NT.filter - rwp daimonion:

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@James:3:15 @{This wisdom} (\haut h sophia\). All talk and disproved by the life, counterfeit wisdom, not real wisdom (1:5; strkjv@3:17|). {Coming down from above} (\katerchomen anthen\). As in strkjv@1:5,17|. All true wisdom comes from God. {Earthly} (\epigeios\). Old adjective, on earth (\epi, g\), as in strkjv@John:3:12|, then with earthly limitations (Phillipians:3:19|), as here. {Sensual} (\psuchik\). Old adjective, belonging to the \psuch\, the sensuous or animal life (1Corinthians:2:14| and here). {Devilish} (\daimonids\). Late adjective from \daimonion\ (demon) and so demoniacal or demon-like, here only in N.T.

rwp@John:7:20 @{The multitude} (\ho ochlos\). Outside of Jerusalem (the Galilean crowd as in verses 11f.|) and so unfamiliar with the effort to kill Jesus recorded in strkjv@5:18|. It is important in this chapter to distinguish clearly the several groups like the Jewish leaders (7:13,15,25,26,30,32|, etc.), the multitude from Galilee and elsewhere (10-13,20,31,40,49|), the common people of Jerusalem (25|), the Roman soldiers (45f.|). {Thou hast a devil} (\daimonion echeis\). "Demon," of course, as always in the Gospels. These pilgrims make the same charge against Jesus made long ago by the Pharisees in Jerusalem in explanation of the difference between John and Jesus (Matthew:11:18; strkjv@Luke:7:33|). It is an easy way to make a fling like that. "He is a monomaniac labouring under a hallucination that people wish to kill him" (Dods).

rwp@John:8:48 @{Thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon} (\Samareits ei su kai daimonion echeis\). On the spur of the moment in their rage and fury they can think of no meaner things to say. They know, of course, that Jesus was not a Samaritan, but he had acted like a Samaritan in challenging their peculiar spiritual privileges (4:9,39|). The charge of having a demon was an old one by the Pharisees (Matthew:12:24|) and it is repeated later (John:10:20|).

rwp@John:8:49 @{I have not a demon} (\eg daimonion ouk ech\). This Jesus says calmly, passing by the reference to the Samaritans as beneath notice. {My Father} (\ton patera mou\). As in strkjv@2:16|. He is not mad in claiming to honour God (cf. strkjv@7:18|). They were insulting the Father in insulting him (cf. strkjv@5:23|). On \atimaz\ (\a\ privative and \tima\, to dishonour) see strkjv@Luke:20:11|.

rwp@John:10:20 @{He has a demon and is mad} (\daimonion echei kai mainetai\). As some had already said (7:20; strkjv@8:48| with the addition of "Samaritan"). Songs:long before in strkjv@Mark:3:21|. An easy way of discounting Jesus.

rwp@John:10:21 @{Of one possessed with a demon} (\daimonizomenou\). Genitive of present passive participle of \daimoniz\. They had heard demoniacs talk, but not like this. {Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?} (\m daimonion dunatai tuphlon ophthalmous anoixai;\). Negative answer expected. Demons would more likely put out eyes, not open them. It was an unanswerable question.

rwp@Luke:4:33 @{Which had} (\echn\). Mark has \en\. {A spirit of an unclean demon} (\pneuma daimoniou akathartou\). Mark has "unclean spirit." Luke's phrase here is unique in this combination. Plummer notes that Matthew has \daimonion\ ten times and \akatharton\ twice as an epithet of \pneuma\; Mark has \daimonion\ thirteen times and \akatharton\ eleven times as an epithet of \pneuma\. Luke's Gospel uses \daimonion\ twenty-two times and \akatharton\ as an epithet, once of \daimonion\ as here and once of \pneuma\. In Mark the man is in (\en\) the power of the unclean spirit, while here the man "has" a spirit of an unclean demon. {With a loud voice} (\phni megali\). Not in Mark. Really a scream caused by the sudden contact of the demon with Jesus.

rwp@Mark:1:23 @{With an unclean spirit} (\en pneumati akatharti\). This use of \en\ "with" is common in the Septuagint like the Hebrew _be_, but it occurs also in the papyri. It is the same idiom as "in Christ," "in the Lord" so common with Paul. In English we speak of our being in love, in drink, in his cups, etc. The unclean spirit was in the man and the man in the unclean spirit, a man in the power of the unclean spirit. Luke has "having," the usual construction. See on ¯Matthew:22:43|. Unclean spirit is used as synonymous with {demon} (\daimonion\). It is the idea of estrangement from God (Zechariah:13:2|). The whole subject of demonology is difficult, but no more so than the problem of the devil. Jesus distinguishes between the man and the unclean spirit. Usually physical or mental disease accompanied the possession by demons. One wonders today if the degenerates and confirmed criminals so common now are not under the power of demons. The only cure for confirmed criminals seems to be conversion (a new heart).

rwp@Mark:7:30 @{And the demon gone out} (\kai to daimonion exelluthos\). This was her crumb from the children's table. The perfect active participle expresses the state of completion. The demon was gone for good and all.

rwp@Matthew:8:29 @{Thou Son of God} (\huie tou theou\). The recognition of Jesus by the demons is surprising. The whole subject of demonology is difficult. Some hold that it is merely the ancient way of describing disease. But that does not explain the situation here. Jesus is represented as treating the demons as real existences separate from the human personality. Missionaries in China today claim that they have seen demons cast out. The devil knew Jesus clearly and it is not strange that Jesus was recognized by the devil's agents. They know that there is nothing in common between them and the Son of God (\hmin kai soi\, ethical dative) and they fear torment "before the time" (\pro kairou\). Usually \ta daimonia\ is the word in the New Testament for demons, but in strkjv@8:31| we have \hoi daimones\ (the only example in the N.T.). \Daimonion\ is a diminutive of \daimn\. In Homer \daimn\ is used synonymously with \theos\ and \thea\. Hesiod employed \daimn\ of men of the golden age as tutelary deities. Homer has the adjective \daimonios\ usually in an evil sense. Empedocles considered the demons both bad and good. They were thus used to relieve the gods and goddesses of much rascality. Grote (_History of Greece_) notes that the Christians were thus by pagan usage justified in calling idolatry the worship of demons. See strkjv@1Corinthians:10:20f.; strkjv@1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@Revelation:9:20; strkjv@16:13f|. In the Gospels demons are the same as unclean spirits (Mark:5:12,15; strkjv@3:22,30; strkjv@Luke:4:33|). The demons are disturbers (Vincent) of the whole life of man (Mark:5:2f.; strkjv@7:25; strkjv@Matthew:12:45; strkjv@Luke:13:11,16|).