DEVIL
visible
form,
and
as
still
capable
of
inflicting
injury;
hence
the
need
of
protection
against
'the
destroyer'
of
Ex
122'.
In
Greek
thought
there
took
place
a
de-velopment
partly
parallel.
The
word
used
by
Hesiod
for
the
blessed
soul
of
a
hero
becomes
with
Plato
an
abstract
influence
sometimes
beneficent
and
helpful,
but
emerges
in
the
orators
and
tragedians
as
descriptive
of
baleful
genii,
who
bring
misfortune
and
even
revel
in
cruelty.
2,
Later
Judaism.
—
Under
these
various
influences
the
demonology
of
later
Judaism
became
somewhat
elaborate.
The
conception
of
demon
or
devil
was
used
to
embrace
three
species
of
existences.
(1)
It
included
the
national
deities,
conceived
as
fallen,
but
not
always
as
stripped
of
all
power
(Ex
12i2,
Is
19>
24",
cf.
14i2).
(2)
It
covered
such
of
the
angels
as
were
thought
to
have
been
once
attendants
upon
the
true
God,
but
to
have
fallen
(2
P
2<,
Jude
«,
Ethiop.
Enoch
chs.
6.
7).
For
a
variety
of
personal
spirits
were
interposed
between
God
as
mediating
agencies
according
to
Bab.
and
Persian
views,
or,
accordingto
the
strict
Jewish
view,
as
ministers
of
His
will.
(3)
To
these
were
added
—
a
survival
with
modification
of
the
primitive
animism
—
the
spirits
of
the
wicked
dead
(Josephus,
Ant.
vin.
ii.
5,
BJ
vii.
vi.
3),
who
were
supposed
to
haunt
the
tombs,
or
at
least
to
cause
the
men
they
possessed
to
do
so
(Mt
S^').
The
devils
of
later
Judaism
accordingly
are
thought
of
as
invisible
spirits,
to
whom
every
ill,
physical
or
moral,
was
attributed.
Their
relation
to
God
,
was
one
of
gwosi-independence.
At
times
they
do
His
bidding
and
are
the
ministers
of
His
wrath,
but
in
this
sense
are
not
classed
in
Scripture
as
devils;
e.g.,
the
demon
of
pestilence
is
the
destroying
angel
or
even
'
the
angel
of
the
Lord'
(2
S
24«,
2
K
19»,
Is
37»,
Ps
78").
Yet
they
were
thought
to
reside
in
the
lower
world
in
an
organized
kingdom
of
their
own
(Job
18";
cf.
Rev
9",
Ethiop.
Enoch
S4«,
Mt
12*'-");
though
the
kingdom
is
not
entirely
outside
the
sovereign
rule
of
Jehovah,
who
is
the
Lord
of
all
spirits
and
of
the
abyss
in
which
they
dweU
(Enoch
40,
Dt
3222,
job
lis,
pg
1393,
Lk
16«).
3.
In
the
NT.—
In
the
period
of
the
NT
the
belief
in
devils
as
spirits,
evil
and
innumerable,
was
general
amongst
the
nations,
whether
Jewish
or
Gentile;
but
in
Jesus
and
His
disciples
the
cruder
features
of
the
belief,
such
as
the
grotesqueness
of
the
functions
assigned
to
these
spirits
in
the
literature
of
the
second
century,
do
not
appear.
The
writers
of
the
Gospels
were
in
this
respect
not
much
in
advance
of
their
contemporaries,
and
for
Jesus
Himself
no
theory
of
accommodation
to
current
beUefs
can
be
sustained.
The
Fourth
Gospel
is
comparatively
free
from
the
demonic
element.
Posses-sion
is
thrice
alluded
to
(72°
8<°
l(fi')
as
a
suggested
explanation
of
Christ's
work
and
influence;
but
evil
generally
is
traced
back
rather
to
the
activity
of
the
devil
(6'°,
where
'
a
devil
'
is
not
a
demon,
but
the
word
is
used
metaphorically
much
as
'Satan'
in
Mt
162',
Jn
132-
21),
whose
subordinates
fall
into
the
background.
The
Synoptics,
especially
Lk.,
abound
in
references
to
demons,
who
are
conceived,
not
as
evil
influences
resting
upon
or
working
within
a
man,
but
as
personal
spirits
besetting
or
even
possessing
him.
The
demon
was
said
to
enter
into
a
man
(Lk
8'")
or
certain
animals
(Mt
8'2),
and
to
pass
out
(Mt
17",
Lk
11")
or
be
cast
out
(Mt
9").
This
demoniacal
possession
is
referred
to
as
the
cause
of
various
diseases,
the
cases
being
preponderantly
such
as
exhibit
symptoms
of
psychical
disease
in
associ-ation
with
physical
(see
Possession).
St.
Paul
and
the
other
writers
in
the
NT
evidently
shared
the
views
underlying
the
Synoptics.
Possession
so
called
is
a
famiUar
phenomenon
to
them,
as
it
continued
to
be
in
the
early
years
of
the
Church,
though
there
is
a
marked
disposition
towards
the
Johannine
view
of
a
central
source
of
evil.
St.
Paul
speaks
of
doctrines
emanating
from
devils
(1
Ti
4',
where
the
word
should
not
be
taken
metaphorically).
The
devils
of
1
Co
102"
were
demi-gods
or
deposed
idols.
St.
James
recognizes
the
exist-
DEVIL
ence
of
a
number
of
devils
(2"),
whose
independence
^f
God
is
not
complete.
The
Apocalypse
(921
16"
18^)
similarly
speaks
of
a
diverse
and
manifold
activity,
though
again
its
derivation
from
a
common
source
is
frequent.
In
all
these
books
the
conception
of
devils
seems
to
be
giving
way
to
that
of
the
devil
;
the
former
gradually
lose
any
power
of
initiative
or
free
action,
and
become
the
agents
of
a
great
spirit
of
evil
behind
them.
In
the
OT
this
process
has
advanced
so
far
that
the
personal
name
Satan
(wh.
see)
is
used
in
the
later
books
with
some
freedom,
Asmodaeus
occurring
in
the
same
sense
in
To
38-
".
But
in
the
NT
the
process
is
com-plete,
and
in
every
part
the
devil
appears
as
a
personal
and
almost
sovereign
spirit
of
evil,
capable
of
such
actions
as
cannot
be
explained
away
by
the
application
of
any
theory
of
poetic
or
dramatic
personification.
It
is
he
who
tempted
Christ
(Mt
4i«-,
Lk
42«
),
and
in
the
parables
sowed
the
tares
(Mt
13")
or
snatched
up
the
good
seed
(Lk
8'2;
cf.
'the
evil
one'
of
Mt
13")
;
and
for
him
and
his
angels
an
appropriate
destiny
is
prepared
(Mt
25").
According
to
Jn.,
the
devil
prompted
the
treason
of
Judas
(132),
^j^^
j^
vicious
in
his
lusts,
a
liar
and
a
murderer
(8"),
a
sinner
in
both
nature
and
act
(1
Jn
3'-
1").
He
prolongs
the
tribulation
of
the
faithful
who
do
not
yield
to
him
(Rev
2");
after
his
great
fall
(12°)
he
is
goaded
by
defeat
into
more
venomous
activity
(v.12),
but
eventually
meets
his
doom
(20>").
Jude
»
preserves
the
tradition
of
a
personal
encounter
with
Michael;
and
St.
Peter
repre-sents
the
devil
as
prowling
about
in
search
of
prey
(1
P
5'),
the
standing
adversary
of
man,
baffled
by
Jesus
(Ac
10»).
To
St.
James
(4')
the
devil
is
an
antagonist
who
upon
resistance
takes
to
flight.
If
'son
of
the
devil'
(Ac
13'°)
is
metaphorical,
St.
Paul
considers
his
snare
(1
Ti
3',
2
Ti
22°)
and
his
wiles
(Eph
6")
real
enough.
To
give
opportunity
to
the
devil
(Eph
42')
may
lead
to
a
share
in
his
condemnation
(1
Ti
3').
Death
is
his
realm
(He
2",
Wis
22<),
and
not
a
part
of
the
original
Divine
order;
though
not
inflicted
at
his
pleasure,
he
makes
it
subservient
to
his
purposes,
and
in
its
spiritual
sense
it
becomes
the
fate
of
those
who
accept
his
rule.
Such
language,
common
to
all
the
writers,
and
pervading
the
whole
NT,
allows
no
other
conclusion
than
that
the
forces
and
spirits
of
evil
were
conceived
as
gathered
up
into
a
personal
head
and
centre,
whose
authority
they
recognized
and
at
whose
bidding
they
moved.
This
opinion
is
confirmed
by
the
representation
of
the
devil's
relation
to
men
and
to
God,
and
by
many
phrases
in
which
he
is
referred
to
under
other
names.
He
is
the
moral
adversary
of
man
(Mt
13",
Lk
10",
Eph
42',
1
P
5'),
acting,
according
to
the
OT,
with
the
permission
of
God
(cf.
Job
l°-i2),
though
with
an
assiduity
that
shows
the
function
to
be
congenial;
but
in
the
NT
with
a
power
of
origination
that
is
recog-nized,
if
watched
and
restrained.
Hence
he
is
called
the
'tempter'
(Mt
4',
1
Th
3'),
and
the
'accuser'
of
those
who
listen
to
his
solicitation
(Rev
12'").
In
hindering
and
harming
men
he
stands
in
antithesis
to
Christ
(2
Co
6"),
and
hence
is
fittingly
termed
the
evil
and
injurious
one
(Mt
6"
13",
Jn
17»,
Eph
6",
2
Th
3',
1
Jn
2'"-
3'2
5'"-—
but
in
some
of
these
passages
it
is
open
to
contend
that
the
word
is
not
personal).
Bent
upon
maintaining
and
spreading
evil,
he
begins
with
the
seduction
of
Eve
(2
Co
11')
and
the
luring
of
men
to
doom
(Jn
8").
Death
being
thus
brought
by
him
into
the
world
(Ro
5'2,
Wis
22*),
by
the
fear
01"
it
he
keeps
men
in
bondage
(He
2").
He
entices
men
to
sin
(1
Co
7'),
as
he
enticed
Jesus,
though
with
better
success,
places
every
wotul
obstacle
in
the
way
of
their
trust
in
Christ
(2
Co
4'),
and
thus
seeks
to
multiply
'the
sons
of
disobedience'
(Eph
22),
who
may
be
rightly
called
his
children
(1
Jn
3'»).
In
the
final
apostasy
his
methods
are
unchanged,
and
his
hostility
to
every-thing
good
in
man
becomes
embittered
and
insatiable
(2
Th
2";
Rev
20").
