[Evangelion]

The New Testament often speaks of "demons." What are they - and did the early Christians believe in them?

Let's begin with the definition from Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

daimonion
daimoniōn

1) The divine power, deity, divinity.

2) A spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men.

3) Evil spirits or the messengers and ministers of the devil.

Notice that although (1) & (2) are perfectly legitimate,mainstream Christains have a tendency to view (3) as the primary definition. That is why, before we approach the Biblical use of the word daimonion, we need to appreciate the socio-historical context of the 1st Century AD.

Those "demons" to which popular Christianity so frequently refers, were nothing more than false gods. In the minds of those who believed in them, "demons" were actually "lesser gods", i.e. supernatural beings of limited power, around which various religions had sprung up. Temples and idols were built and worshipped in honour of these "small gods", but the Christians were adjured by Paul (and others) not to worship them because they were false gods, i.e. non-existent gods.

The word used to describe them is daimonion, for which the authoritative Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon provides the following definition:

daimonion , to, divine Power, Divinity, Hdt.5.87, E.Ba.894 (lyr.), Isoc.1.13, Pl.R.382e, etc.; to daimonion ar' ���� theos ���� theou ergon Arist. Rh.1398a15 , cf. 1419a9; hoi theoi eisontai kai to d. D.19.239 ; phobeisthai m���� ti d. pragmat' elaun����i some fatality, Id.9.54; ta tou d. the favours of forlune, Pl.Epin.992d.

II. inferior divine being, metaxu theou te kai thn����tou Id.Smp.202e ; kaina d. eispherein X.Mem.1.1.2 , Pl. Ap.24c, cf. Vett. Val.67.5, etc.; applied to the 'genius' of Socrates, X.Mem.1.1.2, Pl.Ap.40a, Tht.151a, Euthphr.3b.

2. evil spirit, d. phaula Chrysipp.Stoic.2.338 , cf. LXXDe.32.17, To.3.8, Ev.Matt.7.22, al., PMag.Lond.1.46.120 (iv A. D.).

This word appears in the KJV most often as "devils" - which is highly misleading, because that's not really what it means. To the 1st Century "man on the street", daimonion meant "small god", or "inferior divine being" - which is is precisely why people worshipped them. After all, you don't worship something that is actually antagonistic to you - you worship something that you believe is "on your side."

The apostle Paul deals with the subject of small gods in his epistles to the Corinthians. Thus:

I Corinthians 10:20 & 28.
The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to daimonion, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with daimonion...if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake...

Notice that Paul says they sacrificed ����to daimonion and not to God���� - the daimonion are not God (or even "other gods"), and as there is only one God, it follows that daimonion have no real power at all; they are not real gods, not even literal entities.

The point is really driven home in I Corinthians 8:4:

As concerning...those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other god but one.

Paul elaborates in verses 5-6:

For though there be that are called gods...(as there be gods many and lords many,
But, to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Of course, the Greeks worshipped a pantheon of deities (they were henotheists) so they didn't have a problem with the idea that other gods existed. The scope of their mythology was broad enough to accommodate the existence of a Father God (Zeus), a Mother God (Hera), and a vast array of lesser divinities (Apollo, Hermes, Poseidon, etc.) as well as the "small gods" such as titans, dryads and hamadryads.

Other small gods were more specific in their designation. The Greeks believed in the Graces (also known as the Muses), which gave inspiration to artists, musicians and men of literature. They also believed in various "household gods", whose influence was limited to domestic affairs. Hestia (goddess of the home and hearth) is just one of many examples I could present. Daimonions, in their vocabulary, were just "other small gods", not the imaginary "devils" or "demons" which the Medieval Christians later invented. (As we find in Malleus Maleficarum.)

By this stage your're most likely saying to yourself "But all he's done here is to equate demons with his alleged 'small gods', and I can show that this isn't justifiable! Demons aren't 'small gods', or even 'other gods', and nobody ever believed such a thing!"

In anticipation of this possible response, I direct your attention to Acts 17:18, where we read:

Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

So we see that some of the Greeks thought Paul was offering them "other gods." But the word used for "gods" in this verse, is daimonion! These Greeks actually believed that they were being presented with "other daimonion." If we accept the mainstream Christian interpretation of daimonion, we are left with the uncomfortable conclusion that men of Greece believed Paul to be preaching a religion of demon-worship! But this is not true.

The men of Greece simply believed that Paul was introducing them to two new Gods. Not "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit"; not "God the Father and God the Son"; not even "God the Father and Jesus His Son, who is not God." They actually believed that Paul was talking about two new gods.

What were those "new gods"? B. W. Johnson speculates in his People's New Testament:

A setter forth of strange gods.
He spoke of God and the risen Jesus. Some have thought that they mistook Anastasis, the Greek for resurrection, for the name of a goddess.

A highly plausible suggestion, with which John Wesley's Commentary agrees:

He seemeth to be a proclaimer -
This he returns upon them at Acts 17:23;

of strange gods -
Such as are not known even at Athens.

Because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection -
A god and a goddess. And as stupid as this mistake was, it is the less to be wondered at, since the Athenians might as well count the resurrection a deity, as shame, famine, and many others.

John Gill also subscribes to the "Jesus/Anastasis" interpretation:

because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection:
The Syriac version reads, "and his resurrection"; that is, the resurrection of Christ; the Arabic version renders it, "the resurrection from the dead"; the general resurrection; both doubtless were preached by him, see Acts 17:32. Jesus they took for one strange and new God, they had never heard of before, and "Anastasis", or "the resurrection", for another; which need not be wondered at, when they had altars erected for Mercy, Fame, Shame, and Desire; see Gill on Acts 17:16.

Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) concurs:

Of strange gods -
Of foreign gods, or demons. They worshipped many gods themselves, and as they believed that every country had its own special divinities, they supposed that Paul had come to announce the existence of some such foreign, and to them unknown gods.

The word translated "gods" (daimonion daimoniōn) denotes properly "the genii, or spirits who were superior to human beings, but inferior to the gods." It is, however, often employed to denote the gods themselves, and is evidently so used here.

The gods among the Greeks were such as were supposed to have that rank by nature. The demons were such as had been exalted to divinity from being heroes and distinguished men.

Adam Clarke (Commentary on the Bible) likewise:

A setter forth of strange gods - ξενων δαιμονιων
Of strange or foreign demons. That this was strictly forbidden, both at Rome and Athens, see on Act_16:21 (note). There was a difference, in the heathen theology, between theos, god, and daimonion, demon: the theoi, were such as were gods by nature: the daimonion, were men who were deified.

This distinction seems to be in the mind of these philosophers when they said that the apostles seemed to be setters forth of strange demons, because they preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards raised to the throne of God. This would appear to them tantamount with the deification of heroes, etc., who had been thus honored for their especial services to mankind.

Horace expresses this in two lines, 2 Epist. i. 5: -

Romulus, et Liber pater, et cum Castore Pollux,
Post ingentia facta, deorum in templa recepti.

"Romulus, father Bacchus, with Castor and Pollux, for their eminent services, have been received into the temples of the gods."

As a Trinitarian, Clarke believes that the apostles "showed [Jesus] to be a man... raised to the throne of God." But there is really no justification for such a view. Nowhere in the book of Acts do we find the apostles teaching any such thing.

A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures of the New Testament) agrees with our previous commentators in principle, but begs to differ on a significant point:

He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods (zenōn daimoniōn 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.

[...]

Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection (hoti ton Iēsoun kai tēn anastasin euēggelizato).
Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of euaggelizō, 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 (Acts17:32). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not understand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

Robertson claims that the use of daimonion in this chapter is unique. Believing that "daimonion" is always a reference to evil, supernatural beings, he therefore views Luke's use of the word here in Acts 17 as a variation from the use of the same word elsewhere in the NT (i.e. in reference to evil spirits.) But this is demonstrably false.

While it is true that daimonion are always represented in an bad light throughout the NT, this is not because daimonion were always believed to be evil, but because God hates the worship of false Gods. I therefore side with Gill, Wesley and Robertson, arguing that the daimonion here referred to, are "Jesus and Anastasis" - two "new gods" (or so the Greeks believed.)

Hence the corresponding footnote in the New English Translation:

The meaning of this phrase is not clear. Literally it reads "strange deities" (BAGD 169 s.v. daimovnion 1). The note of not being customary is important. In the ancient world what was new was suspicious. The plural daimonivwn (daimoniwn, "deities") shows the audience grappling with Paul's teaching that God was working through Jesus.

We see, then, that it is unjustifiable to read the word daimonion as a perfect equivalent to the word "demons" (or even "evil spirits"), since it actually means "lesser deities" or "small gods" (whether good or evil.) Indeed, the modern English word "demons" has no Biblical counterpart; it is nothing more than a transliteration of the original Greek word (daimonion) with an erroneous theological veneer.

May we say, then, that the 1st Century Christians believed in daimonion as literal beings? No, we may not - for daimonion were lesser deities, and the apostles plainly refuted the existence of any other God but Yahweh. The denial of false gods (whether lesser or greater deities) begins in the Old Testament, and continues in the New.

Thus:

• Genesis 35:2.
  Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:
  
  
• Genesis 35:4.
  And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.
  
  Deuteronomy 28:14.
  And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
  
  
• Deuteronomy 28:36.
  The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
  
  
• II Kings 17:29.
  Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt.
  
  
• II Kings 17:31.
  And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim.

Note that these "other gods" are said to be made by their own believers. Obviously this refers primarily to the idols which were constructed in their honour - but by extension, we know that these "other gods" were literally the products of their believers' imaginations!

Thus:

• II Kings 18:33-34.
  Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?
  Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand?
  
  
• II Kings 19:17.
  Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands,
  And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them.
  
  
• I Chronicles 16:26.
  For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
  
  
• Isaiah 44:8-19.
  Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
  They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
  Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
  Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.
  The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.
  The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
  He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
  Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
  He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
  And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
  They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
  And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
  
  
• Acts 19:26.
  Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:
  
  
• I Corinthians 10:19-20.
  What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
  But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [daimonion], and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
  
  
• Galatians 4:8.
  Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

The apostle Paul denied the existence of daimonion, referring to them as "idols" and "them which by nature are no gods." He had not abandoned his strict monotheism; he had not abandoned the consistent teaching of the OT.

Thus we are brought full circle:

I Corinthians 8:4-6.
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,),
But, to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Conclusion.

What have we learned about daimonion?

• That they are not always evil. (Socrates himself was believed to have been inspired by a benevolent daimonion.)
  
  
• That they are lesser deities (not "demons", as commonly understood by popular Christianity.)
  
  
• That they do not actually exist.
  
  
• That the apostle Paul categorically denied their existence on many occasions.

There is, therefore, no justification for believing in the "demons" of mainstream Christianity.

[Evangelion]

Evil Spirits - their Definition and Alleged Existence

Mainstream Christianity has a tendency to treat daimonion as equivalent to the "evil spirits" and "devils" which (in Jesus' day) were believed to be responsible for various ailments (whether mental or physical.)


The popular conclusion is that these all fall into the category of "demons" (evil supernatural beings.) But as we have already seen, this view is quite unBiblical. It is one thing to speak of daimonion (lesser deities), and quite another to speak of ponēros pneuma (evil spirits), which are another subject entirely. The two should not be equated.

Let's examine the Biblical evidence for "evil spirits."

• Luke 7:21.
  And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
  
  
  
• Luke 8:2.
  And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils.
  
  
  
• Acts 19:12.
  So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
  
  
  
• Acts 19:13, 15-16.
  Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
  And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
  And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
  

The words highlighted in red are ponēros pneuma ("evil spirit(s)") - and in every case, these ponēros pneuma are blamed for the illnesses which have come upon their "hosts." The New Testament is consistent in always referring to these "spirits" as evil. By contrast, while daimonion certainly come in for their own fair share of criticism, they are not equated with ponēros pneuma, and they were not always believed to be evil.

Notice, however, that Mary Magdalene is said to have been possessed by a daimonion (here translated "devil.") The word appears 60 times in the NT, and is translated by the KJV as "devil" or "devils" in every occurrance but one (Acts 17:18, as previously observed.)

While it is true that daimonion were certainly believed to be capable of possessing and influencing an individual (just as ponēros pneuma were), they were considered to be a different class of being altogether. In the time of Jesus, daimonion were seen as lesser deities - not "spirits", as we understand the term today. Their influence was commonly believed to be negative, even though the daimonion themselves were frequently regarded as either neutral or benevolent.

Unlike daimonion, the existence of ponēros pneuma is never actually denied by any of the 1st Century Christians. Paul consistently denounces the worship of daimonion, and insists that they are nothing but idols or "false gods" - yet he never refers to ponēros pneuma in this way.

For this reason, I conclude that the Christians of Jesus' day did indeed believe in ponēros pneuma - not in any theological sense (for evil spirits play no part in the theology of Paul or any other 1st Century Christian) - but in what we, as modern Christians, would call a "scientific" or "medical" sense. In other words, ponēros pneuma were believed to exist as the cause of illness (whether mental or physical.)

Today, we know that these conditions are the result of physical and chemical disturbances in the body - and so a belief in ponēros pneuma is no longer justifiable for a Christian.

This post has been edited by Evangelion: 29 September 2005 - 06:07 PM

[Evangelion]

Ephesians 6:12 - a Reference to the Evil Spirit Realm?

One argument for the literal existence of daimonion and ponēros pneuma comes from a combined reference to I Corinthians 10:20 & Ephesians 6:12.

Let's examine this argument as it appears in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:

...To demons, and not to God (daimoniois kai ou theoi).
Referring to LXX text of Deut. 32:17. It is probable that by ou theoi Paul means �to a no-god� as also in Deut. 32:21 ep� ouk ethnei (by a no people). This is Paul�s reply to the heathen who claimed that they worshipped the gods represented by the images and not the mere wood or stone or metal idols.

The word daimonia is an adjective daimonios from daimon, an inferior deity, and with the same idea originally, once in this sense in the N.T. (Acts 17:18). Elsewhere in N.T. it has the notion of evil spirits as here, those spiritual forces of wickedness (Eph. 6:12) that are under control of Satan.

Notice that Robertson has not presented any evidence which might prove that the "spiritual forces of wickedness" (so-called) of Ephesians 6:12, are "evil spirits" (let alone daimonion.) If Paul had believed them to be evil spirits, he would have said so.

Remember also that "evil spirits" in the NT, are never called daimonion. They're described as πονηρός πνευμα (ponēros pneuma; "evil spirit") as in Acts 19:16, or ακάθαρτος πνευμα (akathartos pneuma; "unclean spirit") as in Matthew 12:25.

As for the "spiritual forces of wickedness" in Ephesians 6:12 - well, this is a peculiar way to argue for the literal existence of daimonion, because Robertson has completely ignored both the context and the language.

This post has been edited by Evangelion: 29 September 2005 - 06:10 PM

[Evangelion]

Let's take a closer look:

Ephesians 6:12.
For we wrestle, not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,746 against powers,1849 against the rulers2888 of the darkness4655 of this world,165 against spiritual4152 wickedness4189 in high2032 places.

The word "places" is not in the original Greek, which is why it has been italicised in the KJV. "Heavens" or "heavenlies" is a legitimate translation, although I would prefer "on high."

But I won't be dogmatic, since this isn't an essential part of my argument.

[Evangelion]

Now let's examine the highlighted Strong's numbers.

From Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

746

αρχή
archē

1) Beginning, origin.

2) The person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader.

3) That by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause.

4) The extremity of a thing.
4a) of the corners of a sail.

5) The first place, principality, rule, magistracy.
5a) Of angels and demons.

We can ignore 5a) since, this is merely Thayer's opinion concerning the application of this word - it is not the actual definition of the word itself.

The most important thing to notice about this definition is that it has nothing to do with "demons", devils, or "evil spirits."

[Evangelion]

Next, the "powers" of Ephesians 6:12:

1849

εξουσία
exousia

1) power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases.
1a) leave or permission.

2) Physical and mental power.
2a) The ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises.

3) The power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege.)

4) The power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed.)
4a) Universally.
4a1) Authority over mankind.
4b) Specifically.
4b1) The power of judicial decisions.
4b2) Of authority to manage domestic affairs.
4c) Metonymically.
4c1) A thing subject to authority or rule.
4c1a) Jurisdiction.
4c2) One who possesses authority.
4c2a) A ruler, a human magistrate.
4c2b) The leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates.
4d) A sign of the husband’s authority over his wife.
4d1) The veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself.
4e) The sign of regal authority, a crown.

Once again, "demons", devils, and "evil spirits" are notable by absence. All we have here is a particular authority. (The same word occurs in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says that he has authority (exousia) to take his life up again. It refers to privilege and jurisdiction.

Thus:

Romans 13:1.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.1849 For there is no power1849 but of God: the powers1849 that be are ordained of God.

In every case, the word which has been translated here as "power" and powers", is exousia.

Hence:

• Luke 12:11 – magistrates and powers [exousia.]
  
  
  
• Colossians 1:16 – principalities, or powers exousia.]
  
  
  
• Colossians 2:15 – having spoiled principalities and powers [exousia.]

Who are the "rulers" of Ephesians 6:12?

2888

κοσμοκράτωρ
kosmokratōr

1) Lord of the world, prince of this age.
1a) The devil and his demons.

1a) is nothing more than another personal opinion from Dr Thayer, but 1) is perfectly legitimate. "Prince of the age" is a fine translation, and it does not leave is with any need to insert an arbitrary "demon", devil, or "evil spirit." The "Prince of the age" during Paul's time was Nero, who is elsewhere referred to as a "roaring lion" by the apostle Peter. (See here.)

[Evangelion]

Ephesians 6:12 also refers to "darkness." What is that "darkness"?

4655

σκότος
skotos

1) Darkness.
1a) Of night darkness.
1b) Of darkened eyesight or blindness.

2) Metaphorically.
2a) Of ignorance respecting divine things and human duties, and the accompanying ungodliness and immorality, together with their consequent misery in hell.
2b) Persons in whom darkness becomes visible and holds sway.

The context of Ephesians 6:12 clearly refers to to spiritual darkness. (See also Matthew 6:23.) Notice that it does not require the existence of "demons", devils, or "evil spirits", nor does it imply any such thing.

[Evangelion]

But what of the "world"?

165

αιών
aiōn

1) For ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity.

2) The worlds, universe.

3) Period of time, age.

The precise definition is context-dependent, of course - but aiōn is obviously intended to be taken as "age" in Ephesians 6:12.

[Evangelion]

As for the "spirits"...

4152

πνευματικός
pneumatikos

1) Relating to the human spirit, or rational soul, as part of the man which is akin to God and serves as his instrument or organ.
1a) that which possesses the nature of the rational soul.

2) Belonging to a spirit, or a being higher than man but inferior to God.

3) Belonging to the Divine Spirit.
3a) Of God the Holy Spirit.
3b) One who is filled with and governed by the Spirit of God.

4) Pertaining to the wind or breath; windy, exposed to the wind, blowing.

Here we have the adjectival form of pneuma. Definition 2) is of interest to us here, since that is concistent with the mainstream Christian interpretation of Ephesians 6:12 - but but the context demands otherwise.

The word here means "spiritual", not "spirits." In fact, it is consistently used in this sense throughout the Pauline corpus. (See Romans 1, 11, & 15 especially.) Standard commentaries repeatedly assert that the reference is to "hosts of wickedness" (i.e. a multitude of evil spirits), but there is no textual justification for such a view.

For example, the footnotes in the New English Translation concedes...

BAGD [Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon] 445 s.v. kosmokravtwr suggests “the rulers of this sinful world” as a gloss.

...but immediately follows this concession with:

The phrase world-rulers of this darkness does not refer to human rulers but the evil spirits that rule over the world. The phrase thus stands in apposition to what follows (the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens); see note on heavens at the end of this verse.

And yet there is nothing to suggest that these "rulers" are spiritual beings themselves. (Indeed, if they are, why does Paul not refer to them as ponēros pneuma - or at the very least, daimonion?)

Thus it makes sense to accept "the rulers of this sinful world" (suggested by BAGD) as the most reasonable gloss.

[Evangelion]

Having established the context, we are now in a position to define the "wickedness":

4189

πονηρία
ponēria

1) Depravity, iniquity, wickedness.

2) Malice.

3) Evil purposes and desires.

Again, there is nothing here which requires "demons", "devils", or "evil spirits." Men and women are perfectly capable of being wicked without supernatural assistance!

[Evangelion]

Finally, the "high places":

2032

επουράνιος
epouranios

1) Existing in heaven.
1a) Things that take place in heaven.
1b) The heavenly regions.
1b1) Heaven itself, the abode of God and angels.
1b2) The lower heavens, of the stars.
1b3) The heavens, of the clouds.
1c) The heavenly temple or sanctuary.

2) Of heavenly origin or nature.

Spiritual wickedness (whether supernatural or otherwise) could hardly be said to reside in heaven (the dwelling place of God.) So we must infer from this that non-literal "heavens" are meant; political powers - as the use of exousia has already suggested, and the context itself now demands.

[Evangelion]

Conclusion

At the end of the day, what have we seen?

We have seen that the magistrates and rulers of pagan Rome are antagonistic to the Christian community, and for this reason Paul urged his brethren and sisters to fight against them with spiritual weapons (the Word of God), being clothed with spiritual armour (truth, righteousness, the gospel message, faith, and the promise of salvation.

These are metaphorical weapons for a metaphorical warfare - not physical weapons for a physical warfare, or supernatural weapons for a supernatural warfare.

This post has been edited by Evangelion: 29 September 2005 - 06:19 PM