So far we see through the scriptures that Israel sacrificed to devils (demons), to images of men, to carved images, to gods and to idols. It might say it differently, but it is all one and the same thing. What did God say about the gods of other nations? What did He say they were?
Ps 96:5 – For all the gods (elohiym – theos) of the nations are idols (eliyl – worthless, good for nothing – daimonion).
I Ch 16:26 – For all the gods (elohiym – theos) of the people are idols (eliyl – eidolon): but the LORD made the heavens.
Same word used in:
Job 13:4 – But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value (eliyl).
Jer 14:14 – Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought (eliyl), and the deceit of their heart.
What did God say idols were?
Ps 115:4 – Their idols (atsab – eidolon – image) are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
5 – They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:
6 – They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:
7 – They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.
8 – They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.
Ps 135:15 – The idols (atsab – eidolon) of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
16 – They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;
17 – They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.
18 – They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.
These 2 passages of scripture are saying the same thing that Rev 9:20 said earlier in this study. Look at what Paul calls these idols:
I Co 10:18 – Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they (the priests) which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 – What say I then? that the idol (eidolon) is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols (eidolothuton) is anything? The next verse is the answer he gives to Israel in the flesh regarding idols:
20 – But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice (offer in sacrifice) to devils (daimonion – to idols), and not to God.
Paul said that idols are devils/demons and vice versa. Gods are idols and idols are devils/demons. They are interchangeable.
I Co 8:4 – As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols (eidolothuton – devils), we know that an idol (eidolon – demon/devil) is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one (so there is no such thing as a daemon/god, they are nothing in this world).
As I said before in this study, demons (devils) were interchangeable with gods. Devils is the word daimonion, which is also used for the word gods:
Acts 17:18 – Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him (they encountered Paul). And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods (daimonion – same word for devil – demons): because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
Girdlestone’s Synonyms of the OT by Robert Baker Girdlestone says, the passage in the Acts 17 now referred to is of such exceeding importance with reference to the subject under discussion that it may well receive some further notice. When St. Paul reached Athens he found that it was wholly given to idolatry (kateidolon), an expression which falls in all too well with the Roman satirist’s remark that it was easier to find a god than a man in that city. Accordingly the apostle held constant discussions (dielegeto), not only with the Jews and proselytes whom he found in the Synagogue,’ but also with anybody whom he could meet with in the Agora. Here certain of the Epicureans, who were Atheists, and of the Stoics, who were Pantheists, fell in with him from day to day and while some spoke of him with utter scorn—his Gospel being foolishness to them—others came to the conclusion that he was setting forth certain demons (Authorised Version, gods) which were foreign to their city. By demons these philosophers meant very much the same as the Mahommedans mean by their genii; their ideas about them would be very vague. Sometimes they seem to have been regarded as the souls of the departed, sometimes as guardian angels, sometimes as evil influences, sometimes as what we call demigods. No distinction can be drawn between daimon and daimonion; both were applied to the deity, to fortune, to the souls of the departed, and to genii or demi-gods, beings part mortal part divine (like Hercules, he was half man and half god, he was a god-man) as Plato calls them.
Some people will dare to argue and contend about this topic out of pure ignorance, but the fact of the matter is and remains, that demons are man’s imagination and that they do not exist, they are neuter in gender, whether people like it or not. It takes away man’s responsibility and accountability. Every time something bad (by their definition of bad) happens people say, “that’s a demon” or “the devil made me do it”. This is their excuse, it is called foolishness. They don’t want to be responsible for their actions and sins, so they pass the blame to something else, and this is what the churches are teaching the whole world as a doctrine taught in the bible. Even the world believes in demons, they even make movies about their belief of demons’ existence. If they believe in demons, then they also believe in fairies and in genies. If they believe in demons and it is supposed to be a spiritual being, then why don’t they believe in God? He is a spiritual being also. The world is not supposed to believe in spiritual things. The natural man (the physical man of the world) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto them: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (I Co 2:14). Demons is not spiritual and it is of worldly origin. If demons were spiritual and true, then the world wouldn’t believe in them, right? Because they want nothing to do with the bible nor anything pertaining to it. The popular belief and opinion of demons started this whole mess of believing a lie. The more people believe that demons exist, the less responsibility man takes upon himself for his own actions and sins. This is what it’s all about. Demons is not in the bible, it was made up by man whether we want to believe it or not. You know what will stop a person from believing the truth about demons? Their denominational statement of faith, their dogmas, their doctrines, their traditions, which they use and teach as true doctrine. Let’s go on with the study: Israel made priests for devils/demons in the high places:
II Ch 11:15 – And he (Jereboam) ordained him priests for the high places (where they sacrificed to other gods), and for the devils (saiyr – eidolon – idols and demons), and for the calves which he had made.
The bible says that Jereboam the King of Northern Israel (King of the 10 tribes) made the following in order:
(#1) high places,
(#2) devils/demons, and
(#3) calves.
If demons are true, then why is it said that it is man made? The bible does not say that he made an image of a devil (demon), but that “he made devils (demons)”. The more information that is brought out in this study through scripture, the more the people will be stuck in their own ways of thinking, instead of believing what the bible says in its original language. People don’t really pay attention to what the bible says, they only pay attention to what is being said behind the pulpit, they honestly don’t care and they like to have it so.
Jer 5:31 – The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
It is easier for the world to believe in a lie (demons) than to believe what the Word of God says. What did the Pharisees call Jesus? Didn’t they call him “Beelzebub” the chief/prince of the devils/demons?
Mt 12:24 – But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural), but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural).
Mk 3:22 – And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural) casteth he out devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural).
Lk 11:15 – But some of them said, He casteth out devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural) through Beelzebub the chief of the devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural).
Did you know that Beelzebub is in the OT as well? Let’s go look at it:
II K 1:2 – And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice (window) in his upper chamber that was in Samaria (Northern Israel), and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baalzebub the god (elohiym – lord of the flies, or lord of dung – the dung god) of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.
CBL says, “Beelzeboul was a name Jews gave to the prince of devils (Mt 12:24, Mk 3:22, Lk 11:15), that is, Satan. The word itself has several interesting features. Beelzeboul is pronounced almost as a four syllable compound word (the first half has a vowel glide from long to short “e”): Bē-ĕl + ze-boul. The first half of the word comes from the Canaanite deity Baal, meaning lord, or master. Beelzebub was the name of a pagan god worshiped in Ekron (II K 1:2-3, 6, 16). When Ahaziah, king of Israel, severely injured himself in a fall, he tried to consult this deity to see whether he would live. Zebub, the Hebrew word for fly, is translated in the Septuagint which then reads Baal muian in the four verses of I K 2. Lord of the fly, or Fly-god, might refer to the shape of the idol, to the god’s oracles supposedly given by the flight pattern or buzzing of flies, to the swarming of flies around sacrifices offered to him, or to a god that protected from flies and diseases associated with them (for example, the Greek god Zeus Apomyios, Fly-Averting Zeus), or to the Roman god Myagros”. A Commentary on the NT from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot says, among the Jews it was held, in a manner, for a matter of religion, to reproach idols, and to give them odious names. Rabbi Akibah saith, Idolatry pollutes, as a menstruous woman pollutes: as it is said, Thou shalt cast away the [idol] as something that is menstruous, and thou shalt say to it, Get thee hence (Isa 30:22). Rabbi Lazar saith, Thou shalt say to it, Get thee hence: that which they call the face of God, let them call the face of a dog: that which they call the fountain of a cup, let them call the fountain of toil [or of flails]: that which they call fortune, let them call a stink. That town which sometimes was called Beth-el, was afterward called Beth-aven. All jeering is forbidden, except the jeering of idolatry. This also is repeated in the tract Megillah: where this is added, “It is lawful for a Jew to say to a Cuthite, Take your idol, and put it under your buttocks. Among the ignominious names bestowed upon idols, the general and common one was Zebul, dung, or a dunghill. Even to them who have stretched out their hands in a dunghill [that is, in an idol-temple, or in idolatry], there is hope. Thou canst not bring them [into the church], because they have stretched forth their hands in a dunghill: but yet you cannot reject them, because they have repented. And a little after, He that sees them ‘dunging’[that is, ‘sacrificing’] to an idol, let him say, Cursed be he that sacrifices to a strange god.
What was Baalzebub again? Didn’t the bible say that he is a god? What is a god as per scripture? Didn’t the bible say it was an idol? Beelzebub and Baalzebub are one and the same. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Beelzebub in this text is masculine gender, defined by the Pharisees though. Like I mentioned before, please pay close attention to the genders and who is speaking when they mention genders. Just how important is that? This is how you will know who is telling the truth and who is in error. If this masculine god (Beelzebub) is the leader of devils (demons – neuter gender) and if the bible says that gods are idols, then Beelzebub, the god, which is an idol, is the prince of devils (demons), right? If he’s a deity, then what does that make the devils (demons)? If Beelzebub is real then he would lead real beings, right? Isn’t this confusing? How can he or they be real when the bible refutes it? Demons don’t exist, period. People will say, “Well what happened when he cast out those demons/devils from a man that was possessed of demons/devils”? Let’s go there and see what took place. But before we go there let us view these two scriptures:
Dan 2:11 – And it is a rare thing that the king (Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon) requireth, and there is none other that can shew it (his dream) before the king, except the gods (elahh – deities – it is a derivative of elohiym, theos), whose dwelling is not with flesh.
Scripture says that gods, idols, demons and devils are not in man for them to possess man nor dwell in them. Uh oh. Pulpit Commentary says, the Septuagint rendering differs somewhat, though slightly, from the Masoretic text: And there is no one who will show these things to the king, unless some angel, whose dwelling is not at all with flesh. The omission of ‘ochoran, other, gives some slight confirmation of the suggestion that epidoxos, strange or peculiar, represents it. It is very characteristic of the time when the Septuagint translation was made, and of the opinions then current, that the, word ‘elahh, gods, should be rendered aggelos, angels. By this time there was an avoidance of the use of the Divine name, and anything that suggested it; further, there was an avoidance of the names of heathen deities.
Ezk 14:7 – For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
Idols is the word gilluwl. CBL says, of the main words for idol, this term always occurs in the plural form. The basic meaning of this word is logs, blocks or shapeless things. It is used to mock the pagan gods, and it always views idols as contemptuous things (I K 15:12, Dt 29:17, Ezk 6:4). Idols are always an abomination, and they pollute the people and the land. The word is often used by Ezekiel parallel to the noun tamfi, to be unclean, to defile oneself, thus strengthening the etymological argument to associate the noun with dung. The prime indictment of Judah communicated by Ezekiel was idolatry. Idolatry was a serious offense for the individual, as Yahweh promises those who fall down before idols in worship will fall down before them dead. The usages of the noun outside of Ezekiel also point out that idols defile the individual and society causing judgment to fall.
God said that man sets up his own idols (gods, demons and devils) in his heart. What is the heart? The Jews said that the heart was the seat or the place of all understanding. God said that man sets up his own idols (gods, demons/devils) in his own understanding. Now let’s go to the scriptures regarding the casting out of devils from those possessed with devils:
Lk 8:26 – And they arrived (katapleo – a term indicating movement from the open sea to the coast, especially to a port) at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee (this is in Samaria).
The people of Gadara were fire and moon worshippers and worshipped familiar spirits or family spirits, which was called ancestor worship and they worshipped the popular gods of that day and time.
27 – And when he (speaking of Jesus) went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils (daimonion – neuter gender, plural) long time (this is the bible speaking, using their terminology of the day), and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.
Scripture says, there met him out of the city a certain man. Man is aner, meaning a male, which is masculine gender and it is singular. In Matthew’s account there were two who spoke to Jesus, which would make it masculine gender, plural.
Mt 8:28 – And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes (same thing as the Gadarenes, just different spellings), there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia says, possessed with Devils – the usual rendering in the A.V. of the Greek daimonizomenoi (but also daimonisthentes, Mk 5:18; comp. daimonia echein, Lk 8:27; pneuma daimoniou akathartou echein), Mt 4:24; 8:16; 15:22; Acts 8:7; Lk 8:2. These were persons afflicted with disease, as epilepsy (Mt 17:15; Lk 9:39), paralysis (Lk 13:11, 16), dumbness (Mt 9:32; 12:22), and especially with melancholy and insanity (Mt 8:28; Mk 5:2; Lk 8:27); whence the healed are said to be of sound mind (“Sane” sophroneo, Mk 5:15; Lk 8:35). It is not necessary to suppose that the epilepsy or the dumbness, when this was the main feature of the case, was complicated with peculiar physical disorders, although epilepsy is very commonly connected with something of the kind indeed, while these special disabilities of men in other respects in sound and vigorous health were naturally referred to a supernatural cause, this would be especially the case with the sudden attacks of epilepsy, falling at irregular intervals and without premonition. Everything of this kind the Jews, like the Greeks and Romans referred to evil spirits taking possession of men (Acts 10:38; Lk 13:16). The case was the same among the ancients with those extraordinary events and achievements, accomplished by men, which seemed too great to proceed from the natural human powers-they were referred to the operation of a divinity. Not only hallucinations, melancholy, and epilepsy (called by Herodotus the sacred disease), but also the ravings of Bacchantes and Corvbantes were viewed as proceeding from superhuman inspiration. Hence to demonize is the common Greek expression meaning to be insane. But these demons were generally viewed as the spirits of the deceased. The practice of exorcism upon such men, for the purpose of driving out the daemons, was very common (Mt 12:37, Lk 9:49, Acts 19:13). The exorcists made use of magical formulae, said to have descended from Solomon (Josephus, Ant. 8:2, 5), in connection with certain roots, stones, etc. Afterwards these men were found also in other countries. Many suppose that Jesus simply adopted the popular mode of speech in his age in speaking of daemonic possession, and healed the unfortunate sufferers without sharing in the view commonly taken of their disease, just as the physicians in the time of Origen, who did not at all believe in real possession by devils. The symptoms recorded of individual demoniac agree with those which are noticed in diseases of the kinds mentioned above. On Mt 17:15, comp. Paul. AEgin. 3:13, where he speaks of a morbus comlitialis, in which the whole body is convulsed; which affects chiefly boys, sometimes young men; and in which the convulsion is accompanied with a sudden inarticulate cry. The chief distinguishing mark, however, is a foaming at the mouth (comp. Lk 9:39). Arettmus speaks of a class of diseased persons, epileptics, who fell in public places (from which the disease is still sometimes called falling-sickness, or even into rivers or the sea. It was early observed that this affliction seemed to have some connection with the changes of the moon. Hence the use of the world seleniazesthai (lunatic), Mt 4:24, 17:15. In Latin, too, epileptics were called lulzatici, or moonstruck. Again, epilepsy, in connection with partial insanity, was the disease of the man mentioned in Mk 1:23; Lk 4:33; comp. esp. Mk 1:26. The proofs of vast strength, and of a violent rage against himself (Mk 5:4, 5; comp. Acts 19:16), leave no doubt that this man was a maniac. The fact that he avoided society, and wished to dwell alone among tombs, point to the peculiar mania which Savages calls Mania misanathropica, or that which Keil calls Mania errabunda. Yet his mania was but temporary, though the delusion which it accompanied was permanent, showing itself in settled ideas (Mk 5:9, Lk 8:30). Thus, according to the principles of Heinroth, the case is one of delusion joined with melancholy, and sometimes heightened to mania. Mental as well as physical diseases are often thus complicated with each other; comp. further, Targum Jerus Terumoth, 40, 2, where an insane man is thus described, He goes forth and spends the night among the tombs; and tears his clothing, and destroys whatever is offered him. The leaping down of the swine, perhaps a part only of the herd, was produced, as some think, by the violent running towards them of the demoniacs, under the fixed impression that the daemons could not leave them save by finding another dwelling-place in the unclean beasts (comp. Josephus, Ant. 8, 2, 5).
Luke wrote his gospel after Mark and Matthew. Tombs were typically outside the city walls. McClintock and Strong’s says (under Graves), there are scriptural traces of the popular idea that graves were the residence of daemons, who were perhaps connected with soothsaying (Acts 16:16); others, however, refer such allusions to the superstitious notions respecting offering to the manes of the departed (familiar spirits, necrolatry) or a species of necromancy practiced in such spots. John Gill’s Expositor says, this is one of the characters of a madman among the Jews; who say, it is the sign of a madman, that he goeth out in the night, and lodges among the tombs, and rends his garments, and loses what is given to him. Complete Biblical Library says, in Mk 5:3 (and parallel Luke 8:27) the demoniac of the Gerasenes was living among the tombs. Mnemeion is closely related to mnema and is frequently used for tomb. But according to Thayer, mnemeion is any visible object for preserving or recalling the memory of any person or thing; a sepulchral monument” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon). This was considered a sign of madness. Also, uncleanness and unclean spirits were thought to rule over the dead. Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the NT says, mnema (the Greek word for tomb, grave or sepulcher) means literally memorial, but it is connected especially with remembrance of the dead. In antiquity the grave is a lonely place to which one may withdraw and which can be in some sense a dwelling. This is particularly true of the Palestinian tombs hewn out of the rock, which can serve as hide-outs, however, the burial ground is a sinister place, for the souls of the dead wander around there. Living in graves is definitely forbidden for the first time in Judaism, which teaches that uncleanness and unclean spirits rule over the dead. It can be a sign of madness to lodge among tombs. It is also feared that the one concerned is sacrificing to demons or will draw to him the spirit of uncleanness.
Isaiah had this to say,
Isa 65:2 – I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
3 – A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
4 – Which remain among the graves (to practice necromancy, to consult the dead, where they imagined demons and departed spirits haunted, and of whom they fancied they might get knowledge of future things – John Gill’s Expositor), and lodge in the monuments (or in temples to do the same thing), which eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
Num 19:16 –And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave (qeber – mnema), shall be unclean seven days (the man in the tombs is unclean for this reason).
17 – And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
18 – And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
19 – And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
20 – But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
Bible Studies by Adolf Deissmann says, it is the daimonion pneuma of the tomb in which or upon which the spell was laid that is addressed. That the daimonia stay beside the grave is an idea of postbiblical Judaism: these demons of the tomb help men in the practice of Magic. It is in the Papyri a frequently given direction, to make sure of the assistance of a spirit who resides in the grave of a murdered person or of one who has in any other way perished unfortunately. We may compare the idea of the Gospels, that demons reside in lonely and desert regions (Mt 12:43); In Baruch 4:35, devastated cities are already recognized as dwelling-places of demons.
Let’s continue with Luke 8,
28 – When he saw (eido – to see and perceive – singular, masculine gender, when the man saw) Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I (emoi – I, me or my – 1st person, singular) to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech (deomai – from deo, meaning to bind, as in binding deo and loosing luo – it means to forbid) thee, torment me (me – 1st person, singular, this is the man speaking, not the demon, an it) not.
Scripture says, the man cried out. He cried out is one word in the Greek anakrazo, meaning to scream up in the air harshly, often of inarticulate and brutish sound, to vociferate, meaning to complain loudly and argue loudly. CBL says, the main root is krazo meaning to croak or shriek as a raven. It is used to refer to the cries of frightened men (Mk 6:49) and the shouts of an aroused crowd (Lk 23:18). Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the NT says, krazo is a word like croak. It uses kr + vowel + guttural to suggest a rough or raucous sound. It is based on the croaking of ravens. The meaning is A. to croak or cry with a loud and raucous voice. A second sense is b. to demand with cries. In the Greek world krazo and anakrazo have religious significance in the sphere of the demonic. In Lucianus Necyomantia, the magus (a magician) calls on the gods of the underworld after a blood-offering. This loud invocation of the gods of the underworld is in long, unarticulated and mysterious words (something like in our day and time with this so-called speaking in tongues thing). There is similar crying in magic, which is closely related to such incantations. The voice of the witch is like the belling of hounds, the howling of wolves (lunatic), the hooting of the howl, the hissing of the snake. The Greeks and Romans very largely felt that this kind of crying was barbaric and unworthy of the gods, where there is mockery of a man who in his prayer to Jupiter is said to cry louder than Stentor and than Ares wounded by Diomedes. The New International Dictionary of NT Theology by Colin Brown says, “both the Greeks and the Romans tended to regard the cries of demons themselves as rather vulgar and barbaric (Juvenal)”. This man was crazy, a lunatic and was insane. We probably get the word crazy from krazo. The man (masculine gender, singular) is forbidding Jesus to continually torment him. Torment is the word basanizo. It is past tense, subjunctive mood, meaning the torment started in the past and it is all day, every day. If the man said this and this happens to be true, then apparently he knew Jesus beforehand, and it means that this is not their first encounter. Basanizo comes from basanos, meaning to harass, to question or examine using torture. The root meaning is test, as to test a coin for genuineness. It originally belongs to the calling of the inspector of coins. It was a term symbolizing a proving stone for testing gold. The next verse explains why he said torment me not with his loud and crazy voice.
29 – (For he had commanded [this he had done, either before, or just as he came up to him] the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)
Spirit is the word pneuma, meaning breath. Theological Wordbook of the OT says (under Wind), ruah means wind, breath, mind, spirit. The basic idea of ruah (Greek pneuma) is air in motion, from air which cannot come between a crocodile’s scales (Job 41:16) to the blast of a storm (Isa 25:4, Hab 1:11). The four winds, ruhot, describe the four quarters or four directions of the world (Jer 49:36, Ezk 37:9). In living beings the ruah is their breath, whether of animals (Gen 7:15, Ps 104:25, 29), men (Isa 42:5, Ezk 37:5), or both (Gen 7:22-23); whether inhaled (Jer 2:24) or on the lips (Isa 11:4, cf. Job 9:18, contrast dead idols, Jer 10:14, 51:17). God creates it: The ruah spirit [s] of God (from God) is in my nostrils (Job 27:3). Hasting’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics says, although a rough distinction may be drawn between demons and spirits by considering the former (demons) as malevolent and the latter (spirits) as benevolent, actual study of the subject soon shows that there is, to the primitive mind, no clear line of demarcation between the two allied classes. Their modes of operation are identical, and the same being may often be either beneficent or maleficent, as circumstances may dictate, though some are normally kindly disposed towards man, while others are almost or quite invariably hostile to him. The very terms spirit and demon are colorless. The former word (spirit) signifies simply breathing, breath, while the latter (demon) originally denoted either apportioner or, less probably, apportionment, destiny, being connected with Greek daiomai, divide, apportion. Originally, as will be clear from the Greek section of this article, it had a good connotation, which was changed into an evil one when Christianity (Roman Catholicism) condemned the deities and spirits of paganism, a change quite analogous to that by which the Avesta daeva, demon, is the precise etymological equivalent of the Sanskrit deva, god. If demons and spirits must be distinguished from ghosts or souls, an equally clear line must be drawn between them and gods. Although it is true that confusion of demons and spirits with gods is frequent, exactly as demons and spirits are often confounded with souls or ghosts. There is, nevertheless, this difference between the two kinds of confusion, that, whereas demons and spirits are, strictly speaking, distinct from souls and ghosts in that the vui were never men, and have not the bodily nature of a man, the difference between demons and spirits as contrasted with gods appears to be one of degree rather than of kind, so that demons and spirits may be, and very often are, elevated to the rank of gods. The relations of demons and spirits to that phase of primitive religion properly known as Animism are peculiarly close. It must also be borne in mind that, while spirits are very frequently believed to inhabit trees, rivers, rocks, and the like, there are many spirits to which no such specific habitat is assigned. In other cases, the abode, even in a tree, river, or rock, may be but temporary—a phenomenon which is especially characteristic of dream-demons, disease-demons, and the like. There is, furthermore, a close connection of demons and spirits with the great type of religion known as Fetishism, which may roughly be defined as the doctrine of spirits embodied in, or attached to, or conveying influence through, certain material objects, the fetish itself being a material, or even animal (cock, serpent, bear, etc.), or natural (river, tree, etc.), object in which a spirit is believed to take up its abode, either temporarily or permanently. Nevertheless, however vague the term fetish may be, it is at least clear that the idea of spirit habitation which it conveys is closely connected, in its development, with the forms of religion associated with amulets and idols. Thus, among the Orang Kubu of Sumatra and the Mintira of the Malay Peninsula, disease is caused by spirits, whereas in Africa generally and in Melanesia disease is more commonly due to malignant ghosts—although here, too, the vague distinction between ghosts and spirits, already noted. Animals are often held to be god-homes, and that there are still other factors which go to make up the complex system of animal-worship (Totemism). Attention has been called to the wide-spread belief in deities and spirits believed to be resident in rivers, and the same thing is, of course, true of larger bodies of water, such as lakes. Forests and trees likewise are the abodes of spirits. It is to the agency of spirits that primitive man attributes a large proportion of his dreams, especially those of an erotic or nightmare character, while ordinary dreams of persons, animals, and things would normally be ascribed rather to the action of souls, whether of the living or of the dead. That demons and spirits are important factors in causing disease has already been noted. CBL says, “the Greek term pneuma is derived from the root pneu-, breath, wind (pneo, to blow, breathe). Pneuma originally meant wind or breath and continued to have these meanings into the NT (Jn 3:8, II Th 2:8, Rev 11:11, 13:15). Because the breath of an individual was the sign of life, pneuma came to include the meaning of the spirit that gives life to the body”. Pneuma is neuter gender, singular. We get the word pneumonia from that meaning a problem with breathing. To have the holy spirit is to have clean breath or pure breath. Unclean breath or unclean spirit is equivalent to daimonion and we will witness that in this study. I said all this just to say that Jesus was not speaking with a being (a spirit/demon) other than this man. Man in this verse is anthropos. The New International Dictionary of NT Theology by Colin Brown says, “the basic concept behind the Greek word anthropos is that of generic man (as opposed to gods or animals), the human race, mankind (the derived word, anthropology, the theory or science of man). In this general sense men and women, old men and children can all be subsumed under the one overall heading. When anthropos refers to a particular man, its meaning impinges on that of the word aner, denoting a man as opposed to a woman, whether he be husband, bridegroom, warrior, hero (similarly arsen, male). The fact that aner can take on the more general meaning of mankind, whereas no such similar usage is attested for woman (gune) is linked up with the ancient identification of man and mankind”. Anthropos is masculine gender, singular. Scripture says, for oftentimes it, (the unclean spirit/demon is an it) had caught him. Him is the word autos. It is our word auto, meaning self, which is masculine gender, singular. Please pay close attention to the genders and number of people (singular or plural) in this study. This will determine who and how many are speaking and who is not. Not only was this man caught by the unclean spirit, but he was also kept bound with chains. Kept is the word phulasso, meaning to keep watch, to guard as a prisoner. It comes from phulake, meaning prison. It is masculine gender, singular, meaning the man was kept bound with chains. Chains is the word halusis. It is the opposite of luo, as in binding and loosing. It comes from luo and the 1st letter of the Greek alphabet, the Alpha. When the alpha is placed in front of luo it translates into halusis, meaning not loose, but bound, it is actually a synonym for bound. He was bound with chains and fetters. Fetters is the word pede. We get the word pedestrian, pediform, pedicure and it means an anklet or shackle. Scripture says, the man brake the bands. Brake is the word diarrhesso, meaning to tear, rent or break. It is masculine gender, singular. The man (masculine gender) broke it, not the unclean spirit (neuter gender) and it wasn’t the being giving the man superhuman/supernatural strength either. Trench said, Prichard (on Insanity) quotes from an Italian physician’s description of raving madness or mania: a striking and characteristic circumstance is the propensity to go quite naked. The patient tears his clothes to tatters; and presently, in exact accordance with the description we have here: notwithstanding his constant exertion of mind and body, the muscular strength of the patient seems daily to increase. He is able to break the strongest bonds and even chains. Madness in Greek Thought and Custom by Agnes Carr Vaughan says, “Tambornino in his second chapter says that anyone who was possessed by a divinity was thought mad. This accords well with the explanation of the savage. Tambornino states also that among the Greeks all who deviated from the normal course of life were accounted for by the same general statement: they were possessed”. Aren’t we called crazy for not hanging out with unbelievers, for not eating with those at work that don’t want to hear truth, for not applauding superstars, for not behaving like Babylon does? If you are not rolling with them, then there is something wrong with you, you must be nuts. Didn’t they say that Jesus was looney or cuckoo?
Jn 7:20 – The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil (daimonion – neuter gender, singular): who goeth about to kill thee?
Jn 8:48 – Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil (daimonion – neuter gender, singular)?
The Evangelists and the Mishna by Thomas Robinson says, a non-Israelite, whether a Gentile or Samaritan, was not regarded by the Jewish Rabbis as included under the term neighbour. The Jews regarded the Samaritans in general as little better than heathens. According to Maimonides, there were some who were viewed as superior to idolaters, but still inferior to Israelites. The Jew, according to Juvenal, would hardly have given a draught of water to a thirsty Samaritan. John Gill’s Expositor says, it seems they had said so before (that thou art a Samaritan), though it is not recorded; and now they thought themselves justified in it, since he treated them, the true sons of Abraham, in such a manner; and the rather, since he had been lately among the Samaritans, and had in a parable spoken in favor of a Samaritan: they meant by this expression, that he was an irreligious man, and one that had no regard to the law of Moses; or at least played fast and loose with religion and the law, and was for anything, as times served: the Jews had a very ill opinion of the Samaritans, on these accounts and to call a man a Samaritan, was all one as to call him an heretic, an idolater, or an excommunicated person; for such were the Samaritans with the Jews; they charged them with corrupting the Scriptures, and with worshipping idols, which were hid in Mount Gerizim; and they give us a dreadful account of their being anathematized by Ezra, Zorobabel, and Joshua; who, they say, gathered the whole congregation into the temple, and brought in three hundred priests, and three hundred children, and three hundred trumpets, and three hundred books of the law, in their hands; they blew the trumpets, and the Levites sung, and they anathematized the Samaritans, by the inexplicable name of God, and by the writing on tables, and with the anathema of the house of judgment, above and below; (saying,) let not any Israelite for ever eat of the fruit, or of the least morsel of a Samaritan; hence they say, whoso eateth the flesh of a Samaritan, it is all one as if he ate swine’s flesh (unclean flesh); also let not a Samaritan be made a proselyte, nor have a part in the resurrection of the dead; as it is said, You have nothing to do with to build an house unto our God, Ezra 4:3, neither in this world, nor in the world to come: moreover, also let him have no part in Jerusalem; as it is said, But you have no portion, nor, right, nor memorial in Jerusalem, Neh 2:20; and they sent this anathema to the Israelites that were in Babylon, and they added thereunto, curse upon curse moreover, king Cyrus added an everlasting anathema to it, as it is said, And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there, destroy, Ezra 6:12. And hence, because the Samaritans were had in such abhorrence by the Jews, they would not ask a blessing over food in company with them, nor say Amen after they had asked one; nor indeed, after the better sort of them had asked, unless the whole blessing was distinctly heard, that so they might be sure there was no heresy in it; by all which it appears, how opprobrious this name was, and what a sad character was fixed upon a man that bore it; and as Christ was called by the Jews a Samaritan, they having no name more hateful and reproachful to call him by, so the Christians are still in their writings called Cuthites, or Samaritans; and it is indeed with them a general name for all Gentiles and idolaters, or whom they esteem such. They took him for a lunatic, or a madman; whose lunacy and madness proceeded from the devil, with whom he was possessed: and this rather seems to be the sense, since in Jn 8:52 the Jews say they knew he had a devil, which they concluded from his saying, that such that observed his words, and kept them, should never die; which they considered as the words of a man out of his senses, seeing all men, even the best of men die, they not understanding his meaning; whereas they could not gather from hence, that he dealt with familiar spirits; and what still confirms this sense is, that these two are joined together in Joh 10:20, he hath a devil, and is mad, and such as were demoniacs, men possessed with devils, were either mad, or lunatic, and melancholy; see Mt 8:28, Mk 5:2-5, Mt 17:15, compared with Mk 9:17, 25. To which may be added, that it was a prevailing notion with the Jews, that madness and melancholy were owing to evil spirits, which had the predominancy over men: and seeing Christ was thought to be besides himself by his friends and relations, Mk 3:21, it need not be wondered at, that his enemies should fix such a character on him; nor was this an unusual one to be given to good men; the prophets and spiritual men of the OT were accounted madmen, II K 9:11, Hos 9:7. And since our Lord was used in this abusive manner, it need not seem strange, that his followers should be treated in the same way; as the Apostle Paul and his companions in the ministry were, Acts 26:24, II Co 5:13. A Commentary of the NT from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot says, but what, I pray you, hath a Samaritan to do with the court of your Temple? For this they say to Christ whiles he was yet standing in the Treasury, or in the Court of the Women, verse 20. If you would admit a Samaritan into the court of the Gentiles, where the Gentiles themselves were allowed to come, it were much, and is indeed very questionable; but who is it would bear such a one standing in the Treasury? Which very thing shews how much this was spoken in rancour and mere malice, they themselves not believing, nay, perfectly knowing, that he was no Samaritan at that time when they called him so. And it is observable, that our Savior made no return upon that senseless reproach of theirs, because he did not think it worth the answering: he only replies upon them, ‘that he hath not a devil,’ that is, that he was not mad.
Jn 8:52 – Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil (daimonion – neuter gender, singular). Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
Mk 3:21 – And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself (existemi – insane, lost his mind).
Mk 3:30 – Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit (pneuma – neuter gender, singular).
Jn 10:20 – And many of them said, He hath a devil (daimonion – neuter gender, singular), and (kai – even) is mad; why hear ye him?
Mad is the word mainomai, meaning to be mad, to rave, of one who so speaks that he seems not to be in his right mind. CBL says, it generally means to be mad, beside oneself or to be in a frenzy. Homer used mainomai to describe the rage in a marital dispute. Eusebius used it of one mad with wine (Liddell-Scott). Mainomai is also used to describe the madness of an uncontrolled fire, the effect of uncontrolled ulcers, and even a vine that madly continues producing fruit. God makes men mad (not angry) when He pours out His wrath. Antiochus considered Eleazar’s willingness to undergo torture rather than denounce his religion as madness (4 Mac 8:5; cf. 10:13). The Jews accused Jesus of having a devil and used mainomai to describe Him as being mad. Upon hearing the incredible news of Peter’s presence, Mary’s household accused Rhoda of being mad (Acts 12:15). Mainomai can also be used of one who allows his better judgment to be overcome by his enthusiasm as in Acts 26:24 where Festus accused Paul of being mad or beside himself with much learning. This usage is parallel to that of the Roman emperor who rebuked Appianus for using violent language by saying we are accustomed to bring to their senses those who are mad or besides themselves (Moulton-Milligan). Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the NT says, in the mainοmai is used only to characterize the messengers of God with their unheard of proclamation. Thus we read in Jn 10:19 that a division arose among the Jews because of the message of Jesus. Those who did not understand His claim or preaching, who had no ear for the uniqueness of His Word, rejected Him, and their reason was that He had an evil spirit and was out of His mind (10:20). The unheard of seems to be madness to unbelief. In Acts 12:15 the girl Rhoda is told that she is mad when she comes to tell the disciples that the imprisoned Peter is standing outside the door. In Acts 26:1-23 Paul makes his defense before King Herod Agrippa II at the court of the Roman governor Festus. Even the Roman governor cannot remain indifferent to this learned and passionate speech with its message of the victory of the risen Christ over death (v. 23). But since he will not let himself be convinced by the message, there is only one other possibility. He breaks the tension and resists Paul with the only remaining gesture (v. 24): Thou art mad. Enquiry into the final mysteries, thought and knowledge concerning them, higher learning and the unheard of message, have robbed Paul of his understanding. The New International Dictionary of NT Theology by Colin Brown says, “mainomai is always used to express a diseased mental condition, normally associated in the ancient world with demonic powers in opposition to sophroneo (sober and in their right mind)”. Mainomai has a derivative, which is the word mania. CBL says, the classical meaning of mania is madness or frenzy. It is also used in a general sense of mad passion, rage, or fury. There are occasions when it is used specifically for enthusiasm or bacchic frenzy. In the Second Century B.C. it also denoted delirium and at times a weakened sense of eccentricity, queerness, or excitement. Thus is it found in this unedited Tebtunis papyrus: You seem to have gone mad, for you pay no regard to yourself and have gone off your head (Moulton-Milligan). It is in this somewhat weakened sense that the only use of mania appears in the NT in Acts 26:24. The reader is helped in understanding the meaning of the term as Luke in the next verse expressed the opposite as being truth and soberness. Truth denotes absolutes and reality, and soberness conveys rationality and mental soundness as a Christian manifests this nature in good judgment and self-control. The heathen governor Festus found Paul’s witness to the gospel, including the Resurrection, difficult to comprehend. He was forced to the conclusion that the prisoner’s mind had become affected. Actually, Festus was the one with a confused mind, not Paul. However, to Festus it all made no sense. There was only one word for it, mania. The New International Dictionary of NT Theology by Colin Brown says, “in Jn 10:20 the use of mainetai is important. The unbelieving among the Jews reacted to Jesus’ message by saying, You have a demon and are mad. One was not allowed to listen to a demon-possessed man. In other words, we have here a strong religiously motivated repudiation of Jesus. While faith recognizes the highest sense in Jesus’ message, it becomes madness for unbelief. The use of mainesthai reminds us of the madness in the cult of Dionysus in which a man is carried away in mania from his own responsible thinking into an ecstasy caused by the deity. Some of his hearers thought that by saying that Jesus had lost his wits through the action of an evil demon (cf. Jn 7:20, 8:43, 52) they were absolved from the responsibility of listening further. Others, however, saw in the healing of the blind man God’s vindication of Jesus’ message”. It comes from the primary mao, meaning to long for, through the idea of insensate craving, completely lacking sense or reason.
Stay tuned for part 3.