This word is used by heathen writers with great latitude, being applied by them, 1. to every order of beings superior to man, including even the Highest; 2. it is applied to any particular divinity; 3. to the inferior divinities; 4. to a class of beings between gods and men. Of these latter some were habitually benevolent, and others malignant. To the former class belong the tutelary genii of cities, and the guardian spirits of individuals, as the demon of Socrates. 5. By an easy metonymy it is used to denote fortune, chance, and fate. Since no distinct ideas of the ancient Jewish doctrines concerning demons can be obtained from the Septuagint, we next have recourse to the heathens, and from their writings, owing to the universal prevalence of belief in demons, ample information may be obtained. The following is offered as a summary of their opinions.
1. Demons, in the theology of the Gentiles, are middle beings, between gods and mortals. This is the judgment of Plato, which will be considered decisive: ’Every demon is a middle being between God and mortal.’
2. Demons were of two kinds; the one were the souls of good men, which upon their departure from the body were called heroes, were afterwards raised to the dignity of demons, and subsequently to that of gods. It was also believed that the souls of bad men became evil demons. The other kind of demons were of more noble origin than the human race, having never inhabited human bodies.
3. Those demons who have once been souls of men were the objects of immediate worship among the heathens (Deu 26:14; Psa 106:28; Isa 8:19), and it is in contradistinction to these that Jehovah is so frequently called ’the living God’ (Deu 5:6, etc.).
4. The heathens held that some demons were malignant by nature, and not merely so when provoked and offended. Plutarch says, ’It is a very ancient opinion that there are certain wicked and malignant demons, who envy good men, and endeavor to hinder them in the pursuit of virtue, lest they should be partakers of greater happiness than they enjoy.’ Pythagoras held that certain demons sent diseases to men and cattle.
In later times Josephus uses the word demon always in a bad sense, as do the writers of the New Testament, when using it as from themselves, and in their own sense of it. ’Demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked, that enter into men and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.’
It is frequently supposed that the demons of the New Testament are fallen angels; on the contrary it is maintained by Farmer, that the word is never applied to the Devil and his angels, and that there is no sufficient reason for restricting the term to spirits of a higher order than mankind. They who uphold the former opinion urge that our Lord, when accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, replies, How can Satan cast out Satan (Mar 3:23, etc.)? It is further urged, that it is but fair and natural to suppose that the writers of the New Testament use the word demons in the same sense in which it was understood by their contemporaries, which, as it appears from Josephus and other authorities, was, that of the spirits of the wicked; and that if these writers had meant anything else they would have given notice of so wide a deviation from popular usage.
Demon. See Demons.
SEE DAEMON;
Scripture also shows that idolatry was essentially demon-worship, the idol itself being nothing. "They sacrificed unto demons (shed ) not unto God," Deu 32:17; 1Co 10:19-20; "they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons (sair )." Lev 17:7; Rev 9:20. Jeroboam had fallen so low as to have ordained priests for the demons (sair ) and for the calves which he had made, 2Ch 11:15; and some had "sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto demons (shed )."
The evil spirits that possessed so many persons when the Lord was on earth were demons, and from the instances given we learn much respecting them. The Pharisees said that the Lord cast out demons by Beelzebub the prince of demons. The Lord interpreted this to mean ’Satan casting out Satan;’ by which we learn that the demons were the agents of Satan; and that Satan as a strong man had to be bound before his kingdom could be assailed. Mat 12:24-29. The demons also were strong ones, by the way they handled those they possessed, and by one overcoming seven men and making them flee out of the house naked and wounded. Act 19:16. We know also that they were intelligent beings; for they knew the Lord Jesus and bowed at once to His authority. They also knew that punishment awaited them: for some asked if the Lord had come to torment them before the time. Mat 8:29.
It must not be supposed that demon-agency has ceased: the exhortation is, "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 1Jn 4:1. With this agrees the declaration that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons." 1Ti 4:1. Spiritualists and Theosophists carry on intercourse with such, and are taught by them. In a future day also, when God will be pouring out His judgements on the earth, men will not repent, but will worship demons and all sorts of idols. Rev 9:20. The spirits of demons also, by working miracles, will gather the kings of the earth together to the battle of that great day of Almighty God. Rev 16:14. And mystical Babylon will become "the habitation of demons, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Rev 18:2. The world and the professing church are evidently ripening for these things; and some, under the plea of investigating phenomena, are unconsciously having to do with the wicked spirits themselves!
* The Hebrew word shed, though traced from the word ’lord,’ properly signifies "a destroyer, extirpator, a violent one; hence metaphorically a mischievous demon." - Fürst. It occurs only in the above two passages. Sair signifies ’rough, hairy,’ and specially a he-goat: hence "a goat-shaped deity, which was idolatrously worshipped . . . . It was believed that such hostile beings inhabited the deserts and woods (Isa 13:21; Isa 34:14), and that they must be appeased by divine worship’. - Fürst.
An evil spirit
DEMON.—The word does not occur in AV
R. W. Moss.
(Greek: daimon, daimonion, a genius: a spirit between the gods and men).
In the New Testament the word is synonymous with the evil spirit, and in English versions of the Bible is rendered "devil" and consequently designates a maleficent being, a meaning not necessarily implied in the original yord "demon." One possessed or controlled by an evil spirit is a demoniac, or energumen. Demons are often used in art associated with
New Catholic Dictionary
(Greek daimon and daimonion, Lat. daemonium).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. (See also DEMONOLOGY.)-----------------------------------W.H. KENT Transcribed by Tomas Hancil The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IVCopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
1. Nomenclature.-The word äáéìüíéïí (or äáßìùí, which, however, occurs only once in the NT in the best Manuscripts , viz. in Mat_8:31, though some Manuscripts have it in Mar_5:12, Luk_8:29, and some inferior ones in Rev_16:14; Rev_18:2) is almost always rendered ‘devil’ in English Version , though Revised Version margin usually gives ‘demon.’ In the Revised Version of the OT ‘demon’ is found in Deu_32:17, Psa_106:37, Bar_4:7 (Heb. ùֵׁã, Septuagint äáéìüíéïí). Originally äáßìùí had a somewhat more personal connotation than äáéìüíéïí, which is formed from the adjective (i.e. ‘a Divine thing’); and both had a neutral sense: a spirit inferior to the supreme gods, superior to man, but not necessarily evil. Some trace of this neutral sense is found in the apostolic writings. Thus äåéóéäáßìùí, äåéóéäáéìïíßá have probably not the bad sense of ‘superstitious,’ ‘superstition’ in Act_17:22; Act_25:19 -which at any rate would hardly suit the former passage, where St. Paul is not likely to have gone out of his way to insult the Athenians-but the neutral sense of ‘religious,’ ‘religion.’ This view is borne out by the papyri, where, Deissmann says (Light from Ancient East, 1910, p. 283), the context of these words always implies commendation. And similarly St. Luke’s phrase (Luk_4:33) ‘a spirit of an unclean demon’ would imply the existence of a pure demon, just as ‘unclean spirits’ imply the existence of pure spirits. The neutral sense is also found in the saying attributed to our Lord by Ignatius (Smyrn. 3; see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers2, pt. ii. vol. ii. [1889] p. 296): ‘Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon’ (äáéìüíéïí ἀóþìáôïí), a saying clearly founded on or parallel to Luk_24:39, perhaps due to an independent oral tradition. But ordinarily in the NT äáéìüíéïí has a bad sense, and signifies ‘an evil spirit.’ The expression ‘to have a demon’ (or ‘demons’), which occurs several times in the Gospels (ἔ÷åéí äáéìüíéïí [äáéìüíéá], equivalent to äáéìïíßæåóèáé, which is also frequent there), is the same as the paraphrases found elsewhere in the NT which avoid the word ‘demon’ (Act_8:7 ‘had unclean spirits,’ Act_19:12 ‘had evil spirits,’ Act_10:38, etc.). In Christian writings the word ‘demon’ always means an evil being, though it is curious that, in the NT and (as far as the present writer has observed) in the Fathers, Satan himself is never called äáßìùí or äáéìüíéïí (‘demon’). Conversely his angels are never in the NT called ‘devils’ (äéÜâïëïé), though in Joh_6:70 Judas is called äéÜâïëïò. The Fathers emphatically assert that all demons are evil: see e.g. Tertull. Apol. 22, Orig. c. Cels. v. 5, viii. 39 (the Son of God not a demon), Cypr. Quod idola dii non sint, 6f. By the time of Augustine even the heathen used the word ‘demon’ only in a bad sense (de Civ. Dei, ix. 19).
2. Conceptions about demons in apostolic writings.-Demons are regarded as the ministers of Satan-a host of evil angels over whom he has command. They are the ‘angels which kept not their own principality (ἀñ÷Þí) but left their proper habitation’ (Jud_1:6), who ‘when they sinned’ were ‘cast down to Tartarus’ (2Pe_2:4). They are described as the Dragon’s angels, forming his army (Rev_12:7; Rev_12:9; cf. Mat_25:41). That these angels are the same as the demons appears from the fact that Satan is the prince of the demons (Mar_3:22), and that demoniacs are said to be ‘oppressed of the devil’ (ôïῦ äéáâüëïõ, i.e. Satan [see Devil], Act_10:38; cf. Luk_13:16). Thus there are good spirits and evil spirits which must be distinguished and proved: the spirit of the Antichrist must be distinguished from the Spirit of God (1Jn_4:1).
St. Paul, in not dissimilar language, speaks of discernings of spirits (1Co_12:10; cf. 2Co_11:4) and of evil angels as being ‘principalities’ (ἀñ÷áß), ‘powers,’ ‘world-rulers (êïóìïêñÜôïñåò) of this darkness,’ ‘spiritual beings (ðíåõìáôéêÜ) of wickedness in the heavenly [places]’ (Eph_6:12; the last phrase may be roughly rendered ‘in the sphere of spiritual activities’; cf. Robinson’s note on Eph_1:3 and see article Air); perhaps also as being ‘the rulers of this age which are coming to nought … the spirit of the world’ (1Co_2:6; 1Co_2:12); or collectively as ‘all rule and all authority and power’ which are to be abolished (1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:26, Eph_1:21 f.). That these are Satan’s hosts appears from the context of the last passage (Eph_2:2), which speaks of the Prince of the power of the air (see Air).
It would seem that St. Paul regarded the heathen gods as demons, having a real existence, though they were not gods. On the one hand, ‘no idol is anything in the world, and there is no God but one’ (1Co_8:4); on the other hand, the sacrifices of the heathen are offered to demons, not to God, and therefore Christians must not attend heathen temples lest they have communion with demons (1Co_10:20 f.; note the idea that sacrifice involves communion between the worshipper and the worshipped). So in the Septuagint Psa_96:5 affirms that all the gods of the heathen are demons (Heb. àֱìִéìִéí, i.e. ‘vanities’; Vulgate daemonia); and Deu_32:17 (see above) both in the Heb. text and in the Septuagint clearly identifies the heathen gods with demons. And similarly in Rev_9:20 the worship of demons is joined to that of idols.
The activity of demons towards man is great. Though, after a fashion, they believe-not with the Christian’s faith, which is born of love, but with faith compelled by fear (Jam_2:19 : they ‘shudder’)-yet with the ingenuity which is peculiarly their own (Jam_3:15 óïößá … äáéìïíéþäçò), they try to draw man away from his belief: they are ‘seducing spirits,’ whose teaching is called the ‘doctrine of demons’ (1Ti_4:1 f., so most commentators); their captain is called the ‘spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience’ (Eph_2:2, where, however, ‘spirit’ is in apposition to ‘power,’ not to ‘prince,’ perhaps by grammatical assimilation; see Robinson’s note ad loc.). The demons accordingly instigate evil men against the good; they are ‘unclean spirits, as it were frogs’ coming ‘out of the mouth of the dragon … for they are spirits of demons,’ instigating the ‘kings of the whole world’ to the ‘war of the great day of God’ (Rev_16:13 f.). If we identify them with the ‘rulers of this age’ of 1Co_2:6 (see above), they instigated our Lord’s crucifixion (1Co_2:8). See also Devil.
Demons are able to work miracles or signs (óçìåῖá, Rev_16:14), as Antichrist can (2Th_2:9); they attract worship from men (Rev_9:20; cf. Deu_32:17 above), and have their temples and tables (see above). Rome, the corrupt capital of the heathen world, designated ‘Babylon,’ is the habitation of demons, the prison of every unclean spirit, the prison of every unclean and hateful bird (Rev_18:2).
Just as the fruits of the working of the Holy Ghost in man are called the spirit ‘of power and love and discipline’ (2Ti_1:7) and ‘of truth’ (1Jn_4:6), so those of the demons are ‘the spirit of bondage’ (Rom_8:15), and ‘stupor’ (êáôáíýîåùò, Rom_11:8), and ‘fearfulness’ (2Ti_1:7), and ‘error’ (1Jn_4:6).
3. Demoniacal possession.-This subject is much less spoken of in the writings which are here dealt with than in the Gospels. The evangelistic records depict a much stronger activity of evil in Palestine during the earthly life of our Lord than that which, as the rest of NT would lead us to suppose, existed elsewhere and at a later time. Yet in four passages of Acts we read of possession by unclean or evil spirits: at Jerusalem (Act_5:16); in Samaria, where they were expelled at the preaching of Philip (Act_8:7); at Philippi, where the ventriloquist maiden is said to have a spirit, a Python (Act_16:16 : ðíåῦìá ðýèùíá is the best reading); and at Ephesus, where by St. Paul’s miracles the evil spirits were expelled (Act_19:12). In this last passage we read of the evil spirit speaking out of the possessed man’s month, and of the man’s actions being those of the evil spirit (Act_19:15); also of Jewish exorcists who endeavoured to expel him (the seven of Act_19:14 become in all the best Manuscripts two at Act_19:16; probably there were seven brothers, but only two took part in this incident). The word ‘exorcist’ does not occur elsewhere in the NT. The passage about the Python (Act_16:16) is very remarkable. The name is derived from Pytho, a district near Delphi where the dragon (called Python) was slain by Apollo. The title was thus given to a diviner: both Apollo and the Delphic priestess were called ‘the Pythian’ (ὁ Ðýèéïò, ἡ Ðõèßá). Ventriloquists were regarded as being under the influence of demons, and as being able to divine; they were, as Plutarch tells us (Moralia, ed. Xylander, ii. 414 E, quoted by Wetstein on Act_16:16), called ðýèùíåò, ðõèþíéóóáé. Here, then, we have the conception of something other than ordinary madness being a possession by evil spirits; and this incident may be considered as a stepping-stone to the conception found in some NT writers of physical disease as being, at least in some cases, also a possession. This is the case especially in the writings of Luke the physician. Thus the woman who was ‘bowed together’ is said to have had ‘a spirit of infirmity’ (ðíåῦìá ἀóèåíåßáò, Luk_13:11) and to have been bound by Satan (Luk_13:16); our Lord ‘rebuked’ (ἐðåôßìçóå) the fever of Simon’s wife’s mother (Luk_4:39), as if it were an unclean spirit; a deaf-mute is said to have a ‘dumb spirit’ or ‘a dumb and deaf spirit’ (Mar_9:17; Mar_9:25).
There is nothing which leads us to suppose that the conception of demoniacal possession which we find well established in the four Gospels, especially in the Synoptics, was not shared by the other NT writers; but it is noteworthy that, as the subject is only glanced at in the Fourth Gospel (with reference to the charge against our Lord, Joh_7:20; Joh_8:48 ff; Joh_10:20 f.), so it is not dealt with at all by St. Paul, though we could perhaps hardly expect that it should be spoken of in epistolary writings. We may, however, remark that the language of the famous passage Rom_7:14-25, in which the Apostle speaks of the power of sin in the Christian-for we can hardly think that he is speaking of himself only before his conversion-bears a close likeness to that used to describe demoniacal possession.
Literature.-This article has dealt only with the period from the Ascension to the end of the 1st cent.; for this reference may be made to H. St. J. Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, London, 1900, ch. vi. For demoniacal possession see R. C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of our Lord9, London, 1870, § 5 (‘The Demoniacs in the Country of the Gadarenes’). On the subject in general see H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, London, 1909, Appendix C; A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, Eng. translation 2, 1908. i. 125ff.; O. C. Whitehouse in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , article ‘Demon, Devil’; W. O. E. Oesterley in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , article ‘Demon, Demoniacs’; R. W. Moss in Hastings’ Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible , articles ‘Devil,’ ‘Possession.’ For post-apostolic conceptions at demonology see H.L. Pass in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics , article ‘Demons and Spirits (Christian)’; for those of other nations see the various articles under the same title in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics .
A. J. Maclean.
An evil spirit from the devil.
A fallen angel that assists Satan in the opposition of God. Demons are evil (Luk 10:17-18), powerful (Luk 8:29), and under the power of Satan (Mat 12:24-30). They recognized Christ (Mar 1:23-24) and can possess non-Christians (Mat 8:29).