« PreviousContinue »
comp. verse 11. Again at verse 18. he says" but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." But at verse 21. Jesus says plainly, "one of you shall betray me." This roused among the disciples the inquiry, "Lord who is it?" To point the person out, without naming him, Jesus says "he it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop he gave it to Judas." The words before us immediately follow-" and after the sop satan entered into him." What connexion could there be betwixt his receiving the sop and a fallen angel entering into him? But there is a rational connexion, between receiving the sop, and his fixed determination to execute his purpose immediately. The delicate hints of his guilt must have agitated Judas' mind: but giving him the sop, must have roused him to fury, as he was now openly exposed, and he departs to execute his design. The words which follow confirm this" that thou doest do quickly." These words, though not understood by the rest of the disciples, appear to have been well understood by Judas. They hastened his departure; for upon hearing them he went "immediately out." But where did he go to, and for what purpose? To his employers, the chief priests, that he might execute his determination. See Matth. 26: 47-50. What is a remarkable fact, and confirms the above view, satan is never said to have entered into the Jews. And why not? Because satan had always been in them. They never had been any thing else, but a satan or adversary to our Lord. But Judas had been one of Christ's professed friends, and the same opposition or satan which had always been in the Jews, entered into him when he formed the design to betray Jesus, and also when he determined to execute his design. To this day, when a man acts a very wicked part,
contrary to his former professions, we in popular language say, "satan has entered into him." Besides, the view we have given is in agreement with the Old Testament usage of the term satan, where it is applied to the evil principles and bad passions in men.
Acts 5: 3. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land?" It is not said that satan entered into Ananias, but only that he had filled his heart. But what is meant by the words
"why hath satan filled thine heart," is in verse 4. thus explained-"why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart." Here two things are obvious. First, what in the one sentence is said to be done by satan, is in the other ascribed to Ananias himself; and second, what is meant by satan filling the heart, is explained to mean, Ananias conceiving this thing in his heart. It seems to be an Hebrew idiom, and is illustrated by the words of Ahasuerus to Esther the queen. "Who is he? And where is he that durst presume in his heart to do so?" It is in the margin"whose heart hath filled him." See Esth. 7: 5. Notice further, that it is not said satan had filled the heart of Sapphira, verse 9. Peter only says to her-" how is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord?" But why? for she lied as well as her husband. This is accounted for by considering, that great or uncommon instances of natural or moral evil among the Jews were ascribed to satan. Yea, we have seen, Sect. 4. that satan was considered the author and director of all evil. Peter speaks at the outset, of the greatness of the sin of lying to the Holy Spirit; in the popular language of the times-"why hath satan filled thine heart." But he had also explained his meaning, or spoken according to the true state of the case, by saying "why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart." After this it would have
been incongruous to introduce again the popular language about satan in speaking to Sapphira. What shows Satan, a fallen angel, had nothing to do with the sin of either of them is, Peter's explanation of the popular language-" why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart," agrees precisely with James' account how people are tempted to sin. man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed," chap. 1: 13, 14. James does not allow any man to say when he is tempted, that he is tempted of God, for God tempteth no man. But if it be true, that Ananias was, or any man is tempted of satan, would he not allow them to say the truth? But James expressly declares that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust. Ananias and his wife were drawn away by their lust or love of money. This satan filled their heart. They were enticed by it to lie to the Spirit of God. But had a fallen angel enticed them or others, why is he never blamed for it by those whom he seduced? Did David blame him? Did even Judas blame him? No, bad as he was, he takes all the blame to himself. "I have betrayed the innocent blood." Nor is satan ever threatened with any punishment. Ananias and his wife are struck dead for their crime, but if satan was the chief agent why does he escape? For a very good reason, there never was such a being to be punished.
Acts 26: 18. "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith which is in me." The history of Paul's preaching does not afford an instance that he ever purposed, or actually did turn a single individual from
the power of a fallen angel, called the devil or satan. Had such a remarkable thing happened, we think it would have been noticed, and the person congratulated on account of his deliverance. He turned many from the power of the adversary, for it is said he turned away much people, saying they were no Gods which were made with hands. Was there no adversary but a fallen angel from which he could turn men? The persecuting Jews are called satan. Peter was called satan. And surely the whole system of ignorance and superstition, upheld by priests and civil rulers, were a satan or adversary. See this more fully shown on Eph. 6: 11. in the next Section. From this satan many were turned, as the history of the Acts of the Apostles shows. Comp. Col. 1: 13. where we read of men turned from "the power of darkness." Accordingly some read the passage before us thus: "to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, even from the power of satan unto God." The darkness of ignorance, superstition, and wickedness, were the satan from which Paul turned men, and this he did by the light of the glorious gospel of Christ.
Rom. 16 20. "And the God of peace shall bruise satan under your feet shortly." It is not easily conceived how a fallen angel was bruised under the feet of Christians in the apostolic age. It does not accord with fact, and satan is now believed to be as subtile, powerful, and active as ever. The term satan is frequently used to designate the persecuting Jews, and this declaration of the apostle is agreeable to the fact, for they were bruised under the feet of Christians in the destruction of their city and temple, and dispersion among all nations as our Lord predicted, Matth. 24. At this period the disciples of Jesus had rest from their persecutions. The God of
peace bruised the adversary under the feet of Christians.
1 Cor. 5: 5. "To deliver such an one unto satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." I shall here avail myself of some remarks I made on this passage in the Universalist Magazine, vol. vii. No. 33. need not stop to prove, that the term spirit, is often used in Scripture as equivalent to person, or for the person himself. Paul certainly did not mean this person's spirit separate from his body, for it does not appear, that his punishment included such a separation nor that it was to be punished to the end of the world and then saved, for he says nothing about the destruction or punishment of his spirit. Besides, is it not the common belief, that unless persons' spirits are saved before death, they never can be saved after it? If satan was a fallen angel to whom this person was delivered, it is rather strange, that such a being should be in any way the instrument of such a salvation. Besides, if the day of the Lord here means the end of this world, and spirit a part of man which exists separate from the body, why is the salvation of his spirit only mentioned? One should rather think, that it would be the flesh that required salvation from the hands of satan, for he was to destroy the flesh that the spirit might be saved. Was this person's flesh or body not to be saved? But the question is, what is the meaning of this passage? This I shall state briefly, without entering into the detail of the evidence whereby my views may be supported. It is well known, that the term satan signifies an adversary. It is often applied to the adversaries of Christians and Christianity. This person in the church at Corinth was guilty of incest. See verse 1. The apostle commanded them to deliver him over to this satan, or to put him away from among