Poetry – Possession

Poetry

1 . The presence of poetry in the Bible is natural and fitting. As it is the form of composition which is easiest to memorize, whether in the earlier stages of a literature, or later in the expression of common religious experience, it is natural that poetry should be preserved, and should be the preserver of Hebrew thought. As the form of literature which is concrete in its pictures, it is to be expected that the Hebrew people, to whom abstract thought and terminology are almost unknown, would employ it very freely. As the literature of emotion and imagination, it is naturally used to express religious emotion and religious ideals. It does not suflice, however, to state the fitness of poetry to satisfy in a measure the purposes for which the Bible was written. Does it actually contain poetry? The answer is to be found only by examination of its contents, and only an affirmative answer is possible. Though the Psalms have not been written in poetical form for two thousand years, yet their poetry cannot be obscured. Scholars may differ as to the forms and laws of Hebrew poetry, yet they do not venture to say that none is to be found in the Bible.

The presence of poetry must be recognized if one would gain any adequate linowledge of the Scriptures. Otherwise correct interpretation is impossible. From failure in this respect in the past, our theology has suffered, the warfare between the Bible and science has been intensified if not caused, and Christians have lost immeasurably the comfort and spiritual help available from this kind of literature. Poetry must be interpreted as poetry. To apply to it the same principles of exegesis as are applied to prose is highly absurd; for in attempting to mark the differences between prose and poetry we must go below the form of language, and note that there is a distinctly poetic mode of thought and range of ideas. The facts of experience are so grouped and wrought upon by the imagination as to become a new creation. The singer is not bound to time or place; he speaks in figure without knowing that it is a figure; he speaks in hyperbole because he does not have the sense of proportion. The poetry of the thought affects also the vocabulary of the singer; it modifies his word meanings, and affects his grammar. It alters his literary style, and there arises a distinct study, that of literature as poetry — a study in which the attempt is made to discover how poetical forms express the poetical thought of the writer.

2. In treating the poetry of the Bible we are concerned chiefiy with the OT. The NT has a few poetical sections (see Htmn), but these are confessedly Hebrew in character, and do not call for independent treatment here. As compared with the OT, the NT contains very little poetry, for the obvious reason that Christianity, early and late, has largely found the Hebrew Psalter sufficient for its devotional purposes.

3. What are the characteristics of Hebrew poetry? They must be found from an inductive study of recognized poetical sections of the OT. A certain part of the Scriptures is clearly poetry; a certain other part is clearly prose. Between the two there is a great amount of literature, especially in the prophetical books, about which there is a difference of opinion. It is called poetry or prose according to the scholar’s definitions and his zeal in making emendations. There are prose poems, products of real poetical imagination, and artistic in form, but lacking in poetic rhythm. These doubtful passages should be left out of account until the essential principles of the poetry of the Hebrew people are determined, and then the test can be reasonably applied to them. Such has not always been the mode of procedure on the part of scholars. Sometimes their aim seems to have been to discover new examples. whether by direct study or by inexact methods. One cannot look very deeply into the subject without discovering the most extreme differences of opinion among scholars. There is abundant reason for this state of things. The very reasons which make the presence of poetry in the Bible natural and fitting, operate to make its definition difficult. The niore natural the poetic expression of thought and feeling, the freer it will be from conventional regulation, and the less sharp will be the difference between the prose and the poetical literature of a people. And again, in Hebrew so many facts are lost upon which we are wont to place dependence in such a study, that until we get new light from without, any scheme of Hebrew metre must be merely a worljing hypothesis, and no complete system can be expected. There Is not a commanding tradition of the pronunciation of the language, whether we think of vowels, syllables, or accent. We have no knowledge of Hebrew music of a character that would aid in determining thg^ rhythm of the poems that were sung to its accompaniment. Even the consonantal text is corrupt, in many places confessedly so; and there is almost no place so certain that a new scholar does not feel himself free to arise and emend it, and so win his spurs. Under these circumstances wide differences of opinion are to be expected, and their existence must be endured patiently. If there is any ridicule justifiable, it should be expended, with extreme caution, upon those who, ignoring these many points of uncertainty which necessarily limit the value of their inductions, formulate an elaborate and microscopically minute system of metre, and then turn confidently round and use the system to emend the text so as to bring it to its original condition. Rhythmical considerations may to a certain extent enter into literary and textual criticism, but unsupported they cannot be convincing.

The OT is not quite destitute of evidence that the Hebrews themselves were conscious of a difference between their prose and their poetry. They had special names for ‘proverb’ and ‘song’; they provided the Psalms with headings, some of which must have been musical directions; they made alphabetical poems, the several lines or stanzas of which begin with the letters of the alphabet in regular order. These lines and stanzas are of equal length and similar rhythm. Some of the poems inserted in the prose books are written and printed line by line, as Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32, Judges 5, 2 Samuel 22; and for the three poetical books of the canon the Massoretes of later times provided a special system of pointing, thereby recognizing a distinction that must have had its basis in tradition, although the special pointing was not to preserve the poetic value.

Passing over, with the brief allusion already made, the peculiarities of thought, of vocabulary, and of grammar which poetry reveals, the features that one expects to find in OT poetry concern the line, and the stanza or strophe. (1) The line is so constructed that when it is read aloud it sounds agreeable to the ear by virtue of a distinct rhythm; this rhythm is repeated with little or no variation from line to line; the end of the line coincides with a break in the sense. The line is properly regarded as the unit of poetical expression. It is commonly of a length to be uttered with a single breath, and, if sung, a brief strain of music suffices to accompany it. The fundamental importance of the line makes it desirable to determine, if possible, what are the rules for its length, and what is the nature of the measurement that secures the rhythmical effect so universally recognizable. The history of the search for a satisfactory system of metre cannot be given here. Classical models, with quantity as a basis, were long ago abandoned ; one group of scholars discard the Massoretic accents, and attempt an explanation on the basis of Syriac metre, counting syllables, and accenting alternate ones; but the predominant theories arS accentual. syllables), and others count the falls also, permitting only a certain number of them to intervene between rises. This number is made to depend on the metrical value of the syllables, which, according to some scholars, is determined by the number of morw, oi time units, which they contain.

It should be remembered that we are dealing with an early form of an ancient literature, and that this literature is an Oriental one. This creates a very strong presumption against an elaborate and minute system of metre. The Hebrew language was indeed dominated by tradition, which made it difScult to alter established practice; but in case the tradition was one of freedom on the part of the writer to construct his poem as he chose, it naturally operated to keep him free from the complicated rules which spring up in the later periods of the life of a language.

Until the contrary is shown on other grounds, it must be assumed that the Hebrew accent system, differing traditionally from Arabic and Syriac, differed from them actually; and as the traditional grammatical forms depend largely upon the accent, the natural Inference is that it is an important feature of the language. If so, it may be supposed that it is important also in poetry. The view that seems best to suit the facts as they exist, that makes the smallest demands in the way of departure from ordinary prose style, and that yields at the same time results reasonably satisfying to the poetic feeling, is this: the line was composed of a definite number of accents, or, as ordinarily each word had one accent, of a definite number of words. This view does not fit all the lines of every poem; but the possibility of exceptions at the will of the writer is a part of the theory. Moreover, the percentage of exceptions is very likely not greater than that of probable corruptions in the text. It is not to be counted as an exception when, in order to secure the regular number of accents, two short words must be pronounced as one, as is so often done for other reasons with the insertion of a maqqeph O, or when a word exceptionally long and heavy must be pronounced with two accents for the same purpose. (2) The next higher unit is the group of lines taken together. The name strophe might be applied to all such groups, but it is usually reserved for the larger groups. The smallest group — the couplet or distich— exhibits the most characteristic feature of the poetry of the language, namely Farallelism, a name given by Lowth in 1753. The lines are so related to each other that there is a correspondence of parts, both in form and in sense. It is not confined exclusively to poetry, for it is nothing but the development of the idea of balance and euphony of parts which is found in elevated prose style, especially such as is uttered orally. The mind more easily grasps the thought of a second clause, if fashioned like an earlier one. It is less occupied with the form, for that is already familiar. It is also, and doubtless for that very reason, more agreeable to the ear. What Is desirable in prose, and often used there, becomes the rule in poetry, as one may easily understand when one considers the necessity of a uniform line for the sake of easy utterance with musical accompaniment. It is by its persistence and uniformity that parallelism certifies to the poetical nature of a passage. This parallelism is of the utmost importance in determining the meaning of a verse. While its adoption as a poetical form has a logical basis, once let it become the rule for such composition, and it cannot fail to operate to modify the thought as well as the form. What would otherwise appear to be a careful choice of synonyms, for example, perhaps to secure climacteric effect, may be simply the operation of this principle. So the unusual position of a word in a clause may be traceable to this rather than to a desire to secure special emphasis. Several distinct forms of parallelism have been observed. two lines is synonymous, and so are the several terms by which the thought is expressed.

How shall I curae whom God hath not cursed? And how shall I defy whom Jahweh hath not defied? — CNu-23»).

(6) Antithetic parallelism. — The second line expresses the same real truth as the first, but it does it antithetically. The form is truly parallel, and one member of the lines is synonymous, the other two contrasted. This is especially common in proverbs.

A wise son maketh a glad father.

But a foolish son ia the heaviness of his mother. — (Pr lO").

(c) Stair-like or ascending rhythm. — The thought of the first line is repeated in part, or, if entirely, more briefly, so that the second line can add a further item of thought, thus rising above the parallel line. Till thy people pass over, Jahweh, Till thy people pass over, which thouhast purchased.— (Ex 15:16).

(d) Synthetic parallelism. — The thought of the second line is entirely different or supplementary, none of the first being repeated. The distich remains in parallelism, for the two lines correspond in form. Answer not a fool according to hia folly, Lest thou also be like unto him. — (Proverbs 26:4).

Other varieties are often singled out for discussion, and it will not be supposed that a typical form is always to be discovered. The variations and combinations are very numerous, and the study of them is full of interest and novelty.

The two-line group, or distich, has been considered above, as the simplest in which parallelism can be observed. It is also by far the commonest. Three lines grouped in a similar way are not uncommon. In this case the first and second may be synonymous, and the third synthetic to them; or other combinations may be found. Moreover, distiches may be arranged in pairs, with the same parallelism as between single lines of the distich. It often occurs that several lines are grouped together so regularly that a stanza or strophe is recognizable. It may be marked off by a line repeated as a refrain, or by a special initial letter, in alphabetical poems; but such indications are not of common occurrence. Absolute regularity in length is not often found, and scholars often attempt to secure it by assuming the loss or insertion of a couplet or two. There is also no specific principle distinct from the parallelism above mentioned, to form the basis of a strophical division. It seems likely, then, that strophes are not to be regarded as an essential feature of Hebrew poetry, like the stanzas of a hymn that is to be sung; but that the grouping is entirely optional and ordinarily logical — a literary feature. Rhyme and assonance are known in the language, but are not used persistently throughout a poem, and cannot be anticipated or reduced to rule when present.

3. By far the greater part of the OT poetry is of course religious and ethical, as the Psalms, Proverbs, and Job (see artt.). Outside of these books, however, is an interesting and by no means small amount of poetry which the Bible student may profitably study for its literary and historical value.

In family and social life, poetry evidently had a large place. Marriage occasions furnished the very best opportunity for the composition of songs, and for their execution to the accompaniment of music. Such are the songs in the Book of Canticles. The wedding song evidently furnished the model of the passage Isaiah 5:1 ff.: Lamentation for the dead is also an evidence. The finest example is that of David over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:17 ff.). A part of a lament by him over Abner is found in 2 Samuel 3:33 f.: The tenderness and fitness of these utterances are very different from the stereotyped dirges of which there is notice in Jeremiah 9:16 (."). The characterof these may be seen from the Book of Lamentations,

3 a where the poet laments over the city as over a person. The first lour of the five poems of this book are alphabetical, a strong mark of artificiality, which is further emphasized by the choice of a peculiar rhythm, known as the elegiac rhythm. There is a long line, commonly broken by a caesura. The first halt contains three beats or rises, the ordinary length of the Hebrew line. The second half has but two. In ordinary rhythm it would have three, and would form a second line in parallelism with the first. The same rhythm is detected in a few passages of similar import in the prophets. There are allusions, too numerous to cite, to the use of songs at feasts of various kinds, and at the drunken revels against which the prophets protest. Numbers 21:17 f. is claimed to be an example of the songs often sung to celebrate the discovery of a spring or the successful digging of a well. The religious use of poetry is scarcely to be distinguished from its national use. For when Jahweh could be addressed as the God of the hosts of Israel, poems composed to incite or reward bravery could not fail to make use of religious as well as of patriotic emotions to secure their end. See, for example, Jg S.

O. H. Gates.

Pole

(SACKED). See Asherah, 3. 4.

Poll

‘By the poll’ (Numbers 3:47) is ‘by the head.’ Cf. Shaks. Hamlet, iv. v. 196, ‘AU fiaxen was his poll. The idea in the Hebrew word is’ roundness,’ and so to ‘poll’ the head is to give it the appearance of roundness by cutting off the hair. Cf. More, Utopia, ed. Arber, p. 49, ‘Their heades be not polled or shauen, but rounded a lytic about the eares.’

Pollux

See Dioscuhi.

Polygamy

See Family, Marriage.

Pomegranate

(rimmSn,Arab.TOm?reSn). Tree and fruit (Exodus 28:33 f. sg^i M, Numbers 13:23 20:5. Deuteronomy 8:8, 1 Samuel 14:2. 1 Kings 7, 2 Kings 25:17, 2 Chronicles 3:16 4:13. Song of Songs 4:3, 13 6:7 7:12 8:2. Jeremiah 52:22 f.: Joel 1:12. Haggai 2:19). The pomegranate {Punica ffranatum) is one of the familiar fruit trees of the OT; It is usually a shrub, but may attain the height of a tree (1 Samuel 14:2) it was much admired for its beauty (Song of Songs 4:3 6:11), and its flower was copied in ornamentation (Exodus 28:33. 1 Kings 7:18). Its dark green leaves and brilliant scarlet blossom make it a peculiarly attractive object, especially when growing in orchards (Song of Songs 4:13). mixed with trees of other shades of green; its buds develop with the tender grapes (Song of Songs 7:12), and the round, reddish fruit, with its brilliant crimson, juicy seeds, ripens at the time of the vintage. The fruit is a favourite food, and the bark a valued astringent medicine.

E. W. G. Mastebman.

Pommel

See Bowl.

Pond

See Pool.

Pontus

In the earliest times of which we have any knowledge, this name, meaning ‘sea’ in Greek, was used by Greeks to indicate vaguely country bordering on or near the Black Sea. From its importance for the corn supply of Greece, the Black Sea and the land around it came to be known as ‘the sea’ par excellence. As time went on the term gradually became confined to the country to the south of the Black Sea. It was not till about B.C. 302 that a kingdom was here formed. In that year, consequent upon the troubles due to the early death of Alexander the Great, a certain Mithradates was able to carve out for himself a kingdom beyond the river Halys in N.E. Asia Minor, and about B.C. 281 he assumed the title of king. It is not possible to define the exact extent of the territory ruled by this king and his descendants, but it is certain that it included part of the country previously called Cappadocla, some of the mountain tribes near the Black Sea coasts, and part of Pophiagonia; and also certain that its extent varied from time to time. The Mithradatic dynasty lasted till B.C. 63. In the preceding year the kingdom ceased to exist, and part of it was incorporated in the Roman Empire under the name Pontus, and this district henceforth constituted one-half of the combined province Bithynia-Pontus, which was put under one governor. The remaining portions of the old kingdom were distributed in other ways. The civil wars helped Pharnaces, a son of the last Mithradates, to acquire the whole of his father’s kingdom, but his brief reign ended in defeat by Julius Cassar (b.c. 47) . The narrowed kingdom of Pontus was re-constituted by Mark Antony in B.C. 39, and given in B.C. 36 to Polemon, who founded a dynasty, which ruled over this kingdom till a.d. 63. The daughter of this Polemon, Queen Tryphsena, is mentioned in the apocryphal book. The Acts of Paid and Thecla, as having been present at a great Imperial festival at Pisidian Antioch in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, whose blood-relation she was. This statement is no doubt founded on fact. These Acts relate that she protected the Christian maiden Thecla, and was converted, through her Instrumentality, to Christianity. As tradition connects Bartholomew also with the Polemonian dynasty, it is probable that there were some Christians among them. In a.d. 63 the kingdom of Pontus had been brought to a sufficiently high pitch of civilization to be admitted into the Roman Empire; the western part was made a region of the province Galatia, and the eastern was added to Cappadooia. The dispossessed Polemon was given a Cilician kingdom, and it was as king of part of Cilicia that he (later than a.d. 63) married Berenice.

In the 1st cent, a.d., therefore, the name Pontus had various significations, and a strict nomenclature was available for their distinction. The province was Pontus, Polemon’s kingdom was Pontus Polemoniacus (incorporated into province Galatia a.d. 63), the part of Mithradates’ old kingdom incorporated in the province Galatia (b.c 3-2) was Pontus Galaticus, and the regions that lay E. of Pontus Polemoniacus, between the Black Sea and Armenia, were known as Pontus Cappadocicus. (Into the difficult question of the institution of this fourth district we cannot enter here.) From about a.d. 78 to 106 P. Galaticus and P. Polemoniacus were included in the combined provinces Galatia and Cappadooia, and after a.d. 106 they constituted permanent parts of the province Cappadocia. In 1 Peter 1:1 Pontus means clearly the Roman province. There is little doubt that the adjective Pontikos, applied to Aquila in Acts 18:2, means that, though a Jew, he was a native of the Roman province, and it is interesting in connexion with this to mention that an inscription has recently been found referring to one Aquila at Sinope, one of the principal cities of the Roman province Pontus. The only remaining NT reference to Pontus (Acts 2:9) cannot be so easily explained. It must be left uncertain whether the name Pontus there is used strictly of the province, or more loosely of the kingdom, or of the kingdom and the province together.

Christianity was not brought to Pontus by St. Paul, if we can trust the silence of Acts, and it is best to do so. From 1 Peter It is clear that about the year 80, the probable date of the Epistle, there were Christians in that country, and these converts from paganism to Christianity probably came there from the Asian coasts or from Rome. There is a well-known and valuable testimony to the prevalence of Christianity in the province, belonging to the period a.d. 11 1-1 13. At that time the younger Pliny was governor of the province Bithynia-Pontus, and addressed inquiries to the Emperor Trajan on the manner in which Christians ought to be treated by the administration. He reports that many men and women of all ages and of every rank In town and country were Christians, and that some had abandoned the faith 20 or 25 years before. After Pliny’s time Pontus continued to be a stronghold of Christianity. From here came the famous Marcion (born about 120 at Sinope), and of this province Aquila, a translator of the OT into Greek, was a native. A. Souteb.

Pool, Pond

‘offom, a collectionof standing water, is distinguished from miqweh, a place into wliicti water flows, or is led (Exodus 7:19). The former may denote ttie water left in the hollows when the inundation of the Nile subsides, and the latter, reservoirs (cf. Genesis 1:10, Leviticus 11:36). AV tr. ‘Sffom’ pond,’ in Exodus 7:19 8:5; RV uniformly ‘pool’ (Isaiah 14:23 etc.). berikah (2 Samuel 2:13 i’^ etc..) is = Arab. Mrkeh, an artificial pond or tank. It is applied to great reservoirs constructed to furnish water for cities, or for irrigation, like that at Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:13). those at Hebron (2 Samuel 4:12). and at Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:17). etc.; and also to large basins, such as lend freshness to the courts of the houses in Damascus. The usual LXX equivalent is kolumbMhra, the word used in NT for the pools of Bethesda and Siloam (John 5:2 9:7). In Isaiah 19:10 read with RV ‘all they that work for hire shall be grieved in soul.’ See also Heshbon. W. Ewinq.

Poor

See Poverty.

POPLAR Qibneh [root meaning ‘white’), Genesis 30:37 RVm ‘storax’; Hosea 4. The Heb. is very similar to Arab, lubna meaning ‘storax,’ which is the LXX tr. in Genesis 30:37; on the other hand, in Hosea 4:13 the LXX has leuKS [‘white’], i.e. the ‘poplar’). — The poplar may easily have furnished Jacob with white rods. There are two kinds of poplar in Syria, Populus alba and P. euphratica; they both flourish round Damascus, where their trunks are much used in making supports for the mud roofs. E. W. G. Mastebman.

Poratha

The fourth son of Haman (Esther 9:8).

Porch

This word is a doublet of ‘portico’ (from Lat . porticus) . both originally denoting a covered entrance to a building. When the front of this entrance is supported on pillars, the porch becomes a portico. porticus, like the Gr. stoa, was extended to signify a roofed colonnade running round a public building such as a temple, or enclosing an open space, like the cloisters of a mediEBval monastery. The most famous of these ‘porches’ — a sense in which the word is now obsolete — were the ‘painted porch’ — the Porch par excellence-r at Athens, and Solomon’s porch at Jerusalem (see below).

In the OT a porch is named chiefly in connexion with the Temple (see below), or with the palace (wh. see) of Solomon. The pillars of the temple of Dagon at Gaza which Samson pulled down, or rather slid from their stone bases, were probably two of those supporting the portico, as ingeniously explained by Macalister, Bible Sidelights, etc., ch. vii. (see House, § 6). The word rendered ‘porch’ in Judges 3:23 is of quite uncertain meaning and even of doubtful authenticity.

In the NT, in connexion with the trial of Jesus, mention is made of a ‘porch’ or, as RVm, ‘forecourt’ (Mark 14). as distinguished from the ‘court’ (v. RV) of the high priest’s palace, for which Matthew 26:71 (EV ‘porch ‘) has a word elsewhere rendered’ gate.’ In both cases the covered gateway leading from the street to the court is probably meant.

Solomon’s porch (John 10. Acts 3:11 S’^) was a covered colonnade or cloister running along the east side of the Temple enclosure (see Temple, § 1 (a), where the triple colonnade of Herod’s temple — the ‘Royal Porch’ of Josephus — is also discussed. For details see ExpT, Nov. 1908, p. 68). A similar colonnade enclosed the pool of Bethesda (John 5:2). A. R. S. Kennedy.

Porcupine

See Bittern.

Porpoise

Exodus 25, Ezekiel 16:10 RVm. See Badgers’ Skins.

Port

The ‘port’ of Nehemiah 2:13 is a ‘gate,’ the same Heb. word being translated ‘gate’ in the same verse. Cf. Pr.-Bk. version of Psalms 9:14 ‘Within the ports of the daughter of Sion.’

Porter

Porter in EV has always the sense of ‘doorkeeper’ (see House, § 6) or ‘gatekeeper’ (see Fortification AND SiEGECEAFT, § 6, end). In John 10:3 the porter is the man left in charge of a sheepfold by the shepherd or shepherds whose sheep are there housed for the night. In private houses the doorkeeper might be a woman (2 Samuel 4:6 as restored from LXX, Acts 12:13). In OT, however, porters are most frequently named in the Books of Chron., Ezr., and Neh. in connexion with the Temple (1 Chronicles 9:17 f. onwards), where they had charge of the various gates (see Temple, § 6, Pbiests and Levites, §111. 1.2). The same word is rendered doorkeepers in AV 1 Chronicles 16:23 f.; and in several other places in RV (15 etc.). It is to be regretted that this term was not substituted throughout. In Psalms 84:10 the original is different, and should probably be rendered: ‘I had rather be [standing or lying] at the threshold in the house of my God.’

A. R. S. Kennedy.

Posidonius

An envoy sent by Nicanor to Judas (2 Maccabees 14:19).

Possession

! . Ueaning of the term.— The central idea in the word is the coercive seizing of the spirit of a man by another spirit, viewed as superhuman, with the result that the man’s will is no longer free but is controlled, often against his wish, by this indwelling person or power. In Scripture the idea is associated with both phases of moral character; and a man may be possessed by Christ or the Holy Spirit, or by a or the devil. Later usage has confined the word mainly, though not exclusively, to possession by an evil spirit. Of the better possession there are several kinds of instances in both Testaments. It is sometimes represented, according to the more material psychology of early times, as the seizure of a man by an external power, though the internal occupation is implied, and the control is none the less complete (1 Samuel 10:10. Isaiah 61:1; cf. the frequent ‘the hand of the Lord was upon’ him, 1 Kings 18:46: so of an evil spirit, 1 Samuel 18:10). The inspiration of the prophets is in some places described as effected by a supernatural agency occupying the seat of personality within the prophet, and controlling or moving him (Luke 1:70. 1 Peter 1:11. 2 Peter 1:21. 2 Esdras 14). in personal religion not only is the transference of authority within to the indwelling Christ spoken of (John 17:23. Galatians 2:20). but the Holy Spirit also may seize and possess a man (Acts 2:4. Luke 1:15. Romans 8:9, Ephesians 5:18). and should rule in him (Ephesians 4:30). But this involves a welcome and glad submission to the sway of a spirit within, though personal wishes may be thwarted or crossed (Acts 16:7). Demoniacal possession, on the other hand, is characterized by the reluctance of the sufferer, who is often conscious of the hateful tyranny under which he is held and against which his will rebels in vain.

2. Features of demoniacal possession. — In such possession two features may generally be traced. It is allied with and yet distinct from physical disease, and there is almost always something abnormal with respect to the psychical development or defect of the sufferer. It is given as the explanation in cases of dumbness (Matthew 9:32. Luke 11:14). of deafness and dumbness (Mark 9:25). of dumbness and blindness (Matthew 12). of curvature of the spine (Luke 13:11), and of epilepsy (Mark 1:26). Elsewhere such complaints are referred to as merely disease, and no suggestion is made that they were caused or complicated by the action of an evil spirit (Matthew 15:30. Mark 7:32. Luke 18:35). Sometimes possession and disease are even distinguished by different enumeration (Matthew 10:8. Mark 1:32. Luke 6:17 f. 7:21 13:32) ; and once at least epileptics (or lunatics) and palsied occupy a different category from demoniacs (Matthew 4:24). The right conclusion seems to be that the same disease was in some cases ascribed to ordinary causes and in others to possession, the distinguishing feature being possibly intractability due to the violence of permanence of the symptoms. Evidence that the disorder was at the same time of a psychical or nervous character is plentiful. According to Arab belief, something abnormal in the appearance, such as a strange look in the eyes or an unusual catching in the throat, was an invariable symptom, and both are indications of nervous excitement or alarm. The will was paralyzed (Mark 9:18). and the sufferer was under the influence of illusions (John 7:20). He identified himself with the demons, and was averse to deliverance (Mark 1:24 5:7). In such cases Jesus does not follow His usual course of exciting faith before he heals, but acts as though the sufferer were not in a fit state to believe or to trust, and must be dealt with forcibly first of all. Some confident and majestic word is spoken, of which the authority is immediately recognized; and only then, when the proper balance of the mind has been restored, is an attempt made to communicate religious blessing.

3. Our Lord’s belief. — Two opinions have been held as to whether Christ actually shared the current views of His day as to demoniacal possession. That He seemed to do so is attested on almost every page of the Synoptics, (a) According to one opinion, this was nothing more than a seeming, and His attitude towards the phenomena must be explained. as a gracious accommodation to the views of the age. In addition to the serious objection that such a theory introduces an unwelcome element of unreality into Christ’s teaching, and implies a lack of candour on His part, the arguments in its favour are singularly ineffective. To assert that Christ never entangled His teaching with contemporary ideas is to prejudge the very question at issue. That He adopted different methods from those followed by professional exorcists, whose success He expressly attests (Matthew 12:27). is exactly what His difference in person from them would cause to be expected, but does not necessarily involve a difference in theory. To humour a patient by falling in with his hallucination is not a correct description of Christ’s procedure; for in many of the instances the treatment is peremptory and stern (ct. Mark 9:25. where the sufferer was not consulted, and any humouring followed the cure; so elsewhere), and the evil spirits are represented after expulsion as actual and still capable of mischief (Mark 5:13). Christ’s own language is itself significant. He makes the current belief the basis of argument (Luke 11:16 ff.). attributes the power to cast out devils to the disciples of the Pharisees, and implicitly asserts it for Himself (Mark 12:27 f.: Luke 11:19 f.). and recognizes the power as resident in others (Mark 9:38 f.: Matthew 7:22). without a single intimation that He was speaking in metaphor, and that His hearers were blundering in assuming that He meant what He said.

(6) The real explanation is to be found in quite another direction. His humanity was true and complete, the humanity of the age into which Hebrews 9; and of His Divine attributes He ‘emptied himself (Philippians 2:7. 2 Co 8 13), except to the extent to which His perfect human nature might be the organ of their manifestation (Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, 136 ff.; Ottley, Doct. of Incarnaiion, 610 ff.). In virtue of this voluntary selflimitation, His humanity was not lifted clear of the intellectual atmosphere of His time; but He shared the conceptions and views of the people amongst whom He became incarnate, though His sinlessness and the welcomed guidance of the Holy Spirit aided His human intelligence, removing some of the worst hindrances to correct thinking, but not making Him in any sense a prodigy in advance of His age in regard to human knowledge. Accordingly, He avoids the extreme and exaggerated demonology into which an unduly extended animistic interpretation of the universe was leading His contemporaries, but does not reject or question the interpretation itself. At a later date there was a disposition to ascribe all diseases to possession, to multiply evil spirits bey ond calculation, and to invest them with functions and activities of the most grotesque kind. Christ’s attitude was altogether different, though He consistently talks and acts upon the assumption that evil spirits were no creatures of the fancy, and that possession weis a real phenomenon.

That such an assumption was wrong it is outside the province of the real sciences to assert or to deny; and there are some considerations that make the conclusion at least probable, that personal spirits of evil exist, and cause by their activity some woeful sufferings amongst men. Metaphysics postulates transcendent personal power as the original cause of material phenomena, and is sustained in so doing by all that a man knows concerning the roots of his own moral procedure. Immanent in man and outside, there is generally recognized a great spiritual existence, affecting human life in a thousand invisible ways; and the belief in One Supreme Spirit removes most of the difficulties from the belief in others, subordinate yet superhuman. In the asylums and hospitals, moreover, are cases of mental or nervous disease, not entirely explicable by physical law, but looking exceedingly like what cases of possession may be supposed to be; just as in social and civil life men are sometimes met with whose viciousness defies any other interpretation than that an, or the, evil spirit has secured the mastery over them. Psychical research, too, points to a large spiritual population of the world, and all the naturalistic explanations so far suggested have failed to solve the mystery. The conclusion seems probable that demoniacal possession was accepted by Christ as an actual fact, with modifications of the views of His contemporaries in the direction of economy in the bringing in of superhuman agencies, and of their due distinction from processes of physical law.

Possession may further be classed as one of the fundamentaland univeraal beliefs of mankind,with a solid element of truth in it, though running at times of excitement into extravagance. Homer held that a wasting sickness was caused by a demon, and the Greek dramatists generally attribute madness and quasi-Teli^oua frenzy to demonic or Divine possession. Tue Egyptians located a demon in each of the thirty-six members of the body; their presence was the cause of disease, which was healed by their expulsion. Seven evil spirits are grouped in Babylonian mythology (Matthew 12:45. Mark 16:9. 8:2 11:26). and these with theirsubordinate genii kept men in continual fear, and were thought able to occupy the body and produce any kind of sickness. In almost every civihzation, ancient as those of the East or rude as those of Central Africa, a similar conception has prevailed; and the prevalence points to a certain rudimentary truth that need not oe renounced along with the elaborations by which in the courae of ages the actual fact has been overlaid. R. W. Moss.