A reader writes:
My husband and I were discussing the Gospel reading and he asked why demons aren’t mentioned in the OT when they’re all over the New. Me: huh? They aren’t mentioned? While frantically trying to remember my studies of Genesis and Exodus and not finding any demon references in them. He said he’d tried to dig out references and there were hardly any from the OT. Me: maybe it grew it up in the inter-testamental period. Him (dubious). So… assuming he’s right, where does the concept of ‘demon’ come from that by NT times, everyone knows what they are? Do you know as a former Bible only Christian, or can you or your readers points to some reference material on this?
The invaluable Catholic Encyclopedia comes to our help here:
In Scripture and in Catholic theology this word has come to mean much the same as devil and denotes one of the evil spirits or fallen angels. And in fact in some places in the New Testament where the Vulgate, in agreement with the Greek, has daemonium, our vernacular versions read devil. The precise distinction between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council: “Diabolus enim et alii daemones” (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This distinction is observed in the Vulgate New Testament, where diabolus represents the Greek diabolos and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself, while his subordinate angels are described, in accordance with the Greek, as daemones or daemonia. This must not be taken, however, to indicate a difference of nature; for Satan is clearly included among the daemones in James 2:19 and in Luke 11:15-18.
But though the word demon is now practically restricted to this sinister sense, it was otherwise with the earlier usage of the Greek writers. The word, which is apparently derived from daio “to divide” or “apportion”, originally meant a divine being; it was occasionally applied to the higher gods and goddesses, but was more generally used to denote spiritual beings of a lower order coming between gods and men. For the most part these were beneficent beings, and their office was somewhat analogous to that of the angels in Christian theology. Thus the adjective eydaimon “happy”, properly meant one who was guided and guarded by a good demon. Some of these Greek demons, however, were evil and malignant. Hence we have the counterpart to eudamonia “happiness”, in kakodaimonia which denoted misfortune, or in its more original meaning, being under the possession of an evil demon. In the Greek of the New Testament and in the language of the early Fathers, the word was already restricted to the sinister sense, which was natural enough, now that even the higher gods of the Greeks had come to be regarded as devils.
We have a curious instance of the confusion caused by the ambiguity and variations in the meaning of the word, in the case of the celebrated “Daemon” of Socrates. This has been understood in a bad sense by some Christian writers who have made it a matter of reproach that the great Greek philosopher was accompanied and prompted by a demon. But, as Cardinal Manning clearly shows in his paper on the subject, the word here has a very different meaning. He points to the fact that both Plato and Xenophon use the form daimonion, which Cicero rightly renders as divinum aliguid, “something divine”. And after a close examination of the account of the matter given by Socrates himself in the reports transmitted by his disciples, he concludes that the promptings of the “Daemon” were the dictates of conscience, which is the voice of God.
It may be observed that a similar change and deterioration of meaning has taken place in the Iranian languages in the case of the word daeva. Etymologically this is identical with the Sanskrit deva, by which it is rendered in Neriosengh’s version of the Avesta. But whereas the devas of Indian theology are good and beneficent gods, the daevas of the Avesta are hateful spirits of evil.
So the quick and dirty answer to your question is that “demons” almost never get mentioned in the OT for the simple reason that the OT is in Hebrew and “demon” is a word that derives from Greek. However, this is too simplistic. As the history of “daemon” in Greek shows, the development of the concept takes time. And this is true, not only for Greek speakers but for Jews as well. The spiritual world, like the physical one, is full of mysteries for the ancients and they tend to tread lightly there unless their tradition makes something extremely clear (which it usually does not). So just as the Greeks have a vague idea that there are good and bad “daemons” (that is, spiritual beings who involve themselves in human affairs), so the Jews have analogous ideas. So while the Hebrews of Moses’ day believe in one God as the God of their fathers and the God of the covenant, it is not a slam dunk that they believe in one God in the sense that they think only one god exists. instead, they often speak as though God is the great God, while the spiritual beings worshiped by other nations are not so much non-existent as inferior to him. So the psalms say of God that he is “the great king over all other gods”.
Similarly, the entire story of the ten plagues in the Exodus is predicated on the idea that the God of Israel is making war on and defeating the gods of Egypt. The plagues are calculated as affronts to and crushing defeats of various Egyptian deities.
The point is this: Israel is, in its own way, as conscious of the fact that there are a multiplicity of supernatural powers at work in the world as the Greeks and Romans are. However, what the revelation of monotheism brings to the table (and eventually clarifies) is the understanding that all other supernatural beings are creatures of God and are either acting as his agents (in the case of angels) or are rebels against him and therefore his enemies and ours. It does indeed appear that Israel only really starts to work this out in the intertestamental period (Baruch and Tobit are the only OT books that mention demons, and they are part of the Deuterocanon and are very late in OT history). Possibly this is helped by exposure to Greek or Persian culture. We don’t really know. What we do know is that, by the time of the New Testament, Jews have, in large part embraced the idea of angels and demons (with the exception of Sadducees) and Jesus, of course, affirms this. So Paul, significantly, regards pagan gods, not as non-existent, but as demonic:
Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (1 Cor 10:14-21)
At the same time, Paul is also aware that God is at work in the hearts and minds of pagans (as, for instance, the discussion of Socrates’ “daemon” shows). So he sees the Athenians’ veneration of the Unknown God as a sort of groping toward Christ. (Acts 17). Similarly, the Christian tradition will, not at a theological level, but at a cultural one, make room for such holdovers of pagan notions as “being inspired by the Muse” (basically the image of a feminine spirit who moves you to write a good poem or song) and the idea is half-seriously connected with the actual doctrine of inspiration whereby the Holy Spirit actually inspires the utterance of true prophecy or the writing of Scripture. So Paul himself, making easy and casual connection between the ideas of a biblical prophet and a Greek poet will refer to the Cretan poet Epimenides as a “prophet” when he writes to Titus (1:12). Paul is not laying out a formal doctrine of the Inspiration of Epimenides and the Church is not failing to recognize inspired Scripture when it neglects to include the collected works of Epimenides in the Bible. Rather, Paul is talking like a typical ancient Christian in seeing something spiritual going on in such works of human creativity that seem to connect us with a spiritual realm beyond ourselves. What the nature of that connection is Paul doesn’t try to riddle out. It’s one of those grey areas where mystery prevails. But since, for Paul, the core of reality is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who creates all things, Paul is confident that whatever spiritual powers there may be in the world, ultimately they are either servants of Christ Jesus or his enemies. If servants, then they like all things exist by, in, and for him. If enemies, then God has already defeated them through Christ: “He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.” (Col 2:14). Therefore, as he tells the Romans:
For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:38-29)
Comments
Post a Comment
Baruch and Tobit are the only OT books that mention demons, and they are part of the Deuterocanon and are very late in OT history
Hi Mark, I realize this is sort of off-topic, but I wanted to ask you a question about Tobit. As you probably recall, I’m a Protestant, but I’m starting to take interest in the Deuterocanonicals as I’ve become aware of their history, and of how the Church Fathers accepted them as inspired.
In the case of Tobit in particular, I read on Catholic Answers that the question the Sadducees asked Jesus about a “hypothetical” woman who was widowed by seven brothers was likely a reference to Tobit.
I was just wondering if you could give me some information on Tobit in current Catholic thinking. You mention here that it’s “very late,” but what time period do Catholics believe it to have been written in, and are the events in it believed to have really happened?
I’ve read that demons start to appear in the Old Testament roughly the time of the Babylonian captivity, as the Babylonians had a firmer concept of them (if more erroneous). Much of the Old Testament is written or edited to rebut Babylonian religion, which in no way detracts from the OT’s inspiration.
In line w/Mark’s discussion, the OT has the stories of the giants of old (Nephilim) who were fathered by the Sons of God, the deceiver who challenges God regarding Job, the serpent in the garden, and a notion of evil spirits coming over a man (King Saul? don’t recall exactly).
Btw, to add to what Mark said here, I think it’s worth pointing out that the Hebrews not only considered God to be more powerful than the other gods, but also fundamentally different. They credited Him alone with the creation of everything (which, if you think about it, implies that he created any other gods directly or indirectly), and understood that He was the one who judges the nations and mens’ hearts. Also, while the fully developed concept of demons as fallen angels (and the idea that the little-g gods are actually just demons) comes late, the concept of angels comes very early.
Seems we are missing a nuance in this teaching. “Satan” and the Genesis ““Serpent” and the Devil(s) and the “Dragon” of Genesis are rolled into the same power of Evil. But we can see in the dramatisitation of the Evil versus God a different role for Satan. He is invited by GOD to test Job’s devition. Jesus tells Peter, get behind me Satan in Mark after Peter has professed faith in who Jesus is, but objects when Jesusspeaks of going to be a Suffering Messiah. I would see those scences and the Genesis Serpent as being the TESTER, one who tries to derail us from the Path, and not only the evil one damned to hell and comes only to destroy. when I taught that in University, compared him to the original Willy wonka Chocolate Factory. He had a choice to see all the candy but avoided taking any. That gives me more confidence that I have more control and “the devil made me do it2 is not really the explanation. GOD told Job’s Satan “Do not pay hands on his person.”
Um… correct me if Im wrong, but even though he wasn’t refered to by name in scripture, don’t we believe that the serpent in the garden was the devil? And the one who challanged God to the bet that Job would crumble?
Hi Mark,
In Moses we have a “spirit of jealousy”, the NT tells us to “test the spirits”, and in the case of king Saul, “the spirit of God” at one time “an evil spirit” another. If we consider demons to be the disembodied offspring of the preflood “sons of God” and “daughters of men”, then even though the Bible doesn’t say it directly, the founding of Babylon by Nimrod, and the obsession with “making a name” there, and the 1st world kingdom, that isn’t destroyed until Revelation, would be my best guess.
Dear Mark Shea:
You have my admiration for you very scholary post on the question of demons. I am just a simple old man and certainly not as learned as you but I can’t help thinking about what Shakespear said: “...a rose by anyother name would smell as sweet…” Would this not then be applicable here? Demon, Satan, serpent, devil, etc. are they not just all names for evil? Evil appears in all parts of the Bible. In Genesis as Eve’s tempter, as Cain’s jealosy, Jobs’ antagonist, Moses’ doubting, Saul’s downfall, David’s adultry and on and on. The etymology of the word demon, while interesting, seems a bit off point but then as I said I am a simple man. It seems to me the whole point of Scripture is to be a guide for righteous living and it is filled with examples of traps set by the evil one(s) that we should strive to avoid.
In Japanese legends there are good and bad demons.
Which is hard to deal with when you are watching a story
like “Howl’s Moving Castle’ the fire is a demon but he
loves the little girl. Maybe its just another name for
divine or supernatural being. I think the supernatural being
has always been with us, different cultures have different names.
Nice, informative piece. Romans 8 was our Second Reading at our wedding this weekend. I’ve been reading about Angels lately.
Note that there are many, many fallen angels alongside Lucifer and Satan. Each of them are far more intelligent (and therefore more dangerous) than the smartest human who ever lived. Lucifer is the “Great Architect” of the Freemasons.
Here are a few:
Lucifer: Pride (superbia)
Mammon: Greed (avaritia)
Asmodeus: Lust (luxuria)
Leviathan: Envy (invidia)
Beelzebub: Gluttony (gula or gullia)
Satan/Amon: Wrath (ira)
Belphegor: Sloth (acedia)
Regarding the deuterocanonicals mentioned in an earlier post - you may want to know that about 2/3 of the references to the “Old Testament” that are in the “New Testament” are to those very books.
God Bless,
Jim H.
@Tapestry
Well, yes, but also the Japanese view would claim, via Buddhism, that a demon in one life may be a god in the next and a fish or a monkey in a third. This kind of thinking, when thoroughly soaked into a culture, is much more different from a Western European outlook than any of the “alien” cultures shown in the Star Trek spinoffs. Many of these beliefs cannot be reconciled with Catholicism.
King Saul dabbled in the occult and was bothered by a demon. David played a a harp to soothe King Saul.
Job was attacked by the devil.
These are two that I’ve thought of off-hand. I would imagine there is a few more.
The Deuce:
Catholic scholarship has been found to put it in the 7th Century BC, during the Exile. Some Jewish scholars had put in the 3rd Century BC.
The fact that the word demon does not occur in the Old Testament has about the same theological significance that the word phylactery occurs only once in Scripture, as a plural in Matthew 23:5, even though its definition occurs all the way back in Exodus.
Here’s a good list of “evil spirits” in the Old Testament.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=“evil+spirit”&c=ot&t=nas&ps=10&s=Bibles
Excuse typos above, Satan di not LAY hands on Job not pay. It seems my point about the Satan being a TESTER was missed. The culture of the world, which includes the human nature aspect of the Church needs time yo learn, imitate and grow. Thus leave space for the TESTER who is not inside us, as it were dropping hints, but works to blind our INTELLIGENCE and WILL by presenting apparently attractive alternatives to our imagination and desire for pleasure- Lady Gaga’s exposed flesh, or POTUS Obama’s a-moral Grand Plan to subvert the Republic to re-make it in his image and likeness- for last one hundred plus years after Lenin and Hitler and Mao and Castro have seen it does not work.
An “evil spirit” torments King Saul after he disobeys the Lord, in 1 Samuel. That seems a pretty straightforward case of demons in an early stratum of the OT.
To Loud on Monday, Feb 20, 2012 11:09 AM (EST):
My thoughts too! Another even earlier is the second paragraph of the whole Bible, Gen 1:3-4; “And God said: Be light made [the Angels]. And light was made. And God saw the light, that it was good, and he divided the light from the darkness [St Michael and the good angels and Lucifer and the bad angels]. And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night”.
That’s why there’s no night in Heaven.
Remember, ‘Let there be light’ was the fourth day!
In Domina!
Look up in the Book of Revelation for a time frame of when satan and the evil spirits were cast out of heaven!
Regarding the deuterocanonicals mentioned in an earlier post - you may want to know that about 2/3 of the references to the “Old Testament” that are in the “New Testament” are to those very books.
Not quite. The NT references the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the OT. The deuterocanonical books are *part* of the Septuagint.
Misters Jones and Savage you are out of line. Find an atheist/non-reliigous site for your nonsense please. OR stick with the actual topic. The GENESIS story is about creating the earth, read the whole text. Better yet, read the Mesopotamian literature that was the source for the God-inspired OT version of the Hebrew/Jewish people’s pre-Revelation story. light and dark have nothing to do with angels- LUCIFER is Light-Bearer in Latin! Revelation has its own apocalyptic language, lierally, “peeling back the veil”“. Rev 20;1 and 21:1 are visionary and not linear descriptions. Jude mentions Michael fighting with the devil over the body of Moses - chronologically non-sensical if the devil was cast out of heaven before Moses’ time- Rev. 12;7-9 shows Michael kicking satan out of heaven- again timing? jesus saw Satan being hurled from heaven/ Again, before HE became flesh.
It would seem that the loving Father God gave us the greatest gift of himself that could be given, Free Will. We make bad choices from time to time with our free will, so to explain why theologians think that Jesus came we call God’s beautiful gift to us, Original Sin. If that is not enough we then have to blame someone for our free choices and we create demons, devils, etc. It is amazing how we made something so beautiful into something so ugly because we could not deal with the love God gave us. Jesus came to show us how simple it was to live here and now in the reign of God. We seemed to have missed the message. We have a tendency to miss the simplicity of what Jesus taught.
I’m confused—are demons, devils and other “evil” beings independent of God and act against God’s will, or are they part of God’s creation and doing what God DOES will?
God used Satan to test Job and (if I remember correctly) used a “lying spirit” to get King David to take a census and then punished David for doing so.
When did God’s will and evil get split apart?
Demons are creatures who depend for their existence on God, as all creatures do. However, they are, like sinful humans, in rebellion against God. God, in his providence, can use the action of rebellious angels, like the actions of rebellious humans, to bring glory to himself by bringing good even out of evil. But that does not mean that God wills evil, except in the passive sense that he permit us the abuse of our free will (or else it would not be free).
Biblical studies have advanced in quantum leaps since Pope Pius X11 gave the green light to formerly suspect scholarship in his DFS 1942 Encyclical and further advances since. The very narrowly fundamentalist, in the bad sense of that word, undersgtanding that there was a First Couple who flaied a Fruit Tree test and everyone since has got Original Sin does more damage to reason, and is not sustained by the actual text. It is more reasonable to see that Adam-Eve and the Serpent’s test showed we have two choices, accept creaturehood, and try not to become gods, and let GOD be in charge of us- obedience to the created human state. each of us makes that choice. JESUS came as Paul tells us to be IMAGE, eikon, of the Unseen God. His total obedience, not to being ordered to give blood to appease GOD (as St Anselm put it, using the medieval idea of the King’s honour needing to be avenged by an Equal, hence Jesus coming to do that as GOD-MAN. No, as Richard just said, to MODEL obedience which meant being faithful to HIS chosen human condition and being faithful to acccpeting “Not my will, but Yours be done. Obviously that meant being the NEW ADAM, with His Mother the NEW EVE, using a TREE, the CROSS as the Fathers said, to cancel the original sin of the ADAM-EVE who are each human ever born saying no to being Creatures and claiming Divinity instead. HUBRIS, deep-rooted self importance and an exaggerated self-centred attitude.
See my post abpve that says the GENESIS Creation story, and the two brothers fighting and the Flood are based on their pre- Abrahamic and Moses history back to Mesopotamia. UNDER GOD’S GUIDANCE, revelation. they wrote a theological story of Salvation History. MYTH has a special classical meaning. The meaning is what the HUMAN author intended, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. therefore a talking snake or plants being created before the Sun is totally not what was being said. YOU may giggle all you wish, and laugh hilariously. MY reaction is to feel sad that someone did not tell you the actual MEANING of the MYTH. I hope you are not un-educated enough to dismiss the STORY because you do not know how to read it. Reject a beautiful message because the package confused you.
The essense of being FREE is that the Creature can decide to accept creaturehood and worship GOD for their gift of being. Angels and humans have that gift and made that choice. Shunks, snakes and rodents are not free, tnhey have basic instricts built-wired into them and are not rational in the human sense even if they can develop feelings for huans, and even “adopt” other animals not their kind, you see the forwards on e-mails all the time- cats and dogs and birds and cats!. But it is not rational as such. AS to MYTH it is not about moral teaching only, but about teaching GOD’s message. Genesis corrected all the negative myths from the culture about matter and sexuality and the earth being evil. God made them all GOOD and SACRED.
Best you can offer Mr Jones? “Hilarious,” your over-used word. IF you were never a believer or were and dropped out, please get on to an atheist, irrational, anti-religious site. Let those who think and understand and have rational comments to offer get on with it. Careful with the door as you exit, please. you will need that bad butt for other ignorant comments. That now was “hilarious” I think.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.