JOHN 8
Enter subtitle here


1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

He was among the first that reassembled for the exercises connected with the feast of tabernacles. Taking his seat on one of the open promenades in the temple enclosure, it was soon known among the assembling people that Jesus was returned; and they came to him in numbers. Sitting and standing around him in an informal way, he taught them in the style peculiar to himself.

While so engaged, the continuity of his discourse was interrupted by the arrival of a band of the scribes and Pharisees, for whom the people made way.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40  



7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.


The Pharisees had with them a woman, to whom, when they had penetrated the crowd, they directed Christ's special attention. They were about to catch Jesus in his own trap, as they supposed. They had a vague impression that Jesus was antagonistic to Moses; and they thought if they could once make this manifest to the people who believed in Moses, his influence with them would be at an end, and they would have established a ground for successful accusation.

It was with this object and with no true zeal for the law, which they disobeyed in a hundred matters, that they brought the woman forward and "set her in the midst." "Master," said they, "this woman was taken in adultery -- in the very act. Now, Moses in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" This raised the issue direct -- Moses versus Christ.

The people listened eagerly for Christ's response: but none at first came. Jesus stooped on the ground and wrote with his finger on the stones as if unconscious of their question. The Pharisees repeated it, doubtless glancing around with that leering appeal for support on which insincere partizanship seeks to strengthen itself to the present day. Jesus still remained in the stooping posture, and silent. His enemies thought he was nonplussed, and kept asking the question.

At last Jesus rises, and quietly says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." He then resumes his stooping posture, and leaves his answer to work its own results. It was a master-stroke, by which he escaped with consummate dignity from the apparent dilemma of having to abjure the law of Moses, or do violence to the principles of mercy with which his name had come to be associated in the public mind.

Not only so, but he turned the case against his accusers. He honoured the law, magnified mercy, and at the same time impaled his adversaries upon the spikes of self-conviction. His quiet challenge entered their turbid minds and rankled like an arrow. What could they say to it? They stood for a moment looking down on the stooping form of this new teacher who perturbed them so much.

The nonplus was now all on their side. The more they thought of Christ's remark (uttered in the hearing of the on-looking people), the less they felt able to deal with it. At last with a contemptuous snort, in which baffled caste sought to preserve a dignity which it felt to be fatally wounded, the eldest of the priestly company made straight away from the spot, followed by the other members of it in the order of their age.

The woman they left standing before Jesus, in the midst of the crowd. Such a case of moral discomfiture belongs only to divine operation. By a single brief remark, Jesus escapes a dilemma without quibble or compromise, and at the same time overwhelms his adversaries with defeat and confusion. There are those who would omit this narrative from John, as an interpolation. It is self-evidently part of the divine context. ..

...The Pharisees having confessed defeat by retirement, Jesus, lifting himself from his stooping position, sees the woman standing in the position in which they had left her. "Woman," said he, "where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord," and Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more."

The Pharisees had power to condemn the woman; Jesus had none, in the same sense, but he had power in a higher sense, a sense soaring beyond all present and transient penalties. And this higher jurisdiction he boldly accepts, and acquits the woman -- of having committed the offence? No, but of guilt in respect to it. Why this, seeing she was guilty? Because the ministry of Christ was a ministry of reconciliation through forgiveness, where sin was confessed and repented of in the scriptural sense -- that is by repudiation and amendment. "Go and sin no more;" this is the universal condition of forgiveness, as proclaimed in the Scriptures.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40 



11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Our kindness and compassion must balance our purity and zeal, or we are but "holy" monsters.

Christ was the purest and most zealous of all men. He was also the most compassionate and loving and understanding toward the weak and the sinner.

Brother Growcott



12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

This also in a figure represents that light which is intellectual, moral, and spiritual, emanating from the Word of God: and dispelling the darkness of the natural mind.

Yahweh Elohim Ch 1.


His declaration, therefore, that he was the light of the world, coming as it did from a mouth distinguished by originality, independence, and truth, and purity, as no public teacher had ever been before, possessed a weightiness of character which they could not make sport of, and which to this day impresses the attentive and discerning listener.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

The only thing they could do was to quibble. They laid hold of the legal maxim that no man could bear testimony in his own case. "Thou bearest record of thyself: thy testimony is not true." Jesus had to admit the self-testimony, but could not admit the untruth; because, though it might not be receivable unsupported in the practice of the law, a thing known to only one man would not be less true on account of there being no second man who could testify to it. Jesus knew the truth of what he was saying, and no one else did or could, except as a matter discerned from his testimony, confirmed by the many works of super-human power.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

 That is, not knowing anything of Christ beyond what they could see or hear of him as of any other man, they judged him by the rule applicable in the ordinary experience of flesh and blood, and made a great mistake in consequence; for though, to all appearance, Christ was an ordinary man and came as an ordinary man, in reality he came from above, in being directly generated by the Spirit of God, and he was God in their midst, in the full indwelling presence of that Spirit which is one with the boundless Father-Spirit, filling immensity.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Two witnesses - Father and Son

'...on their own showing, they ought to have believed. But men who have no concern for the discernment or the issues of truth, easily evade the result of their own admissions. They run off to a side issue.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40


He knew his real paternity was not of Joseph: he never went to school; yet was he wiser than those who assumed to be his teachers, being filled with wisdom, the grace of God being upon him; and was the beloved of all who knew him (Matt. 1:23; Luke 2:40, 46-52; Mark 6:3; John 8: 15; Psalm 119:97-104).

He was clearly in an intellectual and moral condition parallel with Adam's before he transgressed. The "grace of God" was upon Adam, and imparted to him much wisdom and knowledge; but still left him free to obey the impulses of his flesh if he preferred it, rather than the Divine Law.

This was the case also with Jesus, who, in his discourses, always maintained the distinction between what he called "mine own self" and "the Father Himself" who dwelt in him by His effluence. "The Son," said he, "can do nothing of himself"; and this he repeated in the same discourse, saying, "I can of mine own self do nothing."? He refers all the doctrine taught, and all the miracles performed to the Father, whose effluence rested upon and filled him. If this be remembered, it will make the "hard sayings" of his teaching easy to be understood.

Phanerosis - The Anointed Cherub.



19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

Here, then, are two personages. The Father by Himself, being Ail, or POWER, but when associated with the Son of Man, who, when so associated, was powerful "anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power" -- He was Ail Eloahh, the Power mediately manifested; the power being one, and the medium of manifestation another Eloahh.

Phanerosis - Hebrew titles of Deity.

Ye neither know me, nor my Father 

This is the predicament of all classes of misbelievers. They think they know and highly compliment Jesus of Nazareth when they speak of him as a great moral reformer, or "the highest teacher of morality the world has ever seen." In reality, they are just where these temple Pharisees were. They were able to recognise the good there was in Christ according to the superficial estimate of the natural mind. They could say when occasion served: "Master, we know that thou art true and carest not for the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth." 

Yet Christ repudiated their view of him altogether. "Ye neither know me nor my Father," and in these words he condemns all modern views of him that come short of the truth -- that he is God manifest in the flesh.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

Who art thou?

This was what they did not know, though he had asserted his character and identity often enough. Here was an opportunity of telling them plainly: but there are people with whom you can never take such an opportunity. They have no capacity to appreciate a rational explanation: they do not want to know the truth of a matter. They are in a chronic attitude of scorn. If you tell them the truth, they laugh. They furnish occasion for the advice of Solomon:

"Speak not in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of thy words."

Such were the Pharisees who in the crowd were badgering Christ: so Christ did not answer them plainly. He put them off with a reference to what he had said before: "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning."

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

The Word made flesh.

He had nothing in common with men beyond the infirmity of a mortal nature derived through his mother, from a common stock. His tastes lay where the human mind has no affinity.

His intellectual interest -- his mental affection -- intensely centred on God, from whom man is naturally alien (Rom. viii. 7). Even at twelve years of age, he showed this powerful bias which distinguished him from all men: 

"Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business" (Luke ii. 49); and "always" it is his own testimony concerning himself, "he did those things that were pleasing to the Father" (Jno. viii. 29).

His case, with reference to his own age, is only fitly classified in his own language; "Ye are from beneath: I am from above; ye are of this world: I am not of this world" (Jno. viii. 23).

Nazareth Revisited Ch 2



32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 These words must have been uttered with an earnest and plaintive emphasis; for they made a deep impression on many of the listeners who became disposed to think he must be the Messiah. He turned to this class with encouraging words, but did not have an encouraging reception.

33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

The way they received what he said showed how superficial was their apprehension, and how carnal their estimate of things.


34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Ah, there was a deeper bondage than they knew anything of -- the one great bondage from which Christ came to give deliverance -- a bondage holding rich and poor, bond and free alike; a bondage more real than that in which any man can hold another, but the existence of which is not felt or perceived by those who restrict their view to the mortal relations of man to man; but which will at last be seen in its terrible reality by every one whose responsibility may permit him to see its awful issues in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.


Nazareth Revisited Ch 40

36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.


39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

Hired servants are not permanent: the son of the householder, on the contrary, remains while ten sets of servants may come and go. If the son of the householder, having abiding rights, confer those rights on one of the servants, that servant is no longer in his original position. Jesus, as the Son, proposes this benefit.

The commission of sin had degraded even the descendants of Abraham to the position of mere servants, having no rights, and only a momentary tenure of the Father's long suffering favour, for "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Christ, by the truth, offering the forgiveness of sins, offered freedom to the bond slaves of Abraham's race, few of whom realised the depth of the bondage in which they lived.

They resented what seemed to them the patronising and insulting proposal. They considered that, as Abraham's seed, they were already free, and in no need of deliverance. They were willing to accept Jesus as the Messiah, but not as a Saviour to whom they were to be personally indebted in any sense, except as opening to them the higher privileges of their race. In this they evinced that total misconception of the relation of things which unfitted them for a freedom whose first condition of attainment was the frank recognition of their helpless position apart from it.

Jesus admitted their Abrahamic extraction but not their Abrahamic rights, which depended upon an Abrahamic character, "I know," said he, "that ye are Abraham's seed," but he denied they were Abraham's children.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



Meditations on the ways of the Deity


Unless we are Abraham's children,‭ ‬we are mere creatures of the flesh,‭ ‬doomed to a death from which there will be no redemption.‭ ‬Abraham's children are distinguishable by their actions‭-

‭"‬If ye were Abraham's children ye would do the works of Abraham.‭"

This test is simple.‭ ‬Abraham was content to abide God's time - to wander for a‭ ‬100‭ ‬years as a stranger in the promised land.‭ ‬He could have settled - he possessed a force of armed servants‭ (‬Gen.‭ xiv)‬.‭ ‬He could have returned to his native country-the opportunity was given him‭ (‬Heb‭ xi. ‬15‭).

‭ ‬But his appreciation of the covenant permitted him to do neither.‭ ‬Abraham's children are like him.‭ ‬They dearly prize the favour and promises of God.‭ ‬They forget the things behind,‭ ‬and press forward.‭ ‬They walk not the narrow way,‭ ‬casting wistful eyes upon the past.‭ ‬They are willing to wait-to patiently endure-even though death,‭ ‬as in Abraham's case,‭ ‬intervene between the promises and their realisation.

The Christadelphian, May 1887.




40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

Jesus was divine, and expressed the thoughts of God in the various situations that arose. Those thoughts are as often thoughts of severity as of gentleness. The whole Scriptures and the whole history of Israel and of man before Abraham's call attest this. "Our God is a consuming fire," in certain relations. He is severe towards all disobedience and rebellion, as illustrated by Adam's expulsion from Eden, the destruction of Noah's generation by water, the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, the judgment on the Egyptians, the terrible retributions against God's own nation (concerning whom he says in Deut. xxxii. 22, "A fire is kindled in mine anger and shall burn unto the lowest hell.")

Because, therefore, Jesus spoke the words of God, he spoke with a superhuman vehemence against all that was displeasing to God, as occasion arose; and at the same time discoursed with an equally superhuman sweetness and gentleness when dealing with the humble class, to whom God himself said he would stoop -- viz., such as were broken and contrite in heart and trembled at His word. There is no greater proof of the divinity of the Bible than this peculiarity, which extends through all its pages -- its unsparing impartiality and stern truthfulness and disparagement of man, combined with a purity and sweetness of precept and promise that characterise no other work whatever.

The Jewish nation condemned and killed all the prophets, and last of all the Lord Jesus, for this very reason, that these found fault with their ways instead of flattering them with smooth speeches. In all other nations, the public men please by complimentary speeches and rule by the self-complacence they produce. In God's nation only do we see the spectacle of the best of men uttering the bitterest of speeches and paying the penalty of their faithfulness with their lives in a long series of generations.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

What Jesus meant by saying they were of their father the devil, was not, perhaps, quite clear to them. There is no indication of what their ideas of the subject of the devil were. They believed in Beelzebub, a mythical deity of the Philistines, and entertained various other traditions that made void the word; that they held the notion of the personal supernatural devil of orthodox religion is inconsistent with all accessible information as to their opinions. It matters not...

...He refers to a "beginning," and to the birth or introduction of sin into the world,...the serpent became the father of liars in the sense in which Jubal is said (Gen. iv. 21) to be "the father of all such as handle the harp and the organ," and Jabal, "the father of all such as dwell in tents and have cattle." Thus the serpent is used as the symbol of the present evil world in its political constitution (Rev. xii. 3-9; xvii. 9-14), and is declared to be "the devil and satan" (Rev. xx. 2), from which we may understand how the constituted authorities, antagonising the truth in the first century, were said to be the devil (Rev. ii. 10), and the same in their antagonism to Paul, Satan (1 Thess. ii. 18).

Literally construed, Christ's words amounted to an allegation that the Jews who were opposing him belonged to the sinful stock of the world -- mere flesh which passeth away -- instead of having any real kinship to Abraham, in whom they made their boast. Their father was the serpent, the original enemy of God, and not God, whom they claimed, for if they had been God's children, they would have loved and submitted to the "first-born among many brethren."

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

Jesus could only deny the suggestion, and maintained that what they took for madness was his desire to honour the Father, with whom they had no sympathy. Nothing so readily appears madness to those who have no faith in God as a strong disposition to take God into account in every word and action.

Jesus admitted that if his declaration rested on his unsupported word, their incredulity was excusable. A man saying such things of himself without an exhibition of extraneous evidence of the truth of the things spoken would only give evidence of that lunacy which they imputed to him: but supported as he constantly was, by "works which none other man did," and which he himself disclaimed the power of performing, his statement was entitled to belief. The honour he appeared to claim was not self-imposed. "If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say that he is your God."

There was no confuting this argument. To this day it remains unanswerable. The powers exhibited by Christ have to be accounted for. They cannot be denied. They could not be his own, for when he was killed, they were still exerted on his behalf: he rose from the dead. Whose were they? Whose could they be but those of God, who had similarly interposed in Israel's midst many a time since the day he brought them out of Egypt by unexampled power? But Israel had shown they did not know God.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.

To reasonable men,‭ ‬the only satisfactory explanation lay in the statement,‭ "‬We know that thou art a teacher from God,‭ ‬for no man could do those miracles that thou doest except God be with him.‭"

Men of this stamp reason upon the Bible in a similar way,‭ ‬and as a result are forced to confess its divinity.‭ ‬Among Christ's contemporaries were certain who charged him with being‭ "‬beside himself‭"-"‬thou hast a devil.‭" ‬These worldly wise find their counterparts in those who attribute foolishness and error to parts of the Sacred Word-hesitating not to criticise and condemn the work of God.‭

Others with whom Christ was brought in contact were characterised by unmitigated brutality and ignorance.‭ ‬These mocked and reviled and finally murdered him.‭ ‬Their fellows are not now wanting among the adversaries of the Bible.‭ ‬Such tell us that the Inspired Volume‭ "‬contradicts science,‭ ‬outrages reason,‭ ‬and our moral sense.‭" ‬They say,‭ ‬in effect,‭ "‬Away with him,‭ ‬Crucify him‭!" ‬Thank God,‭ ‬the days of the enemies of Christ and the Bible are numbered‭!

‭The Christadelphian, Mar 1887. p105



56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

This was a perversion of Christ's words. He did not say he had seen Abraham. He said Abraham had been gladdened by the prospect of his (Christ's) day.

Nevertheless, Jesus feared not even to accept the imputed claim of contemporaneity with Abraham; for the Father was with him to speak directly when occasion required.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 40



44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

"ESSAY ON THE DEVIL."
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Aug 1853.

A little pamphlet of twenty-three pages, has been handed me by a friend with a request to read it, and to express my opinion of its merits. It appears to have been published in London, but without a date, and is intitled, "Essay on the Devil; proving a belief in the existence of such a being, contrary to Scripture, reason and philosophy." The author's name does not appear. This, however, is of no consequence, the matter of its pages, not the man, being the object of interest to the inquirer after truth.

The writer rejects the existence of a spiritual and invisible being called "the Devil," by the Gentiles of "Christendom," as contrary to scripture and reason. "It is," says he, "a heathen doctrine:" and as the conclusion of the whole matter remarks, "If we believe in the existence of a God, we cannot rationally believe in the existence of a Devil, for it would be wholly destructive of every true principle of reason, natural philosophy, and religion."

In saying this, he does not deny that something is spoken of in Scripture answering to the words, devil and satan; he only rejects the Gentile interpretation of these words, and denies that that interpretation christened orthodox by "divines," is a correct representation of the mind of God revealed through prophets and apostles. He inclines to the belief, that the words Serpent, Satan, and Devil, are personifications of corrupt human nature.

Thus, in Nismath Chasim, it is said, "for Messias will purify the uncleanness of the Serpent," by which is signified, that Messias shall destroy the Serpent. And in the Arodath Hakkodash, it is said, "that this Serpent (that is, the devil) is the evil part." And it has been justly observed, that when it is said in Genesis 3: 15, "I will put enmity between thee and the Woman," it must be wholly allegorical, the Serpent being the Satan or Devil, the emblem of the carnal, sensual, mind of man, which is at enmity against God. And as this carnal, sensual, mind beguiled Eve, so did Paul fear that by it the minds of the Corinthians would be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (As opposed to the sophistry of the serpent ie. the carnal mind).

There is truth in this. The Serpent's mind was a purely carnal mind. When it thought, its thinking was performed from the necessity of things as the blood circulated, and its lungs breathed. It saw and heard, and spoke according to the impression made upon its sensorium by the excitation of its auditory and ophthalmic nerves from without.

This is the way men think who are too wise to be taught of God by his word.

The Serpent taught Eve to think in this way; that is, without regard to the guidance of the divine precept inculcated in the Eden law. Her descendants have followed her ill example to the present time; so that the Serpent mode of thinking has been transferred to the mother of all living and her posterity. He lied, as every other animal would lie, if speech were given it to express its thoughts upon what would be right or wrong before God: he lied, as every man lies, however pious and sincere he may be, who, ignorant of God's word, expresses his thoughts of what is pleasing to Him.

Hence, the Serpent is a fit emblem of all who lie, or express a judgment contrary to God's truth. He was a liar in this sense. He reasoned from certain appearances to a conclusion directly at variance with what God had spoken. Thus, "He caused not to stand-ouch hesteken-in the truth, because there is no truth in him." When he may have spoken-hotan lalee 2. a subj.-the lie, he speaks of his own thoughts.

In the serpent there is no truth, nor ever was, the creature not having capacity for its reception; neither is there truth in a man ignorant of the word. A man untaught of God is a serpent in human form, that hisses at any bible sentiment not in harmony with the thinking of his brain-flesh.

Hence, the original Serpent is very properly regarded as his progenitor; and all such are styled by the Lord Jesus, "serpents" and a generation of vipers; because like their grandfather, "they judge of the flesh." "From a father of the devil are ye," said he to this class of Jews. That is a remarkable expression, hymeis ek patros tou diabolou este.

Griesbach considers that tou, should precede patros; so that it would read "from the father of the devil," or as some would prefer it, "of the father the devil," by apposition, as this would make the devil the original father, instead of the son of the original serpent. But ek patros does very well. The Serpents of Israel were from a progenitor, which was sin's father; and because the father of sin, or of the devil, was a serpent, they being sinners, were serpents likewise.

The mind of the Serpent transferred to man, the serpent henceforth occupied the place only of an emblem, or symbol, representative of all Sin's doings, that is, the Devil's, in man; and through him. I repeat, what I conceive I have elsewhere proved, that Diabolos translated devil, is SIN in the flesh, which causes those who yield to it, to cross the line forbidden to be passed by the Divine law. It is for this reason called diabolos; and is clearly shown by Moses to be the Serpent's son, begotten in the heart of the Mother of all living, who, as reproducers of their kind, give birth only to sinners, and therefore grandsons of the Serpent, and children of Sin.

This is the parentage of all mankind, be they the children of infidels or believers. "If ye," said Jesus to the apostles, "being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, by how much more shall your Father who is in the heavens, give good things to them that ask him?" If he styled those evil who have God for their father, how much more so are they who are not of God, but of sinful flesh only. The apostles were evil in the sense expressed by Paul, in Romans 7: 17-18, saying, "Sin dwelleth in me; for I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing;" and in the thirteenth verse, this sin he personifies by the phrase kath' hyperboleen amartolos, a hyperbolical, or pre-eminent sinner.

***

Mankind then have descended not from a righteous but a guilty pair. Had the first parents never sinned, the generations of mankind would have been born holy or clean, that is, without sin in the flesh; and there would have been no distinction in the world of "saint" and "sinner." But the reverse is the fact. The first parents were defiled by transgression, and so became unclean; hence, Job, speaking of "man that is born of woman," inquires, "who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" and then answers the question, saying emphatically, "Not one.

Man dieth and wasteth away: yea, he giveth up the ghost and where is he? He lieth down and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep." The uncleanness of all born of woman causes them to die and waste away; and this uncleanness is sin in the flesh. "By one man sin entered into the world, in which man all sinned;" for at that time the germ of the future race was in his loins. Hence the constitutional genealogy of mankind is, the serpent by his subtlety begat sin in the human nature, and sin in the flesh, or the will of man, begat Cain and all his brethren; so that all mankind by natural generation, "are-ek toon katoo-of things below," pertaining to the world, "servants of sin," children of the devil.

Hence, they were "made sinners" by a constitution founded on the disobedience of the first man. They were made or constituted sinners from the physical necessity of the case; and this elemental quality of man's nature, the devil within him, causes all the evil manifestations emanating from individuals and organizations of individuals, popularly styled societies, associations, governments, &c., such as the "all things created, the things in the heavens, and things upon the earth, things seen and unseen, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or powers;" and which, as a whole, constitute the-aioon tou kosmou toutou-the Age of this World-a system of things over which Sin presides, as "the prince of the power of the air," styled by Paul "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience."

This system of things in the old Assyrian, Medo-Persian, Macedonian, and Roman oikoumenee, or habitable, is represented by symbols, such as Nebuchadnezzar's Image, Daniel's Four Beasts, and John's Beasts, Image, Drunken Harlot, and Dragon-emblems of sin in its civil and ecclesiastical manifestations, antagonistic to God's nation of the Twelve Tribes of Israel; his Two Witnesses, and the Holy City, or community of the saints, "who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

These symbols represent the power of the enemy of God and his people. This power, in its undivided form, or rather in combination, is emblematised in Genesis 3: 15 by the serpent, whose "head," or chief is the imperial prince of the serpent organization of sin, contemporary with "the great prince," or Woman's Seed, who stands up for Israel when the time comes to bruise Gog and bind the Dragon.

***

If these things are rightly discerned there will be no difficulty in understanding the Bible teaching concerning the devil and satan. The pamphlet before me only catches a glimpse of them, and therefore, although there is much approvable, the writer's exposition of divers texts, though much more scriptural and rational than the current theological, are not satisfactory to me. He first examines the testimony of Moses and the prophets on the subject of "the devil."

He tells us that in those writings the phrase "the Devil is not anywhere mentioned in the singular;" therefore he says, "it necessarily follows that such a being is there unknown as peculiarly an individual being-a dignified personage, a devil by eminence." He then tells us that the only places where the name occurs in the plural are four. Devil is found nowhere in the singular and only four times in the plural. This is susceptible of demonstration. The four texts are Leviticus 17: 7; 2 Chronicles 11: 15; and Deuteronomy 32: 17; Psalm 106: 37. In the former two the Hebrew word is seirim; and in the latter two it is shaidim, whom Moses styles elohim lo yedahum, "gods they knew not."

Here then are two different words, each of which has a separate idea, which needs to be distinguished. In Leviticus it reads, "they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto seirim, after whom they have gone a whoring." In the common version it is devils. This statute shows that when Israel was in Egypt the tribes worshipped seirim, whose idolatry was connected with prostitution. The singular, sahir signifies shaggy, hairy. They worshipped hairy ones, or goats. In Genesis 37: 31, it is sahir izzim, and rendered in the common version "a kid of the goats."

The sahir was the god Pan of the Gentiles, "the idolatrous emblem of nature's prolific powers, and the Devil of idolatrous antichristianity; a large he-goat, with his cloven foot, horns, and tail. It was to this imaginary being, representing the imaginary powers of nature, that the Canaanites were in the habit of sacrificing the kid, and seething it in its mother's milk, and then sprinkling the sown fields to induce fertility. Every one acquainted with the beastly acts that attended the priapian worship of Pans will not be surprised at the severe penalty annexed to the idolatrous rite."

The other word is shaidim. "They sacrificed," says Moses, "to shaidim, not God, gods they knew not, new ones not feared by their fathers." In this text shaidim is also rendered devils in the common version. David says, "They sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto shaidim, unto the idols of Canaan." The Egyptian idols were called seirim, and those of Canaan shaidim, as would appear from these texts. Gesenius says this word is only used in the plural. The root of this is the obsolete shahdahh, to pour forth.

The writer of the pamphlet remarks that, "in the sense of pouring forth it is used for a cup-bearer, one who pours forth the wine, and very frequently for the field which pours forth the bounties of the God of nature for the support of life; it is also frequently used as a title of Deity, the Pourer Forth, the All-Bountiful, and also for the breast (shod or shad) which pours forth its milk. Hence, the shaidim, the pourers forth, the great agents of nature, the heavens, which cause the earth to send forth springs and shed her increase of milk, and corn, and fruits for human nourishment.

The Egyptian Isis was one of these shaidim, which was clustered over with breasts, because all things are sustained by nature. Such was also the Diana of Ephesus, on which was inscribed, "All various Nature, Mother of all things." It is said of the Mexicans that, before the arrival of the Spaniards, at the first appearance of green corn children were offered up; also when the corn was a foot above the ground, and again when it was two feet high.

In like manner Moses foretells that the Israelites would turn idolaters, and would sacrifice to "all various nature," whom our translators call devils; and the Psalmist declares that to this idol goddess they actually did sacrifice their sons and daughters.

But enough for the present. Another time we will look more into these matters.