In reference to “The evil one” it may very well be that there are two totally separate ways of viewing spiritual things. The one is the analytical ‘fleshly’ mind which operates in accordance with the world’s view, including educational and language properties and influences. The other is that which comes through a reality closer to the truth, almost through imagery or a child like apprehension of perceived reality.
So the rational mind deciphers scripture one way, but the spiritual mind another way. And all from the same or similar information being received. Almost a Jesus versus the Pharisees situation.
If talking about still small voices and such like, the rational mind may decipher these as being simply thoughts that ‘randomly’ appear to us. Their origin may be assigned to what appears as the logical source at the time. While this may appear as a ‘workable’ way of interpreting spiritual matters, the inherent reality may be quite different.
If we are to separate the concept of good and evil in a workable way, then it may make more sense to go with the flow of conventional thinking re evil, devil, whatever. Jesus did not mince his words when it came to pinpointing and identifying a problem. “You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father you do”.
He solidly POLARISED good and evil, separated them in a way reminiscent of how Adam managed to get them totally melded, mixed up and confused, having left that initial polarisation of innocent thought that was singular in nature, before he was tempted out of his protective ‘shell’. It was Jesus’ internal polarisation that accomplished his immortality, and Adam’s de-polarisation that brought about our mortality.
It may not be possible to operate workably outside of the same frame of thinking that we see in Jesus, who saw it in black and white, and who saw evil as initiated, not necessarily from within himself, although that is still possible, but as a separate entity (even if it WAS from within himself )(which it was), but the matter of such close origin not being the important thing, but rather the IDENTITY being important to him, being that it was not the identity of either himself [through polarisation of the personality] or his father.
It was not the particular body or means or medium of the embodiment of the evil that mattered, it was its very presence and its presentation to him. [‘Where have you come from? from going back and forth on the earth’. “The spirit of the air.” The spirit of disobedience.]
Therefore it is identity that is important, and the separation [of good and evil] displayed may well be that which also places us in the correct “polarisation” in realisation of and the dealing with, the matter of good and evil. That our identity be aligned with His, with Him, and truly separated from the “other” identity of ‘self’ which inhabits the flesh.
[The cross the instrument firstly of separation (from our false self) and then of reconciliation (to our and HIS true self) ][The decision is of which self we are or want to be]
CROSSROMAN 