CHAPTER VIII BIBLICAL DEMONOLOGY AND DIVINATION

 CHAPTER VIII

BIBLICAL DEMONOLOGY AND DIVINATION

VERY PREVALENT manifestation of superstition and evil

supernaturalism, divination plays a conspicuous role in human history,

especially in the ancient world. Closely allied with magic and other

demonological phenomena, it cannot easily be distinguished, in all

cases, from them. It is always, however, characterized by man’s

inveterate and insatiable desire to know the future, which accounts for

its widespread practice, in many lands, from the most ancient times.

A. THE MEANING OF DIVINATION

Divination is the art of obtaining secret or illegitimate knowledge

of the future, by methods unsanctioned by and at variance with the holiness of God. 

(Hear that critics? 

There goes your argument.)

Two main species exist. First, artificial divination, oraugury, wherein dependence is placed upon the skill of the agent in reading and interpreting certain signs or omens. Second, inspirational divination, in which the medium is under the immediate influence or control of evil spirits or demons, who enable him to discern the future and to utter oracles embodying what he sees.

Ancient Romans were almost exclusively given to artificial

divination, but the Greeks used mainly the inspirational type. Cicero,

in his famous treatise on “Divination,” clearly recognizes the two

distinct ways of obtaining knowledge of the future, yet he disavows

personal belief in any superhuman communication.’ Despite the

etymology of the Latin word divinatio (from deus, God, or divus,

pertaining to God, divine), suggesting prognostication due to

inspiration by superhuman beings, the term was confined almost

exclusively to obtaining knowledge by outward signs. The Greek

soothsayer (mantis), of a more imaginative and emotional race,

claimed to be inspired from without, and to be supernaturally

informed, and in this respect bears a close resemblance to the Hebrew

prophet. The Greek term for divination (mantike ) is descriptive of the

activity of the “diviner” (mantis), and scarcely ever signifies divination

of the lower kind-by means of omens.

1. THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION OF DIVINATION

The basic presupposition underlying all methods of divination is

that certain superhuman spiritual beings exist, are approachable by

man, possess knowledge which man does not have, and are willing,

upon certain conditions known to diviners, to communicate this

information to man. The word, in its etymological significance, as

noted, carries with it the notion that the information is obtained, at

least ultimately, from supernatural beings. Even Cicero, who would

deny any superhuman communication on the part of the diviner,

heartily endorses a definition of divination as “a power in man which

foresees and explains those signs which the gods throw in his path.“2

Among the ancients generally (Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks,

Romans, and similar peoples), the conviction prevailed that not only oracles, but also omens of all description, are vouchsafed to men by the gods (demons), and express the mind of these supernatura lexistences.

Astrology, which is really astromancy, is but one form of

divination, and its fundamental concept is the attribution of personality to the celestial bodies, which are conceived as deities directing the destinies of men, and revealing future events. Even hepatoscopy, or divination by the examination of the liver of animals (Ezek. 21:21), certainly involves the common idea of supernatural beings behind the omen. The common explanation, that the liver was considered to bethe seat of life,3 and that the liver of an animal sacrificed (generally a sheep), took on the character of the deity to whom it was offered, seems probable. The soul of the animal, as seen in the liver, then became the reflector of the soul of the god. Whatever the significance might be, all methods and forms of divination presuppose supernatural personalities; and the almost universal prevalence of divination, in one form or another in the ancient world, is a powerful argument for the existence of demons.

2. DIVINATION AND MAGIC

In a broader view, divination is but a species of magic. And if

magic is defined, in its modem accepted sense, as the art of effecting

results beyond human power by superhuman agencies, then divination

is merely a specialized form of magic used in an attempt to obtain

secret knowledge, especially insight into the future. The relation existing between divination and magic is similar to the relation

between prophecy and miracle. Divination and prophecy imply special knowledge; magic and miracle special power. In prophecy and miracle the knowledge and power are divine. In divination and magic they are demonic.

3. DIVINATION AND PROPHECY

Similarities between inspirational divination and Old Testament

prophecy ought never to be allowed to blind one to their radical and

essential differences. It is true that both take into account the human

instinct for secret knowledge, especially that appertaining to the future,

and they agree in the conviction that such knowledge is possessed by

certain spiritual beings4 who are willing, upon certain conditions, to

divulge it, and that such secret information is imparted to special

classes of men called diviners, seers, and prophets. But the likenesses

end here. All the rest is in fundamental contrast.

The Old Testament prophet believed in a personal God, uniquely

one, infinitely holy, righteous, and powerful, whose spokesman he

claimed himself to be. When he spoke or wrote, it was by direct

inspiration from the Spirit of God. “Thus saith Jehovah” was the

authoritative formula that stamped his message with the finality andinfallibility of divine truth. The Greek and the Roman “soothsayer”

(mantis), on the other hand, having no sublime ethical God, but gods

many and lords many, went through various crude contortions, until he

worked himself up to the necessary pitch of ecstasy, by music, drugs,

sacrificial smoke, and similar helps. When, finally, in his insane

excitement, he did speak, it was not truth by divine power, but error

and deception by demoniacal cunning. In some instances he deemed it

efficacious to swallow the vital part of the bird or beast of omen. The

heart of a crow, mole, or hawk, thus imparted to him, he thought, the

presaging soul of the creature.5

The mantis plied his art as a lucrative business, charging expensive

fees, and refusing his services, when the emolument was not

sufficiently remunerative. The oracular shrines were operated for

selfish personal and political ends.6 The Old Testament prophet, in

complete antithesis, spoke as he was bidden by God. Personal ambition and selfish aims had no claim whatever upon him. Conviction andtruth were all-important, no matter how these might clash with thedesires of kings, dignitaries of the state, or the common people, and nomatter what suffering, poverty, imprisonment, or even death, loyalty toGod’s Word might entail.

(RESONTAES...A LOT.)

Isaiah’s fearless denunciation of Ahaz’s sin

in summoning the aid of Assyria (Isa. 7 ff. ), as well as Jeremiah’s

scathing censure of the iniquitous actions of the leaders of the nation of

his day (Jer. 2:36 ff.) are examples of godly intrepidity, beautiful to

behold. Both of these valiant men of God suffered severely for their

courage, especially Jeremiah, who stands out as one of the finest

recorded examples of what, in the face of the most formidable

opposition, a servant of God ought to be. Had Micaiah, the son of

Imlah, lied to please the unscrupulous Ahab, he might have been

clothed in purple and lodged in a palace. As it was, the unprincipled

monarch could only fume, “I hate him, for he doth not prophesy good

concerning me, but evil” (I Kings 22:1-25), and vent his offended rage

by casting the prophet of God into a dungeon.

In view of the similar and yet antithetical nature of prophecy and

divination, the early Church Fathers were correct 

(They got a lot more right back then 

than we do now thats for sure.

)

in viewing the divination of heathenism as demoniacally inspired, and the aping work of Satan as discrediting the truth by producing phenomena among pagan races very similar to the operation of the Holy Spirit. Heathen divination is, then, not so much a corruption of prophecy, as a Satanic

imitation of it. It is needless to say that the view of such

anthropologists as Frazer,7 and Tylor,8 and such Old Testament

scholars as Wellhausen and W. Robertson Smith, that prophecy is but a

development from a higher form of divination, is totally at variance

with the spirit and testimony of Scripture.

B. THE BIBLICAL DENUNCIATION OF DIVINATION

Pure Yahwism, in its basic principle, is and must ever have been

inimical to divination of every type, despite the fact that the

inspirational variety bears certain resemblances, and even affinities, to

prophetism. The underlying thought of all forms of this forbidden art is

that by resorting to certain means, at variance with an infinitely wise

and holy God, men may obtain desired knowledge otherwise beyond

their grasp. But since the religion of Israel made Jehovah the sole

legitimate source of that information, and the prophet the constituted

medium through which it came to men, all recourse to illegitimate

methods, or appeal to spiritual beings other than God, or search for

forbidden or illicit knowledge which could not pass the divine scrutiny,

is taboo. This means, in short, that all divination of every form and

description, is excluded from the religion of Israel.

Little wonder, then, that “one that useth divination,” or “one that

practiceth augury,” is placed in the same category with the sorcerer, the medium, the wizard, and the necromancer, as “an abomination unto Jehovah,” and is unequivocally condemned (Deut. 18:10-14) ; while the prophet of Jehovah is contrasted with diviners of all kinds, as theonly authentic and duly authorized agent of supernatural revelation.Meanwhile, the antithesis furnishes the occasion for the sublime and far-reaching prediction of the coming of the supreme and perfect Prophet, the Revealer par excellence, of the heart of God to man, Jesus Christ, the Prophet of the prophets (Deut. 18:15-19).

The Deuteronomic passage also gives truth, as spoken by Jehovah

through the prophet, as the basic criterion for evaluating the

genuineness of an alleged spokesman of the divine revelation. If, likethe heathen diviners, he speaks “in the name of other gods,” orpresumptuously, in Jehovah’s name, what has not been divinely

commanded him to speak, so that “the thing follow not, nor come to pass,” he is to be accounted a false prophet of the stamp of pagandiviners, and to be put to death (Deut. 18:20-22). This regulation for

the conduct of the people of God may seem harsh and unnecessarily

severe. But not so. It was divinely framed to be obeyed strictly and

uncompromisingly, so as to act as an efficient check against the

formidable and everpresent peril of contamination from the almost

universally prevalent heathen practice of divination. Its inexorable tone

alone was consonant with pure Yahwism. The deliberate and persistent

violation of its sound and health-ministering precepts is the only

adequate and valid explanation of the presence of various forms of

divination in the Old Testament.

It is emphatically not a case of the Bible’s appearing, as Davies

imagines, “to speak with two voices, generally prohibiting, but at times

countenancing various forms of divination.“9 The Scriptural attitude

toward divination is always that of prohibition and condemnation,

never that of favor or abetment. As the revelation of the divine will,

the Bible enjoins things as they ought to be. As divine truth it portrays

them as they are. 

(NOT HOW WE WANT THEM TO BE!)

And though things as they are may be far from what

they ought to be, and may, in the divine patience and forbearance, be

temporarily allowed, they are, nevertheless, still under the same divine

sentence of censure and disapprobation, whether such is openly

expressed at the time or not.

1. CASES OF ALLEGED BIBLICAL SANCTION OF DIVINATION

The case of Balaam (Num. 22-24) is often cited as an instance in

point where divination is tacitly or expressly sanctioned in the Bible.

Careful analysis of Balaam’s character, however, will demonstrate that

this is a hasty and inaccurate conclusion. That he was a heathen

diviner, whose words of blessing or cursing were believed, at least

among the heathen, to have magical efficacy, cannot be denied (Num.

22:6). He is explicitly called “Salaam … the soothsayer” (haqqosem,

“the diviner”) (Josh. 13:22) ; and the elders of Moab and Midian, who

went to fetch him for Balak, king of Moab, to curse Israel, took with

them the alluring bribe or fee for such service, called qesamim, “the

rewards of divination” (Num. 22:7). As a heathen diviner, he also

resorted to “enchantments” (nehashim, from nahash, referring to the

hissing, serpentlike utterances of divinatory formulas) (Num. 24:1).

The question is, Was Balaam, the soothsayer, the diviner, also a

prophet of Jehovah? Nowhere is he called a prophet, though plainly he

does the work of a prophet, and it is scarcely possible to conceive of

anything more magnificent in all prophetic literature than the parables

he delivered, which bear, in every detail, the superlative seal of divine

inspiration.10 It is certain, too, that he had communion of some sort

with God (Num. 22:9, 20, 22-35; 23:4, 16). He is plainly a heathen

magician under the divine dealing, who, very probably, like Jethro

(Exod. 18) and Rahab (Josh. 2), was conducted to acknowledge

Jehovah by the overpowering influence of God’s prowess manifested

in Egypt and in the wilderness, which had made an indelible

impression upon the neighboring nations (Exod. 15:14; Josh. 2:9-10;

5:1). He resolved to serve Jehovah, probably with the ulterior motive

that serving such a powerful God would be more lucrative. He,

therefore, decided to perform his enchantments henceforth in

Jehovah’s name.

Balaam’s case is indeed a strange anomaly. He knew the Lord,

Jehovah of the Israelites, but his knowledge was dimmed and distorted

by heathenistic corruptions, and vitiated by covetousness. Such a

combination of paganistic magic and personal greed with the service of

Jehovah could not be permanent or static. It was compatible only with

a transitional state in his experience of the divine dealing. He must

soon abandon his heathenism and his inordinate love of gain, or give

up Jehovah. The period of decision was fast approaching when the

message of the king of Moab reached him.

Balaam took his first step backward in his ascent out of paganism,

when, in secret hope of base gain, he refused the directive for the

permissive will of God (Num. 22:12, 20). His second act of

retrogression occurred, when, with liberal sacrifices, and the

employment of elaborate enchantments (24:1), he persistently, but

vainly, tried to cajole Jehovah into allowing him to curse Israel (Num.

23:4), so that he might reap the rich reward of the wages of

unrighteousness. It was not until he saw that Jehovah was inflexibly set

to bless Israel, that he forsook his vain enchantments, and his

mercenary ambition, and yielded himself to the ennobling influences

of “the Spirit of God”-which then “came upon him” (24:2). Thus, for a

time, he became a genuine prophet of Jehovah. Here was the final

opportunity for his better nature, in the rich grace of God, to assert

itself permanently over the dark forces of paganism. But he rejected

his chance, and chose base gain. He taught Balak how to corrupt the

people, whom he could not curse (Num. 25:1-3; 31:8, 16). His wicked

example of covetousness, and of easy world-conformity, as the typical

hireling religious teacher, serves as a repeated warning throughout

Scripture (Mic. 6:5; II Pet. 2:15; Jude v. 11; Rev. 2:14).

In the light of these essential facts concerning Balaam, what shall

be said to the claim that his case constitutes a Biblical sanction of

divination? “So far,” we are told, “is his vocation from being censured,

it is actually called into the service of Yahweh.””

To this charge, it may be replied, that Balaam’s case is ostensibly

altogether unique and special. To begin, he is a heathen, a Gentile, and

an enemy of Israel. Yet in the sovereign will and wisdom of God, he is

raised up to be a prophet (a phenomenal and un-heard-of thing for a

non-Israelite), and in spite of himself, is inspired and constrained to

prophesy blessing upon Israel. The fact that he was also a pagan

diviner, and was lifted up to the dignity of an inspired prophet, is only

one of the many exceptional, and altogether singular, features of the

whole extraordinary incident. To take this feature as an example of the

Biblical sanction of divination, is, however, totally unwarranted, in

view of Balaam’s previous knowledge and intercourse with Jehovah,

as a heathen soothsayer coming out of paganism, and inasmuch as the

whole episode represents him as being under the divine preparation

and discipline for the demonstrably special task of being the

instrument by whom God would testify on behalf of His people rather

than, as usual, to them.12

Jehovah’s sovereign and special use of Balaam as his mouthpiece,

despite the fact that his knowledge of truth was clouded and corrupted

by heathen conceptions, appears in the manner in which he is enabled

to deliver his prophetic parables. While he sought enchantments (Num.

23:15; 24:1), in his pagan ignorance and superstition, in vain attempts

to wheedle Jehovah into permitting him to curse Israel to further his

secret hankering for material gain, nothing is said of his being inspired

by the Holy Spirit. It is, apparently, simply a mechanical procedure,

seemingly independent of his moral state, and in no sense is it to be

construed as a sanction of his vocation as a diviner, nor of his personal

avarice. “And Jehovah put a word in Balaam’s mouth” (Num. 23:5,

16). It was not until Balaam saw the futility of his enchantments to

affect Jehovah, whom he discovered altogether righteous and holy, and

not until he turned away from his pagan ritualism, as well as from his

own sordid plan to change Jehovah’s will for personal advantage

(24:1) that “the Spirit of God came upon him” (24:2). He thus attained

the status of a bona-fide prophet of Jehovahbut only after renouncing

his heathenism. Surely, in this there is no sanction of heathen

divination, tacit or expressed. Rather the implication is unequivocal

condemnation.

Balaam’s own testimony concerning Israel, which is really

Jehovah’s “word in his mouth” (23:16), is most pertinent and

conclusive: “Surely there is no enchantment with Jacob” (nahash,

“divinatory method of any kind in Jacob”), “neither is there any

divination with Israel” (gesem, “divination of any sort in Israel”)

(Num. 23:23). His subsequent lapse, after his special task was finished,

is beside the point, and in no way affects the incident as a revelation of

the Biblical attitude toward divination.

Another instance, often cited, of the alleged Biblical sanction of

certain forms of divination, is the case of dreams. And there is no

doubt that Scripture assigns to them, at least to those of a certain

variety, an important place as a legitimate means of revealing future

events. In fact, in dispensations of God’s dealings with man,

unconnected with regularly constituted prophets, and with limited or

no written revelation, as in the days of the patriarchs (Gen. 31:10-14;

37:5-9), and judges (Judg. 7:9-14), or in periods before the giving of

the Holy Spirit (John 7:39) or the completion of the Scriptural canon,

as in the case of all Old Testament saints, there is no reason why the

divine method of revelation may not have made use of the medium of

involuntary dreams, or such as come unsought, for guidance in human

affairs. Neither is there any reason, as far as moral considerations are

concerned, why God may not make use of involuntary dreams in any

dispensation, particularly as a special means of leading in human

affairs (Matt. 1:20; 2:13; Acts 2:17). It is true, in this age of the

indwelling Holy Spirit, with a full written revelation to guide, that we

walk by faith, and have no need of such special methods of guidance

(II Cor. 5:7). Yet even now, should God see fit to lead in this

extraordinary manner, there would be nothing in it incompatible or

inconsistent with His holiness, neither would it savor of divinatory

means, since it would involve no search for secret or illegitimate

knowledge through methods at variance with the divine character, for

by its very nature it is God-given, and involuntary on the part of the

human instrument.

On the other hand, the case is quite different with dreams that are

voluntary, and sought for, and which are thus definitely divinatory in

character. These are unqualifiedly condemned in the Word of God. To

this variety belong such dreams as are induced by what is termed

“incubation,” or sleeping in some shrine where the patron god of the

place is believed to reveal his secrets to the sleeper. Herodotus makes

mention of this practice among an Egyptian tribe by the name of the

Nasamonians, who used to practice divination by sleeping in the

graves of their ancestors. The dreams which came to them there were

stoutly believed to be revelations from the deified progenitors.13 There

is reference to this heathen superstition in the Bible, where it is

catologued among other heathen abominations, and sternly denounced

as a pagan corruption to which God’s people yielded. They are

described as those who “sit among the graves, and lodge in the secret

places (vaults)” (Isa. 65:4). Solomon’s dream (I Kings 3:1-15) came to

him at the high place of Gibeon; but it was manifestly God-given,

involuntary on the king’s part, and not a case of incubation.

Besides the foregoing examples of inspirational divination, certain

types of the artificial, or augural variety, have been adduced as

countenanced by Scripture. Among the latter, sortilege, or the casting

of lots, is the most conspicuous. With regard, however, to the Biblical

practice, it is very questionable whether the custom can be classified as

divinatory at all, at least not under any ordinary definition of the term.

In cases where it is used legitimately, and by God’s people, it is not in

any sense an “art,” but a simple process like drawing straws, or

flipping a coin. No abstruse or forbidden knowledge of the future is

sought, but some simple matter of very practical import, as, for

example, which of the two goats was to be sacrificed to Jehovah, and

which was to be driven alive into the desert (Lev. 16:8-10), or, which

of two men very similar in qualifications and abilities was to be chosen

to take Judas’ place (Acts 1:26). No methods were employed, either,

which were unsanctioned by, or at variance with, the divine holiness.

The lot was simply a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood. If people

were to be selected, their names were inscribed on their respective lots,

which were thrown together into an urn, shaken together, and he whose

lot first fell out upon the ground was chosen.14 Hence, the expression,

“the lot falls upon” someone (cf. Acts 1:26).

Jehovah himself gave direction for the apportionment of the land

of Canaan “by lot” (Num. 26:55). He specified the choice of the two

goats on the Day of Atonement, one for Himself and one for Azazel,

by lot (Lev. 16:8). The divine direction for the apprehension of Achan

was by lot (Josh. 7:14). Always, when properly used by God’s people,

it was associated most intimately with Jehovah’s leading. The

invariable attitude among the pious was: “The lot is cast into the lap,

but the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah” (Prov. 16:33). Very

likely the same principle of the lot was operative in the Urim and

Thummim of the high priest. These two words, though etymologically

obscure, stand for two objects, perhaps, stones, one denoting “yes,” or

its equivalent, and the other “no.” Whichever the high priest took from

his ephod was believed to be the answer to the question asked.

Nothwithstanding the divine permission of the employment of the

lot, a practice in itself harmless enough, yet it is a question whether or

not its prevalent use in Old Testament times was not a divine

accommodation to the undeveloped spirituality of “children under the

rudiments of the world” (Gal. 4:1-3). Certainly, now when God has

“sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts” to guide us (Gal. 4:6-

7), we have no need of such “elements.” It is highly significant that the

last Scripturally recorded use of the lot by God’s people was just

before the Holy Spirit came (Acts 1:26) to “guide into all the truth”

(John 16:13).

A peculiar species of divination by water, called hydromancy, is

sometimes alleged to be recorded by the Bible without disapproval.

Joseph, in Egypt (Gen. 44:5), is said to have practiced this form of

augury without censure on the part of the narrator. But Joseph

purposely represents himself to his brothers as making use of the silver

cup which was hidden in Benjamin’s sack for divinatory purposes,

merely to enhance the value of the cup. It is plain from the

circumstances of the story that he did not actually so use it. However,

many forms of hydromancy were practiced among ancient nations, as

among modern Arabs and others. Generally, a precious stone, or a

piece of gold, or silver was thrown into a vessel containing water. The

resulting movements of the water and the images formed were

construed according to certain fixed signs.’-‘

Gideon’s fleece is frequently referred to as another instance of

augury implicitly approved of in Scripture (Judg. 6:36-40). But the

sign is clearly a divine accommodation to Gideon’s faltering faith and

persistent plea for such an omen (Judg. 6:17, 36, 39), and, not at all, an

implied approval of his method of ascertaining the divine will. The

Angel of Jehovah (deity) had appeared to him, and given him repeated

and remarkable assurances of his success against the Amalekites (Judg.

6:12, 14, 16), which should have been fully sufficient for all normal

requirements of faith, without his asking for further corroboration.

Thus, even these foregoing cases, which some deem doubtful,.

demonstrate how consistently and steadfastly the religion of Israel set

itself against augury. This fact is all the more remarkable when one

recollects how rife this augural type of divination was among all the

environing peoples. It is the more inexplicable, too, to those who

would deny the evidence of special divine guidance in every phase of

Israelitish history.

The divine condemnation of the “one who practiceth augury

(me’onen) (Deut. 18:10) is unequivocal. But the precise etymology of

the Hebrew term is uncertain. Some would derive it from the root

`anan (“to cover”), “one who practices hidden or occult arts.” This

explanation, though, has no real support from usage. Others would

connect the word with `anan (“cloud”), “one who observes the clouds

with a view to obtaining an oracle.” Still others would make it a

denominative from ‘ayin (“eye”), “one who smites with the evil eye.”

But nothing in the context would suggest any of these views. The most

likely explanation is that the expression is from the Semitic root

meaning “to emit a hoarse nasal sound” (Arabic, ranna), such a sound

as was customary in reciting magical formulas (Lev. 19:26; II Kings

21:6). “The oak of Meonenim” (‘elon me’onenim, “the augurs’

terebinth”) is interesting as an ancient tree, near Shechem, famous for

divination, which the Canaanites consulted, very likely, in some

augural way (Judg. 9:37).

2. CASES OF UNEQUIVOCAL BIBLICAL CONDEMNATION OF DIVINATION

All divination savors of idolatry, and, as such, is anathema to God.

Some forms are so crude and gross as to call forth special divine

denunciation. Of such a mode is hepatoscopy, or “looking in the liver”

(Ezek. 21:21). This method was very prevalent in the ancient world

among the Babylonians, and other Semites, and among the Greeks and

the Romans. Although one of the most ancient and venerable forms of

prognostication, it is still in vogue in Burmah, Borneo, and Uganda.

No evidence is available that it was ever practiced among the

Israelites. In the passage from Ezekiel’s prophecy, the king of Babylon

is said to have “looked in the liver.” This verse is classic for the

description of the three kinds of divination common among the Semitic

nations (arrows,. entrails, and teraphim).

As a specific variety of the general term for “divination,” gesem,

the primary idea of which is probably that of “cutting” or “dividing,”

like the Arabic qasama (“to divide out”), the significance to be

attached to hepatoscopy seems clearly to be “division.” Each of the

various parts of the liver, the lobes, the ducts, and so forth, had a

special importance assigned to it. The theory, apparently, is that the

god to whom the animal was sacrificed revealed his will by the manner

in which he fashioned the organ, which was considered to be the seat

of the victim’s life.

Belomancy, or divination by arrows, is represented by Ezekiel as

being practiced in Babylon, along with hepatoscopy and consulting the

teraphim: “For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at

the head of the two ways, to use divination (qesem); he shook the

arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim, he looked in the liver”

(Ezek 21:21). The arrows were either marked in such a way as to

indicate certain courses of action, and one was drawn or shaken out, or

else they were thrown promiscuously into the air, and the augury was

deduced by the way in which they fell to the earth.

Rhabdomancy, or divination by the use of the divining rod, is

referred to by Hosea, as practiced by the Israelites in their defection

and apostasy. The prophet condemns it. “My people ask counsel at

their stock” (`tx, “tree” or “piece of wood”), “and their staff” (maglo,

“divining rod”) “declareth unto them (their oracles)” (Hos. 4:12).

“Consulting the teraphim” (I Sam. 15:23; Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2)

is a form of divination which may have been effected by consulting the

dead. This seems very likely, if, as is probable, the teraphim were

ancestral images, superstitiously raised to the rank of household gods.

The method of consultation is not known. It is not impossible that the

modem medium’s frequent use of a portrait of a deceased relative, for

the alleged purpose of entering into communication with the departed

spirit, may furnish a hint.

An extreme mode of obtaining an oracle is the one almost certainly

referred to in the cruel and inhuman heathen practice of sacrificing

children by burning. This is corroborated by its inclusion in the context

of Deuteronomy 18:10, where the words “maketh his son or his

daughter to pass through the fire” assuredly indicates human sacrifice,

and the sense is “that burns his son or his daughter in the fire.”

Commenting on this passage, Keil and Delitzsch aptly remark:

Moses groups together all the words which the language contained for

the different modes of exploring the future and discovering the will of

God, for the purpose of forbidding every description of soothsaying,

and places the prohibition of Moloch-worship at the head, to show the

inward connection between soothsaying and idolatry, possibly because

februation, or passing children through the fire in the worship of

Moloch, was more intimately connected with soothsaying and magic

than any other description of idolatry.16

Astrology, or astromancy, is another form of divination

condemned in Scripture. Although no explicit mention is made of it in

the Deuteronomic list (Deut. 18:9-15), it is certainly to be closely

associated with Moloch-worship. Two very difficult passages (Amos

5:25-26 and Acts 7:41-43) seem plainly to link the cult of Moloch with

the worship of the planet Saturn. Although some scholars deny this,

there appears ample support, both in the Hebrew, and in the Septuagint

of the passage from Amos, that the prophet is alluding to the worship

of Saturn, and planetary divination in general-and, as connected with

Moloch-worship and Israel’s apostasy of the golden calf. “Did ye bring

unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, 0 House

of Israel? Yea, ye have borne the tabernacle of your king (siccuth

malkecem, LXX, skenen tou Moloch), and the shrine (kiyyun) of your

images, the star of your God, which ye made to yourselves” (Amos

5:25-26).

Stephen, quoting this very passage, connects it with the idolatry of

the golden calf (Acts 7:41), and the worship of “the host of heaven” (v.

42), and, following the Septuagint, with the cult “of Moloch and the

star of the god Rephan” (v. 43). The consonants of the Hebrew text of

Amos will permit the vocalization, “Molech (molek), for example with

the vowels of the common Hebrew word for “shame” (bosheth). This

is congruous with a common Hebrew custom of pointing names of

heathen gods with the vowels of some word, like “shame” (bosheth),

to show their consummate contempt for the foreign deities.

Undoubtedly, then, “Molech” (molek) is the true pointing in view of

the Holy Spirit’s application of the passage through Stephen, rather

than “king” (melek) as the Masoretes vocalized it.

The word “Chiun,” in the same passage, offers a similar parallel.

As the name of a heathen deity, its vowels represent an assimilation to

some such word as shiqqutz, “a detestable thing.” The Syriac version

has preserved the correct vocalization; apparently the Septuagint does

also, albeit the consonants have suffered corruption, especially in the

Greek manuscripts of Acts 7:43, where “Chiun” strangely appears as

“Rephan.” There can be no doubt that the vocalization should be as

Rudolph Kittel17 gives it and the correct transliteration, “Kaivan,”

which was the name of the planet Saturn among the ancient Arabs and

the Syrians, while “Kaimanu,” “constant” or “regular,” was its name

with the Assyrians. The seeming discrepancy between “Chiun” and

“Rephan” is due, either to the latter being a local Egyptian or Coptic

name for the planet Saturn and therefore employed by the Septuagint

as its equivalent, or to an error in the particular text from which the

Seventy were translating, the initial “k” being taken as an “r.” The

readings of “Siccuth, your king” (E.R.V.), or “tabernacle of your king”

(R.V.), and “shrine of your images” (R.V.) (Amos 5:26) lack the

authority of the Septuagint, corroborated by the New Testament

quotation and application, and miss the parallelism of the text, and its

general line of thought, which support the reading given by some of

the ancient versions, and followed by the Authorized Version.

Not only do Amos and Stephen link the worship of Moloch with

that of the planet Saturn, but what is even more difficult, both also

appear to represent the adoration of the golden calf in the wilderness

(Acts 7:41) as identical with the same cult. But this problem disappears

if the explicit statement of Stephen is accepted, that God gave Israel up

(cf. Ps. 81:12) “to serve the host of heaven” (Acts 7:42). The worship

of the golden calf was plainly star worship. The representation was that

of the solar bull, the constellation Taurus, as marking the position of

the sun at the time of the spring equinox.

Moloch the king, the idol of the Ammonites and of the

Phoenicians, was inseparably connected with both the solar bull and

the planet Saturn. The rabbis describe his statue as of brass, with

human body and bovine head. Diodorus Siculus gives a vivid

description of the Carthaginian worship of Moloch or Saturn:

Among the Carthaginians there was a brazen statue of Saturn putting

forth the palms of his hands, bending in such a manner toward the

earth, as that the boy who was laid upon them, in order to be sacrificed,

should slip off, and so fall down headlong into a deep burning furnace

… The ancient fable likewise that is common among all the Grecians,

that Saturn devoured his own children, seems to be confirmed by this

law among the Carthaginians.18

The Israelites, professing to be carrying the tabernacle of Jehovah,

upon which the Shekinah glory rested, in giving themselves over to the

worship of Moloch, were, in spirit, carrying the tabernacle of the

cruelest and most abominable of all heathen deities, and were rejoicing

in the light of the planet assigned to that deity.

The god Moloch, then, was the sun as king, especially as he

entered upon what was viewed as his special domain, the zodiac from

“Taurus” to “Serpens” and “Scorpio,” the period when the sun is

highest and hottest. Despite the fact that such a connection of the sun

with Saturn may seem forced, evidence is not lacking from ancient

monuments, that the Babylonians believed in such a relation, as

Thompson’s quotation from the following inscription will show:

When the sun stands in the place of the moon, the king of the land will

be secure on his throne. When the sun stands above or below the moon,

the foundation of the throne will be secure.19

It is obvious that the “sun,” in this inscription, cannot be the actual

sun, and it is defined on the reverse side of the monument as being

“the star of the sun,” the planet Saturn:

Last night Saturn drew near to the moon. Saturn is the star of the sun.

This is the interpretation: It is lucky for the king. The sun is the king’s

star.20

thirty years, a full generation of men. Saturn was thus, in a particular

sense, the symbol of time, and because of time, of destiny.

The earliest astrological tablets, as would be expected, are related

principally to omens dependent upon the two great lights, the sun and

the moon. When the planets were first recognized as distinct from

fixed stars is not known. It could not have been very long after the

recognition of the constellations. One planet, Chiun, or Saturn, is

mentioned in the Bible, as noted. Safe inference may be made that

others were known, since this particular body is the least spectacular

both in luminousness and motion, and was likely discovered after

some of the others. Be that as it may, planetary worship, and its

concomitant, planetary divination, prevailed in the Mesopotamian

world at a very early period.

The close interrelation between the worship of the calves, of the

heavenly host, and of Moloch, and divination and enchantments,

appears in the terrible divine arraignment against apostate Israel. The

acme of all the abominations of the backslidden ten tribes, which

brought upon them the Assyrian Captivity, is represented as their

making “molten images, even the two calves” and an “Asherah,” their

worshipping “all the host of heaven,” their serving Baal, their causing

their “sons and their daughters to pass through the fire,” and, in closest

connection with the enormities, their employment of “divination and

enchantments” (II Kings 17:16-17).

The defection of recreant Judah was very similar to that of

faithless Israel, and precisely the same demonological elements

accompanied it. In his sweeping reformation, Josiah “put down the

idolatrous priests” who “burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to

the moon, and to the planets (mazzaloth), and to all the host of heaven”

(II Kings 23:5). He also “defiled Topheth … that no man might make

his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech” (v. 10).

“Moreover, them that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the

teraphim … did Josiah put away” (v. 24).

It is evident that the idolatries to which the Israelites of both

kingdoms were most addicted were related to the adoration of the

heavenly bodies. Inseparably bound with these pagan cults, was the

passion to employ celestial omens as indicators of future events, thus

producing every kind of divination and witchcraft.

The word rendered “planets” in II Kings 23:5 is mazzaloth,

translated “twelve signs” in the Revised Version margin. Concerning

this expression, Thompson says:

The places where the gods stood in the zodiac were called “manzalti,” a

word which means literally “stations,” and we are probably right in

assuming that it is the equivalent of the mazzaloth mentioned in II

Kings 23:5.21

In late Hebrew, mazzal, though literally one of the twelve

constellations of the zodiac, is applied promiscuously to any and every

star; for example, in “Bereshith Rabba”: “One mazzal completeth its

circuit in thirty days, another completeth it in thirty years. “22

The reference is ostensibly to the moon, with its lunation of about

thirty days, and to Saturn, with its revolution of about thirty years.

These being the two planets with the shortest and the longest periods

respectively. By a natural metonymy, mazzaloth, the complete circuit

of the zodiac, came also to signify the bodies that performed this

circuit.

A passage in Isaiah is remarkable for its clear-cut classification

and subtle scorn of Babylonian diviners, who used stellar omens. “Let

now the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand

up, and save thee” (Isa. 47:13).

The astrologers are the “dividers of the heavens” (hovre

shamayim), who cut up the sky for augury, or to take a horoscope. The

significance of any stellar conjunction was made dependent upon the

particular quarter of the firmament in which it happened to occur. The

earliest of such divisions seems to have been into the four quarters,

north, south, east, and west; and astrological tablets, illustrating this

fact, have been uncovered in considerable numbers. Thus one tablet23

lists the solar eclipses for the first half of the month Tammuz, with the

signification of each eclipse depending upon the quarter in which it

was visible. On the first day the eclipse is associated with the south; on

the second, with the north; on the third, with the east; and on the

fourth, with the west.24

Very meagre astronomical knowledge is indicated by these tablets,

and the evidence is that the omens, either based on the sun, moon, or

the constellations of the zodiac, were not derived, as has frequently

been supposed, from some spectacular event ,occurring at or near the

time of the observed eclipse, but must have been drawn up on an

entirely arbitrary plan. Hence, they must have been extremely

unreliable. Isaiah’s clever sarcasm is better understood in the light of

these facts. “Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the

multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast labored from thy youth…

. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the

astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators stand up and

save thee. … Behold, they shall be as stubble, and fire shall devour

them” (Isa. 47:12-14).

“The “star-gazers” (hahozim bakokavim) are literally “those

looking up, or contemplating, the heavenly bodies,” for the purpose of

revelations and oracles. The verb “contemplate” (hazah) has a sacred

connotation, and is the common word for seeing God (Exod. 24:11;

Job 19:26), and for what is divinely presented to the mind of Jehovah’s

true prophets by inspiration (Isa. 1:1; Hab. 1:1; Amos 1:1). In its use as

a description of planetary diviners is couched a tacit rebuke to all

“seers of the stars.” One of Thompson’s “Reports” may be cited as an

illustration of this class of astral prognosticators: “Saturn has appeared

in Leo. When Leo is obscured, for three years lions and jackals … kill

men.“25 As the planet Saturn requires three years to pass through the

constellation “Leo,” the ravages of lions are predicted to last that long.

The “monthly prognosticators” were diviners who were acquainted

with the omens of the new moon, and who, at each new appearance of

the slender crescent, professed thereby to tell what was about to

happen. Their designation was very expressive of their art. They were

“those who make known (omens) at the time of the new moons”

(modhi `im lehadhashim). Signs were drawn from the various

positions, and even from the directional pointing of the horns of the

lunar disk, when first seen. The right horn was assigned to the king,

and the left to his enemies: “When, at the moon’s appearance, its right

horn is high (literally, “long”) and its left horn is low (literally,

“short,”) the king’s hand will conquer land other than this.“26

The “monthly prognosticators” either were ignorant of the fact that

the right-hand horn is always the higher, and that the degree of its

elevation depends on the season of the year-or, for some reason, they

kept the knowledge to themselves.

In a number of passages in the book of Daniel (1:20; 2:2, 10, 27;

4:7; 5:7, 11, 15) several classes of diviners are listed. In the

Babylonian world there were several types of prognosticators who

stood at the service of the king to obtain for him stellar and other types

of oracles and to interpret dreams and omens.27 The lists in Daniel

include those skilled in interpreting astrological omens, but they are

not described as “dividers of the heavens.” The expression rendered

“magicians” (hartummim) represents Egyptian magic (the word is used

in the Egyptian stories in Genesis 41:8; Exodus 8:7; and others). The

“enchanters” (ashshapim) represent Babylonian magic, where, as

Montgomery notes, “a correct Babylonian term is used, ashipu.“28 In

Daniel 2:2 two other classes are added to the “magicians and

enchanters” of 1:20, namely, “the sorcerers” (mekashshephim) and the

Chaldeans (Kasdim).

The sorcerers describe the occultists who by magical petitions and

songs gain the assistance or control of evil spirits for divining (Exod.

7:11; Dent. 18:10). Their profession “is condemned through the Old

Testament as representing black magic,” e.g., Exodus 22:17, or in the

figurative scenes of immoral seduction, as in Isaiah 47:9.22° The

“Chaldeans” were the dominant race under the NeoBabylonian

Empire, who so exclusively filled ecclesiastical positions that at the

capital “Their name became synonymous with the priests of Bel

Marduk.“30 So highly were they esteemed as possessors of wisdom

that “the several classes of wise men were summed up in the

comprehensive term `Chaldean.“‘81 Both “magicians” (4:6) and “wise

men” (hakkimin) (2:48) are employed in a similar comprehensive

sense in Daniel.

One other significant term in Daniel remains in the expression

rendered “soothsayers” (garzin) in the Revised Version (2:27),

apparently coming from the common root gzr, “to cut” (Dan. 2:34),

then “decree” (Job 22:28; Esther 2:1), the infinitive being used of a

divine “decree,” and gezirta, meaning “fate” in Rabbinic and Syriac.

“Hence the generally accepted meaning is (fate) determiners, i.e.,

astrologers. Thus it is rendered by the “Jewish Ver- sion”32 in

opposition to the Authorized and Revised Versions’ rendering

“soothsayers,” and specifies the type of divination in which these

prognosticators specialized as dealing with celestial omens. However,

the etymology may embrace the idea of the cognate Arabic verb “to

slaughter” (cf. jazzar, a slaughterer). If so, the meaning would then be

such as slay animals for the purpose of examining the liver and entrails

as omens, with perhaps the concomitant idea of sacrifices as an appeal

to deity.

The New Testament episode of the maid at Philippi who had “a

spirit of divination” (Acts 16:16, R.V.), that is, “a spirit, a python”

(pneuma Puthona, “a Pythian spirit,” where, with the conjunction of

two substantives, the second has the force of an adjective), is very

valuable in demonstrating the close connection between divination and

demonism. In Greek mythology, “Python” (Puthon) was the name of

the mythical dragon, that dwelt in the vicinity of Pytho, at the foot of

Mount Parnassus, in Phocis. It was said to have been the guardian of

the most famous of all Greek oracles at Delphi, and to have been slain

by Apollo. Pytho is thus the oldest name of Delphi, or the region

roundabout, in which the famous ancient oracle was situated.

Consequently, “the Pythian spirit,” as Hesychius correctly defines it,

was tantamount to a “divining demon” (daimonion mantikon ),33 and,

in the course of time, came to be the generic title of the supposed

source of the inspiration of diviners in general, including the slave girl,

whom Satan used at Philippi to oppose the truth of the gospel.

It is significant in the light of the demon-possessed maid at

Philippi that “the vehicles of manifestation resembling possession in

the ancient world are almost exclusively women… . Among the

possessed prophetesses of historic times the most eminent is the

Pythoness.“34 The seeress of Delphi, originally a maiden from the

surrounding countryside, “prophesied under the intoxicating

excitement of the vapors issuing from a cleft in the rocks above which

she sat on a tripod; she was filled with the god (Apollo) himself and

his spirit. The god, as was believed, entered into the earthly body, or

else the priestess’ soul, `loosed’ from her body, apprehended the divine

revelations with the spiritual mind. What she then `with frenzied

mouth’ foretold was spoken through her by the god.”’,’

Christians by no means held the Delphic oracles to be priestly

trickery or morbid psychic excitation. Like the pagans, they believed

them to be inspired, but differed from the heathen in believing the

inspiration to be not divine, but demonic. Minucius Felix,36 Tatian,37

Origen,38 and Augustine,39 as well as later writers ‘40 shared the

same general views.

In the light of the general facts pertaining to the ancient Delphic

Oracle it need not be for one moment doubted that the demonpossessed

girl at Philippi had actual powers of oracular utterance by

virtue of evil supernaturalism.41 It is demonstrably weak and

unsatisfactory exegesis, betraying ignorance of essential facts of

demonological phenomena, as well as disregard for the explicit

statements of the narrative, to represent her as a mere “hysterical

type,” or “none too strong mentality,” whose “confused utterances

were taken as coming from some supernatural power.“42 In reality, it

was a head-on clash of light with darkness, of the power of the gospel

with the power of Satan.

Meyer maintains that this young woman was a

“ventriloquistsoothsayer,” and correctly following Plutarch’s use of the

expression Puthon, as referring not only to a “divining-demon,” but

also appellatively to “soothsayers, who spoke from the belly”

(eggastri- muthoi), makes it what it certainly is, identical with the

Hebrew ‘o7 .43

There can be no doubt that this girl was a spiritistic medium,44

and the divining demon spoke from within her innermost being, as in

the case of one who possessed a familiar spirit (‘ob). In this sense she

may be called a “ventriloquist,” (“ventum,” belly, and “loqui,” speak).

But the modern idea that popularly attaches to the word, that is, the

idea of chicanery and trickery, in deceptively throwing the voice so

that it appears to come from some place other than its real source, in

this instance must be excluded.