« ForrigeFortsæt »
is created anew in Christ Jesus, and is led to place his affection on things which are above. What shall I eat, and what shall I drink, are the questions in which our bodily desires centre, and to have goods laid up for many years, to eat, drink and be merry, are their happiness. But the account proceeds " And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” The seed of the woman here is generally understood to refer to Christ. Well, what is the seed of the serpent ? I answer sin, for “when lust hath conceived it bringeth fofth sin.” This agrees precisely to what Christ was manifested to do. " He was manifested to take away our sins.” This will be fully shown in Section 6.
The Jews, who were of their father the devil, bruised Christ, in crucifying him, but he by his death destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the devil. The enmity between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent, is beautifully illustrated by such texts as the following. “ They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts. Walk in the spirit and ye shall not fulfil. the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.” &c. To bruise a serpent's head is to kill it. And Christ before he delivers up the kingdom is to accomplish the entire destruction of this devil and all his works. See 1 Cor. xv. 24, &c. Feb. ii. 14, 15. with many other texts.
I shall only add, that to represent Eve as holding a dialogue with her own lust or desire can create no difficulty to persons familiar with their Bible. The beasts of the field, and trees of the wood, are in the figurative language of Scripture represented as holding conversation together. Nor is the Bible wanting
in examples of persons holding dialogues with themselves. But I must suppress many additional remarks, which I intended to make on the three first chapters of Genesis, as the remarks already made, exceed the limits assigned to this part of the subject.
ALL THE TEXTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHERE THE ORI
GINAL WORD SHAITAN, OR SATAN OCCURS, CONSIDERED.
where the term satan occurs in the Old Testament, are now to be brought forward, and we urge it on the reader to observe, if satan is a fallen angel, and the serpent which deceived Eve, as is very generally asserted. We shall take up the passages, in the order they occur in the common version. Taylor, Parkhurst, and other writers all declare, that the word satan signifies, " an adversary.” In this sense it was understood by our translators, for this is their usual rendering of it, as we shall see immediately. It occurs then first as a noun feminine.
Gen. xxvi. 21. “And they digged another well, and strove for that also: and he called the name of it sitnah." If the term satan be the name of a fallen angel, it is strange, that the sacred writers should first apply it to a well. Had the existence of such a being been previously announced, it might be supposed that he was the cause of the strife about this well, and on account of which it received this name.
But nothing like this is to be found. The well is called sitnah, or
satan in the text, and we have hatred in the margin as its explanation. Hatred, is the act of an adversary, and the context sufficiently shows why it received this name. The satan here then, is hatred, or men's evil passions, a sense which we shall see it has also in other passages.
Numb. xxii. 22, 32. “ And God's anger was kindled, because he (Baalam) went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him.And the angel of the Lord said unto him, wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times ? Behold I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me.” The word satan in the original of these two verses occurs iwice, and is here rendered by the words adversary, and, to withstand thee. In the margin of the last verse we have, “to be an adversary unto thee." It is obvious, that the adversary who withstood Baalam, instead of being a fallen angel, was the angel of Jehovah. It is then a remarkable fact, that the first time the term satan is applied to any being in the Bible, it is to a good being. But this is concealed from the reader by rendering the word satan, adversary. It may be observed here, and the remark applies to other texts, that had the original word been always retained in the text, or had it been uniformly rendered adversary, we would have been less liable to mistaken views on this subject. Had the first been done, we must have recurred to the context and scope of the writer to ascertain what he meant by satan, and if a being, what being was referred to. It would have been easily perceived, that some human adversary was referred to, or the angel of Jehovah as in the passage before us. But the word satan being sometimes retained in the text and sometimes rendered adversary the common Scripture usage of this word is not perceived. Besides, people from education and habit, have attached the idea
of a fallen angel to the word satan, which always suggests the idea of such a being. But not so with the word adversary, which is its rendering in many pas. sages. Accordingly it is in the texts where the term satan is left untranslated, that people have built their faith about a fallen angel. This idea, has been associated with this word in their minds from childhood, and it is next to impossible to effect a separation. The term satan will suggest it, and the meaning of the word, its Scripture usage, and the context of the places where it occurs, are not sufficient to destroy it. Commencing the study of the Bible with this false idea, all must see, how many texts may be perverted, not from design, but from the influence of this false association. We know of no better way to correct it than to recur to the original sense of the term satan, and examine all the places where it occurs, with their respective contexts.
Should it be asked why did not the translators of our English version either render this word always adversary or uniformly leave the term satan untranslated? I answer; had they always rendered it adversary, they would not so easily have infused into their version the idea of a fallen angel. Had they always retained the original word, its application to the angel of Jehovah, human beings and things, would have led people to conclude that it did not designate such an evil being. King James, under whose patronage the version was made, not only believed that satan was a fallen angel, but he wrote in defence of the doctrine of witchcraft.
1 Sam. xxix. 4. “And the princes of the Philistines said unto him, make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? Should
it not be with the heads of these men ???
Here again the term satan is rendered adversary, and it is evident from the context, that David, not a fallen angel is meant. Nor, need this surprise us, seeing the angel of Jehovah was called so in the preceding passage. Many people do not know this, but it would have been evident, had our translators as in other places, left the term satan untranslated. This is the first place in the Bible where the word satan is applied to a human being, and it is applied to a man who feared God. It need not then surprise us, that our Lord called Peter satan, and Judas a devil. It is very obvious, that the idea of a fallen angel attached to the word satan, is calculated to mislead us, for it is notorious, that this term is used to designate the very best of created beings.
2 Sam. xix. 22. 66 And David said, what have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me." Here the term satan is used in the plural, and is rendered adversaries. The satans referred to, are expressly called the sons of Zeruiah. Wicked men they might be, but no one supposes that they were fallen angels. Besides, it is commonly believed, that there is but one being in the universe which goes by this name, yet here we find the term used in the plural and applied to men. In the New Testament we read of demons, and of a person possessed with a legion of them. But David does not say the sons of Zeruiah were demons, or possessed with demons or satans, but that they were satans to him. This shows clearly, that the term simply means an adversary, and that this was the sense Dăvid attached to it. We seldom if ever use it in the plural, for the unity of satan is the common belief just as much as the unity of God.
1 Kings v. 4. “But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither