asked me to do; as I was doing so, she told me of how hard it was to come to me for help. I did the task and as I was going back to my house I realized what had just happened in relation to this parable. Her importunity allowed her to ask me because I am a friend and she had a need. Though I hesitated I did do as she asked and not because of friendship but because I was asked to do this thing and she was in need. And, here it is as the Master said, “And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened” (Luke 11:9-10). 

Today let us look at something that follows in the Gospel of Luke. The Master has healed a man of a demonic spirit and the people are in awe wondering. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, sees that some of them are thinking that Jesus can do this, cast out demonic spirits, because He is the chief of them. This story is found in all three of the synoptic gospels and in varying lengths. We will address it from the view of Luke and add in ideas from the others as required. We will call this the Parable of the Unclean Spirit because our emphasis will be on that ending part which is of import to us today. It goes thus:

“And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven. But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first” (Luke 11:14-26).

In this passage we find reference to to devils, Beelzebub, Satan and unclean spirits and these are all terms that evoke much mystery and confusion. These are words that Jesus speaks here and these are words that must be reckoned with in the reality of the spiritual nature of man and not just in the nonchalant manner of speaking about them by people who have no real understanding. That the Master uttered them requires that there be some meaning to them, for the people at the time and to us, and that it is more meaning than we see in the books and the movies regarding them. At the time we can say that the people in Jesus’ time were, as in the Old Testament, a superstitious people; they were rather primitive by our standards; they believed in a great many things and named as ‘gods’ the powers of God as to give themselves some modicum of understanding. We, as a modern society, have largely outgrown these superstitions though there are many around the world for whom this type of thinking is still a reality. Let us look at the words that we have here:

• Devil (demon) is translated from the Greek word daimonion of which the lexicon tells us that it is the divine power, deity, divinity; a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men; evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil². This is rather meaningless to the thinking man who realizes that in his essential nature he himself is a Spirit who is inferior to God and superior to his own appearance as the carnal man. Strong’s tells us simply that daimonion is a demon, [pagan god]³ telling us not much more than the translated word devil. Now Vincent gives us some help here, not in understanding what is meant by the word, but in understanding what it should represent telling us that the word, as devil, is mistranslated and it should have been rendered demon. He says that the actual Greek word to be translated as devil is diablos which word means calumniator, slanderer. It is sometimes applied to men, as to Judas (John vi, 70)…..In such cases never with the article. The Devil, Satan, the god of this world, is always with the article and never plural. Vincent goes on to say that this should be distinguished from another word, also wrongly rendered devil in the A.V. —daimon, and its more common neuter form daimonion, both of which should be translated demon meaning the unclean spirits which possessed men and were cast out by Christ and his apostles⁴. This sheds a bit of light upon the use of the words devil and demon leaving demon, of which the Master speaks in these verses we are addressing from Luke, as the entity of which man may be possessed. Vine’s gives some help in understanding; first by assigning the proper translation of daimon as demon and then by explaining a bit about it saying that it means “a demon,” signified, among pagan Greeks, an inferior deity, whether good or bad. In the NT it denotes “an evil spirit.” After explaining some about the word functions of the related words and telling of the mistranslated uses Vine’s tells us that in Acts 17:18, it denotes an inferior pagan deity. “Demon” are the spiritual agents acting in all idolatry. The idol itself is nothing, but every idol has a “demon” associated with it who induces idolatry, with its worship and sacrifices……They disseminate errors among men and seek to seduce believers, 1 Tim. 4:1. As seducing spirits they deceive men in the supposition that through mediums (those who have “familiar spirits”, Lev 20:6, 27, e.g.) they can converse with deceased human beings. Hence the destructive deception of spiritism, forbidden in Scripture⁶. Vines does show us how this word is used in the New Testament but does so according to his own unique belief system. Lastly we will look at Webster’s for a more worldly look; this is the definition of demon from the 1828 edition: A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a middle place between men and the celestial deities of the Pagans. The ancients believed that there were good and evil demons, which had influence over the minds of men, and that these beings carried on an intercourse between men and gods, conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and divine benefits to men. Hence demons became the objects of worship. It was supposed also that human spirits, after their departure from the body, became demons, and that the souls of virtuous men, if highly purified, were exalted from demons into gods. The demons of the New Testament were supposed to be spiritual beings which vexed and tormented men. And in general , the word, in modern use, signifies an evil spirit or genius, which influences the conduct or directs the fortunes of mankind¹.
• Beezlzebub is translated from the Greek word beelzeboul. Of this the lexicon says simply that it is a name of Satan, the prince of evil spirits². Strong’s relates it to the Old Testament saying that it represents the “lord [baal] of the flies”³ showing us further that Jesus talked to the people in the language that they understood using their word in response to them. Vincent has this a little differently saying that there is a coarse witticism in the application of the word to Christ. Jesus calls himself “the Master of the house,” and the Jews apply to him the corresponding title of the Devil, Heb., Beelzebul, Master of the dwelling⁴. The idea is good but the use of this term by the Master is in other places and not seemingly related; where it used preceding this exchange, Jesus is saying the words, the Master of the house, to His disciples alone. However, knowing the problems with the chronology of the gospels this may be a moot point. The idea of the house is carried forward to the next verse and then to the idea of the palace. Beezlzebub is not addressed by Vine’s and so this is what we have three similar in nature but different in meaning ideas about the word.
• Satan is translated from the Greek word satanas and according to the lexicon this means: adversary (one who opposes another in purpose or act), the name given to, the prince of evil spirits, the inveterate adversary of God and Christ, he incites apostasy from God and to sin, circumventing men by his wiles, the worshipers of idols are said to be under his control, by his demons he is able to take possession of men and inflict them with diseases, by God’s assistance he is overcome, on Christ’s return from heaven he will be bound with chains for a thousand years, but when the thousand years are finished he will walk the earth in yet greater power, but shortly after will be given over to eternal punishment; a Satan-like man². This is the classic Christian sense of the word and, except for the opening statement regarding the adversary, is steeped in superstition, myth and legend. Strong’s, without the use of the theological jargon simply says that Satan is a “hostile opponent”³. Vincent tells us of this word that it is a transcription of the Hebrew word, derived from the verb to lie in wait or oppose. Hence an adversary. In this sense it is used of David, 1 Sam. xxix. 4, and of the angel who met balaam, Num. xxii. 22⁴.  Although Vincent also ascribes the word to a being, in the explanation he gives here, we get the sense of adversary in that it is used in a non-Satanic way in the Old Testament as well. Lastly, we have Vine’s who gives us a lengthy explanation from which we will leave out most scripture references. He says this satanas is a Greek form of the Aramaic (heb., Satan), “an adversary,” is used (a) of an angel of Jehovah; (b) of men; (c) of “Satan,” the devil, some seventeen or eighteen times in the OT; in Zech. 3:1, where the name receives its interpretation, ” to be (his) adversary,”⁶. This again shows us the crossover use of the term especially the use of adversary to translate satan as an angel of the Lord. Vine’s goes on to say that: in the NT the word is always used of “Satan,” the adversary (a) of God and Christ; (b) of His people; (c) of mankind. His doom, sealed at the Cross, is foretold in its stages in Luke 10:18; Rev. 20:2, 10. Believers are assured of victory over him, Rom. 16:20. The appellation was given by the Lord to Peter, as a “Satan-like” man on the occasion when he endeavored to dissuade Him from death⁶. Here Vine’s is relating his perceived usage of the word in scripture; we should note that in a literal sense the Master does call Peter Satan; Vine’s allusion to Satan-like is his opinion and preference. He goes on to say that “Satan” is not simply the personification of the evil influences in the heart, for he tempted Christ, in whose heart no evil thought could ever have arisen; moreover, his personality is asserted on booth the OT and the NT and especially in the latter, whereas if the OT language was intended to be figurative, the NT would have made this evident⁶. This is all of course theology and the Christian thinking about the being we call Satan and fails to address or understand the humanity of Jesus the Christ.
• Devil; because the word  the daimonion is mistranslated as devil in the verses that we are discussing and because the definitions of Satan refer us frequently to the Devil, we should look at this word as well so that we can get a right understanding of the uses and the theology. The word diabolos is properly translated as devil and we have already seen what Vincent has to say about this in our first heading. Diabolos is defined by the lexicon as prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely; a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer, metaph. applied to a man who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil or to side with him². Some of this agrees with Vincent’s comments. Strong’s says of diabolos that it means devilish, malicious, slanderous; as a noun, the devil, Satan, or a wicked person like the devil³ and from Vine’s we get this: “an accuser, a slanderer” (from diaballo, “to accuse, to malign”), is one of the names of Satan. From it the English word “devil” is derived, and should be applied only to Satan as a proper name. Explaining the difference between diabolos and daimon which is rightly demon, Vine’s says that there is one “Devil,” there are many demons. Being the malignant enemy of God and man, he accuses man to God and God to Man⁶. Again, Vine’s presents the theological version. For an English representation we go again to Webster’s 1828 edition which says that: In the Christian theology, an evil spirit or being; a fallen angel, expelled from heaven for rebellion against God; the chief of the apostate angels; the implacable enemy and tempter of the human race. In the New Testament, the word is frequently and erroneously used for demon¹. Here again is the Christian idea albeit presented but in more normal terms.

We have gone long with definitions and a look a the theology using these words and will pick this up again in the next post; we still need to understand the idea of unclean spirit which literally matches none of the above and then to address a better understanding of these verses and this parable.

Note on the Quote of the Day