§ 45. In the New Testament Scriptures the Devil is, indeed, frequently mentioned, but neither Christ nor the Apostles set up a new doctrine concerning him, and still less do they associate the idea in any way with the plan of salvation; hence the only thing we can establish on the subject for the system of Christian doctrine is this: whatever is said about the Devil is subject to the condition that belief in him must by no means be put forward as a condition of faith in God or in Christ. Furthermore, there can be no question of the Devil having any influence within the Kingdom of God.

1. There is not a single passage in the New Testament where Christ or His Apostles definitely and indisputably refer to the devil with the intention either of teaching anything new or peculiarly their own, or of correcting and supplementing current beliefs. They make use of the conception in its current popular form. If, nevertheless, we wished to formulate a Christian doctrine of the devil we should be obliged to assume that this conception as known to Christ and His disciples corresponded perfectly with the truth and could not be improved. This position must certainly be taken up by anyone who is unwilling to admit that Christ made use of what we usually call accommodation. Such a complete development of the idea is the more improbable because its chief characteristics have no basis even in the Old Testament, their origin being wholly apocryphal. It is apparent from the incidental way in which the subject occurs that neither Christ nor His disciples desired either to give support to the idea or vouch for its truth. For Christ seems to introduce it for no particular reason into parables, maxims, and short instructions dealing with quite other subjects. In the parable of the Sower, the expressions⁸ are of doubtful meaning, and the hostility of man to the divine message would be just as relevant as the hostility of the devil. If it were only a question of his relation to the human soul and his influence on it, then the uncertainty would be removed and we could draw up a doctrine about him. But, at best, he is represented as a quite unknown cause of rapid transitions from one state of feeling to another of an opposite kind. It is equally impossible to base a doctrine on the parable of the Tares in the Field. The Sower is like the Son of Man Who sows openly by teaching: and the Sower of Tares does the same, but by night, i.e. not openly. Thus here, too, we are brought to see the real meaning of the name ‘the Slanderer.’ The Apostles, at least, did not understand the parable to teach doctrinally that it was the devil who sowed tares in the field tilled by Christ; for when speaking of false brethren and unworthy members of the community, they never quote the devil as the cause of the evil, but at most they deliver such men over to the devil. If we remember that ‘his seed’ is explained as ‘children of the evil one,’⁹ we are reminded of an important passage¹⁰ where Christ tells the hostile Jews that ‘they are of their father the devil.’ Obviously, according to the Hebrew idiom, these expressions are used only of the relations of likeness and affinity. Nobody can propose to take the expression literally, as if they could be descended from the devil in the same sense as they gloried in descending from Abraham, or in the sense in which Christ, Whose words they were mocking, had originally asserted that God was His Father. Thus we cannot take this passage literally and assume the real existence of the devil without either placing the devil on an equality with God, as the Manichæans did, or else applying the phrase ‘Son of God’ to Christ merely in the wider sense in which the Jews could really be termed ‘sons of the devil.’ There is certainly here a reference to a story about the devil, but only as to something well known, and this description, like the other, only stands here as related to the central statement that ‘they were not of God.’¹¹

The expression that ‘Satan had desired to have the disciples that he might sift them’¹² bears the stamp of a proverb, and does not imply that the devil is to be regarded as the overlord of the wicked. The phrase, as a whole, is derived from Job, and in both passages Satan is pictured as bargaining with God. So that here what is being uttered is only a warning borrowed from a truly Biblical idea, and there is no intention either to teach anything with regard to Satan or to confirm that older belief.

The phrase ‘to be overreached by Satan’¹³ is a similar proverbial expression. Here certainly it is used in connexion with the fact that one had been delivered over to Satan; but apart from this instance, it is applicable to any case in which something done from a good motive proves to be detrimental to the good. Only, we must not think here of Satan as simply bringing evil to light, but as the one who fights against good. The ‘roaring lion’ of Peter¹⁴ obviously hovers between these two meanings, for ‘devouring,’ points to the deadly enemy, but ‘adversary’ to the accuser. So that these three passages should be taken together, supplementing each other perfectly and forming a useful adaptation of a varying Biblical tradition. If we compare the relevant passages, we shall find that the expression ‘Prince of this world,’¹⁵ used frequently by Christ, admits equally well of a different interpretation. At any rate, if Christ’s disciples did refer this saying to the devil, he is passed over without any specifically Christian doctrine being opposed to the popular tradition. For some New Testament writings refer the ‘binding of Satan’ to an earlier time,¹⁶ and others, though admittedly of doubtful interpretation, assume a still continuing conflict with him.¹⁷ Thus if Christ had intended to formulate a doctrine in the above-quoted passages He certainly would have failed in His intention.

The story of the Temptation is equally unsuited for the purpose. Even if we must accept it as literal fact (and there is much to be said against this), it does not give us material to construct a complete idea of the devil or to apply it in any further way. In the two passages where Christ is specially led to mention the devil,¹⁸ the question is of so-called ‘possession,’ and therefore concerns the natural explanation of this phenomenon, which has nothing to do with faith. Though the first passage may be obscure, still it is closely connected with the casting out of demons. The same is true of the saying concerning the ‘divided kingdom of Satan,’ and the highly figurative representation of the return of an evicted spirit, which is a continuation of the same story, is not intended in any way to throw doubt on the certainty of salvation; it bears on the same realm of phenomena as ‘possession’ and indicates primarily the difference between the real and permanent healings of Christ and the merely apparent and transitory healings of the Jewish exorcists. In these cases and in others which may have happened without being recorded there was no occasion to examine critically the current ideas, nor is there any ground for regarding their use as indicating an intention to sanction them as divine teaching. If we consider that John in his Epistle¹⁹ sees the relation between the devil and the sinner (doer of evil) exactly as Christ saw it in the above-quoted discussions with the Jews, we must give a similar explanation of the fact that John attributes the betrayal of Judas to the devil, as Christ never does. The few remaining Apostolic passages²⁰ cannot be used doctrinally any more than those already cited. For if Christ and the Apostles had ever desired to combine Christian piety with the fear of the devil, and, at the same time, had wished to establish a particular doctrine drawn from and corresponding to this element of the religious consciousness, they would have had to allow proper space for the idea when treating didactically of the origin and propagation of evil in mankind generally, when dealing with the manner in which sin remains in believers, and when discussing the necessity of redemption. It is just at this latter point that the question arises whether the Son of God was not necessary in some way because of the power the devil had over man. But of this there is not the slightest trace,²¹ nor do we find any mention of the devil,²² even when sin is being discussed, and we should most expect it. Such a complete silence in every essentially didactic passage ought to have been seriously considered.

2. But even if we could regard some or, indeed, all of the above-quoted passages of Scripture as referring to the devil, there is still no reason for our accepting this notion as a permanent element in Christian doctrine and defining it accordingly so accurately that everything attributed to the devil could be conceived as a consistent whole. For Christ and His disciples did not hold this idea as one derived from the sacred writings of the Old Testament, or in any way acquired through Divine revelation; it was drawn from the common life of the period just as it is still present more or less in all our minds in spite of our utter ignorance as to the existence of such a being. Since that from which we are to be redeemed remains the same (as does also the manner of our redemption) whether there be a devil or no, the question as to his existence is not one for Christian Theology but for Cosmology, in the widest sense of that word. It is exactly similar to questions as to the nature of the firmament and the heavenly bodies. In Christian Dogmatics we have nothing either to affirm or deny on such subjects; and similarly we are just as little concerned to dispute the conception of the devil as to establish it. The Biblical usage merely shows that among the Jewish people the idea was really a fusion of two or three quite different elements. The first element is that of the servant of God who, while searching out the evil, has his rank and function among the other angels and cannot be regarded as expelled from the presence of God. Another element is that of the original source of evil in Oriental dualism, the conception being modified in such a way that the Jews alone were able to assimilate it. Now this function to some extent suggests joy in evil, and thus easily enough through some such fictitious story as the apostasy, the former could become the latter, or rather the name of the former pass over to the latter. It was obviously from these two elements that the acute mind of Calvin composed his formulas,²³ though they will not harmonize in one consistent view.

The third element, the angel of death, though not quite so certain, is also a combination of native and foreign ideas; this angel, too, can be represented as having his kingdom in the underworld. On the other hand, the spirits active in the possessed are always represented differently, and are only indirectly brought into connexion with the devil. The conception was probably developed through the assimilation of these various elements; but apart from this it has obtained a strong hold by reason of the manifold enigmas presented to introspection by sudden changes of feeling—so strong, indeed, that we might almost say that it suggests itself to nearly everyone who has not the gift for self-analysis of the more accurate kind. For all too frequently we find that evil emotions arise in us in a strange and abrupt manner, having no connexion with our ruling tendencies, but up to a certain point gaining strength irresistibly, so that we feel obliged to look upon them as not belonging to us but alien, while at the same time we are unable to indicate any external cause. And as good, for the most part unexpected, its origin not being easily perceived, was attributed to the ministry of angels, in the same way the origin of wickedness and evil, not being discoverable, has been explained as due to the craft and influence of the devil and of evil spirits. Thus the idea is always recurring, especially when we reach the limits of our observations in regard to evil. But since in this matter the Scriptures always refer us to our own inner life, we ought to carry our observations further; and then more and more it would cease to be possible to consider things as the work of the devil, and the conception would thus gradually become obsolete. The same holds good of the interlocking and co-operation of evil,²⁴ which, at important junctures, when it is a question of antagonism to some sudden development of good, seems to reveal it as a kingdom and a power. But the more the good establishes itself as a whole in history, the less often will such antagonisms appear, and the more disintegrated will they be, so that here too the devil will no more be thought of.

On the other hand, anyone seeking to put forward, as a part of Christian doctrine, belief in a permanent influence of the devil either in the Kingdom of God itself or in a permanent kingdom of Satan opposed to the Kingdom of God, will not only be in direct contradiction to many of the above-quoted passages of Scripture, but will also be making very dangerous assertions. For in the first case at every difficult point he makes harder the endeavour, which cannot be sufficiently encouraged for the sake of inward blessedness, to explain all the phenomena (even the strangest) of the individual soul by its own peculiar qualities and by the influences of common life. And at the same time he gravely strengthens the already strong inclination of men to deny their own guilt. It would be bad enough if anyone neglected due care for himself and others because of his trust in the protection of angels; but it would certainly be more dangerous if at will, in place of severe self-examination, he attributed his growing wickedness to the influence of Satan—a purely arbitrary proceeding, since no definite marks and limits can be given and the merest caprice has free scope. If, then, the influence of Satan in the strictest sense can only be directly inward, and must therefore be magical, a firm belief in any such doctrine must destroy the joyful consciousness of a sure inheritance in the Kingdom of God; for everything wrought by the Spirit of God must then be at the mercy of the antagonistic influences of the devil, and all confidence in the guidance of one’s own mind be abolished. Even if we only believed in such influences as existing outside the Christian Church, it would hinder the true Christian treatment of the individuals to whom the Gospel is to be preached. Moreover, belief in a lasting kingdom of Satan, which still implies that individual men are regarded as his instruments, is bound not only to impair joy of heart and to endanger steadfastness in conduct, but also to destroy Christian love. But those who actually go so far as to maintain that living faith in Christ is in some way conditioned by belief in the devil ought to be on their guard lest, by so doing, they depreciate Christ and unduly exalt themselves. For the ultimate meaning is that salvation by Christ would be less necessary if there were no devil; and so, on the one hand, salvation appears to be only a help against an external enemy, while, on the other hand, man would be well able to help himself if there were no devil and evil had its seat solely in human nature.

Postscript.—So long as it is not a question of connected doctrine but of particular applications of this or that feature of a vague notion, we cannot deprive any Christian of the right, not only (within the limits defined above) to set forth elements of his own religious self-consciousness in terms of this kind, but also to make use of this idea in religious teaching—as indeed everything mentioned in the New Testament Scriptures proper may legitimately be given a place in our religious teaching as well. The idea may be so used if we find it suitable, or perhaps apparently indispensable, in order to make clear the positive godlessness of evil in itself, or to emphasize the fact that it is only in a higher protection that we can find help against an evil the source of whose power our will and intelligence seem unable to reach. So long as in this way the idea finds support in the living tradition of religious language, there will occasionally be a liturgical use of it which must, however, conform in every respect to the scriptural type, since deviation from that would only introduce more confusion, and this confusion would be increased the more, on the one hand, the susceptibility of people to the idea diminishes in course of time and, on the other hand, the liturgical expressions tend to assume a scientific character or to acquire confessional authority. The poetic use is therefore the freest and the least harmful. For in poetry personification is quite in place, and no disadvantage is to be feared from an emphatic use of this idea in pious moods. It would therefore be inexpedient and in many ways unjustifiable to wish to banish the conception of the devil from our treasury of song.

---

← The Angels · Contents · Preservation →

Footnotes

1. So rightly Luther (Hall. ed.), Th. i. p. 36. In Bernard, too, the idea is to be found that Lucifer perceived in God that man was to be raised above the angelic nature; hence that arrogant spirit had envied man such blessedness, and thus had fallen. Such ideas have their own value. But I should not care to compel anyone to yield to them. ↩

2. Cf. Luther, ibid. pp. 261, 262. ↩

3. Cf. Luther, ibid. p. 202. ↩

4. Mosh., Th. dogm., t. i. p. 417 sq.; Calv., Instit. i. 14, 16. ↩

5. Aug., Conf. 19: Causa peccati est voluntas diaboli et malorum quae … avertit se a Deo. ↩

6. Conf. Belg. xiv.: verbis diaboli aurem praebens.—Conf. Helv. viii.: instinctu serpentis et sua culpa.—Sol. decl. i.: seductione Satanae iustitia concreata amissa est. ↩

7. Conf. Aug. xvii.: impios autem homines et diabolos condemnabit ut sine fine crucientur. ↩

8. πονηρός in Matt. 13¹⁹, διάβολος in Luke. ↩

9. υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ Matt. 13³⁸. ↩

10. John 8⁴⁴. ↩

11. John 8⁴⁷. ↩

12. Luke 22³¹. ↩

13. 2 Cor. 2¹¹. ↩

14. 1 Pet. 5⁸. ↩

15. John 12³¹: ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται.—John 14³⁰: ἔρχεται ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων, καὶ οὐκ ἔχει ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐδέν.—John 16¹¹: ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται. ↩

16. 2 Pet. 2⁴, Jude 6. ↩

17. 2 Cor. 12⁷, Eph. 6¹¹, 12. ↩

18. Luke 10¹⁸, Matt. 12⁴³, Luke 11²⁴. ↩

19. 1 John 3⁸. ↩

20. 2 Cor. 4⁴ 11 14, 2 Thess. 2⁹. ↩

21. The passage Heb. 2¹⁴, 15 has little relevance here, for it is not said of the devil that he has power over men, but only over death, so that we must think here chiefly of the angel of death; and men are not said to be in slavish fear of the devil but of death. ↩

22. Cf. Matt. 15¹⁹, Rom. 5¹²⁻¹⁹ 7 7ff., Jas. 1¹². ↩

23. Instit. i. 14, 17: Quamvis voluntate et conatu semper Deo aversetur tamen nisi annuente et volente Deo nihil facere potest.—Legimus illum se sistere coram Deo nec pergere audere ad facinus, nisi impetrata facultate … 18, Deus illi fideles cruciandos tradit, impios gubernandos. ↩

24. Cf. § 43, 1. ↩