Sarid (Hastings' Dictionary)

A border town of Zebulun, situated to the west of Chisloth-tabor (IksAl, Jos 19">- '=). Eusebius and Jerome (Onum. s. -apld, Sarith) do not identify it. Conder, following the reading ZleSSovK, and that of the ancient Syriac version, 'Asdod,' reads 'Sadid,' and identifies it with 2'ell Sliadud, an artificial mound with fine sprinfjs, on the north side of the great plain of Esdraelon, and about 5 miles to the westward of Iks&l {PEF Mem. ii. 43, 70). C. W. WlLSON. SAROTHIE (B ■ZapuBel, A Sopuffii?)

, 1 Es S".— His sons are named among the sons of Solomon's ser- vants who returned with Zerubbabel. There is DO corresponding name in the lists of Elzia and Nehcmiab. SARSECHIM (D-:rij; ; BAX 'Sa^ovaaxip, Q NajSou- capax, Q"" ~apaaxel,ii ; Vulg. Sarsacldm). — One of the princes of the king of Babylon who wius present at tlie taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in tlie nth year of Zedekiah, Jer 3'J [Gr. 46],^. Ho seems to have borne the title of Rais-SARIS, 'chief of the heads or princes.'

There is much doubt as to the original form of the name, and its meaning is, therefore, likewise obscure. Schrader (COT ii. p. 110) merely remarks that the first part of the name is quite clear (v='king'), and queries the reading. In all probability, testimony to its in- correctness is to be found in the fact that the vocalization is practically the same as that of the Hebrew form of Sennacherib (Sanherlb, Sarsechim ; cf. Nimrod, Nisroch, etc.)

If the first element, snr, be regarded as certain, the original form may have been Sar-iskun, ' he (the god) has made a king,' that is, provided a successor to the throne. In this ea.se the original form of the name would have been ir?"'7,* which would go back to a time when no vowels whatever were written.

t In the present state of our knowledge, however, all identifications of this name must be regarded as tentative and unsatisfactory, presenting, as they do, several ditfieulties, and oeing unsupjiorted by the monuments. The Greek fonns beginning with No/3oi> are probably due to the name Samgar- neho, which precedes. If, however, they have any authority — and sometimes the Greek forms are the more correct (cf.

NiSROCH) — that of Q Noj3ou- aapdx would be the best for comparison, as it resembles very closely the Nahti-Sar-dhS-S^u, ' Nebo is his brothers' king,' of the inscriptions (Strass- niaier, In.irhriftcn run Nahurhodonosor, 172, 23; J 2lli, 12.1; and elsewhere). See also artt. Nkroal- Sharezer and Samqak-neuo. T. G. Pincues. • [OyiV would also be likely. t Ah the Gn-ek form Saraois shows, the name of Sin-iarra- iikun (' .

sin ha» made a kinjf '), the lost king of As-nyria, could Ijo pn>nouiice<l without the name of the deity, and would then he the same as the Har-iskun here sufff]^e8ted, at the same time lurniHhiriK an ohjenlion, for any one hearing snch a name would prohablv have heeii regarded o, * ctainiing the throne. I A'aMlardli/ltu, son of Dikia, and father of NahtL-mvitlilf- um, fifth witness to a contract dated in the 27th year of Neliurh»<iner.7jir.

S Sal'it-iaT-dhi'-hi, son of A'inunnda, son of Iddina-Fap- «i(i/. thini witness to a contr»ot (Utcd In tba 80U> yo»r of Nsbucliadnezzar. sata:^ 407 SATAN (Heb. \9v, Arab, ^'iaj^, Syr. U^CD Greek o-oroi-as [but in 2 Co 12^ Xariv, x» A" D EKLP etc.— yet the evidence is doubtful, and the reading Zaravd (genit.) is preferred by Lachm. Tisch.s and \VH on the authority of N A BD FG Copt. It. Vulg. Orig. Iren. Tert.

On the other hand, the reading SaTdi/ was preferred by Meyer, though there is no analogy to it in the NT, and in the LXX only in 1 K 11" 23^*, and Aq. on Job 1^]. More frequently (especially in the Gospels) the Heb. proper name is simplj' rendered by o 5id;3oXos, ' the accuser ' or ' calumniator.' In Kev 12'" o /cari)- yup is the equivalent used). — The name and con- ception of Satan belong to the post-exilian age of Hebrew development.

Probably Zee 3' is the earliest instance of its appearance in our Canonical literature. On the other hand, the roots of the conception can without difficulty be traced in the writings of pre-exilian and exilian times. i. Prk-exilian Period.— (1) The Serpent, who tempts Eve and lures man to his doom, is a demon in animal shape, analogous to the Arabic jinn which frequently resided in serpents. See art. Demon and also Magic (vol. iii. p. 208, footnote J).

(2) The Babylonian Ti&mat, the dragon-monster of the great abyss, with whom Marduk, god of light, contended (see art. Cosmogony), corresponds to the Hebrew Leviathan or Rahab in exilian and post-exilian literature (cf. also Am 1)^), with whom Jehovah entered into conflict and whom He de- stroyed. See artt. Rahab and Sea Monster. (3) The individual subject might be possessed by an ' evil spirit '(IS 16", cf. Jg 9^), which drives him to commit acts of violence in opposition to the Divine will.

In 1 S 16" this 'evil spirit' is placed in opposition to the Spirit of the Lord which departed from Saul upon its advent. This evil spirit, which ' distressed ' (ni'3) the king, is also spoken of as ' from Jehovah.' Wellhansen draws attention to the curious distinction that, whereas •"■ nn is the good spirit, '"■ t\hq nn (or c-S.x * nn) is a bad spirit. The former expression connotes a closer community of mind and purpose between the Deity and His emi.ssary.

Kor tlie present, however, it is sufficient to take note that evil, whether it be misfortune or sin, is referred to a Divine causality in accordance ^vith the intense feeling of dependence on God which characterized the ancient Hebrew, 1 S P 18'" 19'-' 26'-', 2 S 24', 1 K 22^', Jg 9^, Is 6'« 63", I's 51" (Max Lohr).

In the interestinjj parallel Jj^ 9^ the evil spirit shows itself as a spirit of discord between Abiinelech ami the Shechemites, just as it exhibited itself in Saul's outbreaks of violent jealousy against David. It is thus somewhat analogous in character to the Homeric 'Att;, daughter of Zeus. Cf. art. Maqic in vol. iii. p. 208*.

(4) In Micaiah's vision the emissary who goes forth to execute Jehovah's behest is a lying spirit (^;5l^ nn) in the mouth of the prophets who lures Ahab to his doom (1 K 22-"-). It would lead us beycmd the limits of our subject if wo were to discuss the OT conceptions of Jehovah's character involved in this naive portrayal of the relation subsisting between God and tlie lying spirit.

On this passage Kittel's remarks may be studied with advantage in his commentary, 'I'his narrative in 1 K 22'"*' forms an almost continuous section following on ch. 20, and there are no sulfieient grounds for separating vv."'" or other |)ortions from the narrative as later additions (as Seliwally proiioses in ZATW, 1892, p. 15911".; cf. Marti in SK, 1892, p. 230).

(5) Of subsidiary significance is the dilfi(ult D'n^K is not so distinctive a name for the Qod of th« Hebrews, linoe it may even dedipute heathen deities. 1C8 SATAN SATAN section Gn 6'", in which supernatural causes are assij;ned to growing human corruption in the fleshly union of angels and women and the rise of a race of nephilim. Holzinger (Commentary on Gen. p.

67) suggests that it contains a fragment of an old cosmogony with a conllict of higlier and lower deities, parallel to the Babylonian. Note the intluence of the tradition on the Book of Enoch. W'e have suHicienlly indicated the roots of the conception of Satan « hich are to be found in prc- exilian and to a certain extent in exilian literature. The word ]p;' occurs in pre-exilian literature in the sense of 'opponent' or 'adversary.'

It is thus applied to David by the Philistines (1 S 29'), and to Hadad the Edomite whom God raised up as Solomon's adversary (IK ll", of. a like use in Mt 16, '). Thus an angel may fullil this function ■with "ood intent (Nu 22, ^). ii. PosT-ExiLiAN (Old Testament) Period.— When we come to post-exilian literature we find the existence of a Satan who is a supernatural adversary of man in an essential sense, whose set purpose it is to work vital injury either to the individual or to the race.

The growth of this con- ception was probably due to the unconscious opera- tion of two tendencies. (1) As the conception of God became freed from the limitations of primitive nationalism and also more ethically exalted, and His sovereignty over the world regarded as uni- versal and transcendent, there gradually arose an inevitable tendency to interpolate mediating angelic agencies between this transcendent Divine sovereign and the world of which He was Lord.

(2) By an unconscious logical process an attempt was made to solve the ethical problem of the presence of evil in the world on the one hand and of Divine righteousness and absolute sovereignty on the otlier. To post-exilian Judaism, as the Books of Psalms and Job clearly testify, it was of supreme moment to vindicate the ways of God to Israel in the presence of dire calamity and perse- cution. Though the problem of the ultimate origin of evil i.

s not even discussed, evU is ascribed to Satan the opponent of man and, to a certain ex- tent, of God's beneficent purpose. He is a spirit who takes delight in man's misfortune, and is even permitted by God to work bis fell designs though they be contrary to the Divine intention. Thus in Zee 3^ Jehovah is angered against Satan because the latter is not yet satisfied with all the misfortunes that have befallen Jerusalem, but de- mands further punishment.

In the Book of Job the righteous suti'erer is made the victim of Satan's malicious purpose. We even find ourselves in- volved in an apparent contradiction : Satan takes his place in the heavenly court among the other sons of God, and gives an account of his acts, and receives his commands from his Divine Lord. But a contrary spirit is manifest in the Divine Sovereign and in His malignant angel.

The former desires to see Job's righteous character vindicated ; the latter denies its genuineness, and desires to see it subjected to a strain that will ^^Teck it. Here the characteristic traits of Satan's character are clearly visible, implied in his name and illustrated con- tinually in subsequent litorature : (a) He is the accuser (SidjSoXos) and also (6) the tempter (4 irtipd- fui') that seeks to entrap piety and work its ruin.

It is in this latter rOle that he meets us in 1 Ch 21', where he tempts David, whereas in the pre- exilian form of the story (2 S 24') it is God Himself who submits David to the test. We have here an interesting indication that in the time when the Books of Chronicles were written (4lh cent. B.C.) the personality of Satan had become distinctly realized. Whereas in the earlier post-exilian writ- ings, Zechariah and Job, the def .

article is attached, the form ' Satan ' in 1 Ch 21' is anarthrous (Smend). iii. Later Judaism. — The evolution of the Jew- ish conception of Satan is marked by an ever- growing tendency to a dualism, which, however, always stops short of being absolute throuf'h the all, controlling limitations imposed by Hebrew monotheism.

The tendency undoubtedly existed, and was probably fostered by Persian influence; for in Persian religion the dualism of good and evil is more accentuated than in any other ancient sj'stem. The extent to wiiich Persian ideas moulded the Book of Tobit has been recently made the subject of an interesting study by J. H. Moulton (Expos. Times, March 1900).

This writer confirms tlie doubts expressed by the author of the present article (see Apollyon) tliat the As- nioda'us of Tobit (or the Ashniedai of the Talmud) is identical with the ASsUma Daeva of the Bunda- hesh. This identity is confidently asserted by Holtzmann (Neutest. Theol. i. p. 53), but it cannot be accepted without stronger evidence.* His main contention, however, that Persian iuiluence largely aU'ected Jewish satanology, we hold to be well founded.

Twelve years ago Cheyne contended for a like influence in the realm of Jewish eschatology (Expos. Times, ii. 202, 22-t, 248 ; Bampton Lect. p. 3941}'.) Cf. Kohut, J«(/. ^n7ci. p. 62f. The demonology of the Book of Enoch is de- velojied with remarkable fulness, and presents striking analogies to that of the NT. Charles, in his art. APOCALYPTIC LlTERATUEE in the present work (cf. his edition of the Book of Enoch), would pl.ace the dates of the different sections between 180 and 64 B.c.

t The demons proceeded, according to 16', from the giants, who were the offspring of the fallen angels wlio lusted after the daughters of men. These demons accomplish man's moral ruin until the day of final judgment arrives. Satan, as in the NT, is represented as the ruler of a rival kingdom of evil, which is nevertheless subject to the 'Lord of spirits' (65").

We read, moreover, not only of Satan, but also of Satan« ; and it should be noted that in the Similitudes the Satans and the fallen angels are carefully distinguished. The latter fall in the days of Jared according to chs. 1-36 and 91-104, while in ch. 69, where a catalogue of names is given (cf. 6'), the functions of the two classes are confused (Charles). Jekfln is the first chief ' who led astray all the children of the angels and brought them down to earth.'

The names of other tempters follow. The name of the Satan who led Eve astray is Gadreel (69"). He is third in the hierarchy described in §32'. The Satans are first mentioned in Enoch 40', where we read that Eanuel, one of the four chief angels, wards oH' the Satans and forbids them to appear (as Satan in the Book of Job) in the presence of the Lord of spirits to accuse the dwellers on earth. These Satans belong to a counter-kingdom of evil ruled by a chief called Satan (53^).

They existed as evil powers before the 'Watchers' J fell by corrupting themselves with the daughters of men. The four chief angels, ' Michael, Gabriel, Rafael, and Fanuel will take hold of them on that great day [i.e. Judgment Day] and cast them into a burning furnace, that the Lord of spirits may take venge- ance on them for their unrighteousness in becoming subject to Satan and leading astray those who dwell on the earth ' (54»).

These Satans, accord- ing to 40'', have the means of access to heaven, which the 'watchers' or other fallen angels did not possess (13' 14°). They have a threefold func- tion : they tempt to evil (69- "), they accuse tha •This U »!so the view of Baudissln In PRE rub com •Aamodi.' t li.'ildensperger (Selbstbewusttsein Jetu*. pp. 12-19) would place the dates considerably later. So also Schurer; cf. hi< Ol'/Siii. pp. 195, 19»-201. : Cf.

tlic iyfiytpti of Dn 410 ; ct al*o Book of JulnUtt taa Testammta o/the XII Patriarchs. SATAN SATAN 409 Inhabitants of earth (40^), and they punish the con- deinneii. In this last character they are called ' anfitla of punishment ' (53^ 56» 62" 63M (Charles).

Tills multiform activity in the kingdom of evil, expressed in multiplied personalities, is a marked feature of the Book of Knoch ; and, viewed from this aspect, there is a close resemblance between the demonolo^'V of the liook of Enoch and that of the later Judaism expressed in the treatises of the Talmud, to which attention will presently be called. In the Apocrypha, apart from the Book of Tobit, the references to Satan, though signilicant, are not numerous.

As in the Book of Knoch, we are in the presence of a kingdom of demons. Satan, accordmg to the Book o/' Slrach, so takes posses- sion of the ungodly man s soul that when he curses Satan he may be said to curse himself (Sir 21"). In the Book of Wisdom (2") we see that Satan and the Serpent of Gn 3 are more or less identified. Death entered into the world through the envy of the devil This identilication of the Serpent and Satan is the ever-recurring featvire of Judaism and Christianity alike.

In the Book of Barttch. {i''- ") the deities of the heathen are called demons (cf. Dt 32", Ps 106"), and Israel sutfers punishment for sacrilicing to them (cf. Kv 9-") ; but of Satan there is no express mention. In the Book of 2'obit, Asmodi (Asmod.Tus) may be regarded as the equivalent of Satan in being the chief personi- fication of evil. This demon is conjured by the magical jirescription described in ch. 6, viz. burn- ing the heart and liver of a fish with the ashes of incense.

In its deraonology this book stands apart from the other books of the Apocrypha, but in its ascription of lustful qualities to Asmochcus we find a close parallel to later Jewish conceptions. In the Psalms of Holomon we have only a slight refer- ence to the supernatural agency of evil. Ryle and James have noted the simplicity of the reli- gious ideas of this book. There is only one clear allusion to angelology (17^).

In 4' the prosperous man is compared to 'a serpent speaking with the words of transgressors words of deceit to pervert wisdom.' Here Gn 3 is evidently in the mind of the I'salmist. In PAi/o J'urfeEM* demons and Satan fall into the background and disappear. His attitude is exhibited in his Treatise on Giants, c. 4, where his rationalizing tendency is manifest. Note his treatment of F» 77''° LXX.

The sources of evil are found in the liesh and its passions, in self-love and ignorance, rather than in sujiernatural personalities (see Drummond, vol. ii. jip. 297-305). Some reference may hero be made to the inter- esting Book of the Secrets of Enurh recently bro\i;;ht to light in its Slavonic form by Mr. Mortill. It has been supposed that it was origin- ally composed about the beginning of the Christian era. Here again we note the identification of Satan with the Serpent in Gn 3.

We read in SI'"- ' The devil took thought as if wishing to make another world because things were subservient to Adam on earth . . He became Satan after he left the heavens. His name waa formerly Satanail. He conceived designs against Adam in such a manner that he entered and deceived Eve. But he did not touch Adam.' 29'"'- graphically por- trays how Satanail was burled from the heights with his angels on the third day of creation : ' One of those in the ranks of the archangel.

^ having turned away with the rank below him, entertained an impossible idea that he should make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth, and should be equal in rank to My power. And I hurled him from the heights witii his angels. And he was flying in the air continually above the abyss.' Hero we have one of the ultimate sonrces of Milton's conception of Satan's revolt. The Jewish ideas reflected in the Targums and Midrash present a close resemblance to those just described.

The identification of the Serpent with Satan was expressed in Jewish theological writers by the name bestowed on the latter, pc^isn pnj. Ihus in iiifre 138A the heathen are called the disciples of 'linp? c'Oi who seduced Adam and Eve. In Bcreshith 29 we find the tradition that Sammael, the highest angel that stands before God's throne, caused the Serpent to seduce the woman. Thus Satan and Sammael coalesce into one personality. Sammael, according to Dettt.

Rabba 11, is the angel, the wicked one, chief of all Satans. Here again we observe the same divided personalities as in the Book of Enoch, and Satan appears to be a personified generalization. There is an arch- Satan called Sammael, and there are Satans who are subordinate to him, just as the angels who are subject to God as His attendant ministers. According to Targ. Jems. I. on Gn 3" Eve saw, at the moment when the Serpent addressed her, Sam- mael, ' angel of death,' and became afraid.

Envy is made the motive to man's temptation. Accord- ing to Sanhedrin 59, the Serpent was jealous of the services rendered to man by the angels. In Sota 9a and Bcresh. Babba 18, the temptation is ascribed to the motive of lustful jealousy. lb. 24 relates the curious legend that demons held intercourse with Adam and Eve during the first 130 years after the Fall, and other demons {a^'a, I'V^. i'T'i, and ninn) were the product of the union.

Bereshith 42 ascribes the birth of Cain to the union of Satan with Eve (Weber). Freedom of will is ascribed in the Talmud to man even after the F'all. He can therefore choose either good or evil. The evil impulse in man is designated by the term j,"!? i)". which works within him like a leaven (Berakh. 17a). Satan accom- plishes his fell purpose by the instrumentality of the W} "ly; (Bammidbar rabba 20, Baba bathra I5a).

Moreover, Satan is not only tempter, but also accuser, of whom the individual is continually in dread, since he never knows what is his stand- ing before God, whether he is justified in His sight, or liable to condemnation through Satan's accusations. A similar conception underlies 1 Ti 3'-' and Rev 12'". — Targums frequently foist Satan into the OT narrative, e.g. Targ. Jon. on Ex 32" (Lv 9'). Eisenmenger, Ent. J\ul. i. p.

840, quotes rabbinic passages in which the angel who wrestled with Jacob is identified with Sammael. Similarly Belial (Beliar), according to Ascensiu Jesaim, enters into Manasseh and accomplishes the martyrdom of the prophet. iv. New Testament ideas respecting Satan. —These follow the broad outlines of contemporary Judaism, but are without its grosser and more extravagant elements, and are generally char- acterized by simplicity. The epithets bestowed on Satan are various.

He is apparently identified with Beelzebub (Beelzebul) in Mt 12^- ", cf. 10» ; Instead of Biiti5«iii the better attested form In Mt 10 1234. 27, Ilk ■i'!:i, Lk lll»- 1« is \UiW'<->- (sustained by B «nd partly by N ; see WH). The latter is obviously a corruption of the foniier, and the fonner (BiiAji^aiiX) arnso out of the OT fomi o^iopled by Jerome and Aramaized, IleelzfOub. How did Bitxlti^ciK iirise? About this we have three theories — (11 olxc^iir^cTyt< in .

Mt 10-^ is held to bo a reiulerinff based on the Aramaic Sinj^y^. Tliifl may be true in reference to ^i|^, but that S^f means ' house, dwellintj,' is doubtful. In 1 K 813 the readin); is uncertain; cf. LX.\ and Wcllh. in lileek's /i'l'n- leitung. p. 2:)0. See also Nownck on Hob 3". (2) S317j;3 is ref^anled as a purjiosed variation with a contemptuous meaning, 'lord of nith.' Su't ( = '7}1 Syr. ZfM6) meant tteretu. Chevne in Kncycl. liibl.

ar^^ucs that super«titiou8 Jews would hardly use such an opprobrious epithet ajjainst the prince of the demons. Moreover, such a mode of pronouncing the name is not found anywhere but in the NT. (3) More probable is the view of Bauaissin (art. 'Beelzebub' In Piitl^) that we have a change of flnal consonant in popular pronunciation parallel tc 410 SATAN SATAN but this is doubted by Weiss {Bib. Tlienl. of NT, i. p. 103, footnote).

He is usually called 6id;3oXos (a literal rendering of the Hebrew name) ; some- times 6 Toi'Tipis, Mt 13"- ^, 2 Th 3', and perhaps in the Lord's Prayer ; 6<pis apxaio;. Rev 12' 20- ; i ixBpds, Mt 13'^ ; 6 toC Kbuiiov flpx"". Jn '-l™ etc. ; [6] dpx**** ^wt 5cLiiiovltt3V, Mt 12^ ; 6 dpxw*' t^s i^ovtriai ToD aipo^, Eph 2-. (a) TAe Synoptic tradition. — Jesus felt Himself in the presence of demons belonging to a king- dom of evil ruled over by a supreme \>er- sonality, Satan or Beelzebub.

These personal agencies work every form of physical and moral calamity. They recognize, however, the might of Jesus the ^lessiah gifted with the power of God to destroy the works of Satan and all his personal subordinates (Mk l"- '^ 3"- '-• '»• =*■" 6', Lk lO''-^" 11"-'" 13^=). Jesus on H=» side fully recognizes the existence and power of the kingdom of Satan, which resists the establishment of the kingdom of God (Mt 12=«, Mk S, ").

In the narrative of the Temptation tlie world is regarded as ruled by Satan (cf. Jn \V) ; but in the Luke tradition (4« C"' «i»"»)), Satan, on the other hand, confesses that his authority is not original and fundamental, but is derived (ip-ol TapaSiSorai) ; and this power he is willing to transfer to Jesus upon condition of His allegiance.

The narrative illus- trates the character of cunning that belongs to Satan as the tempter of mankind (Gn 3'), for he quotes Ps 91"- '^ for his own purposes (Mt 4"), and applies the words to the Messiah. Against this subtle deceit Jesus warns His disciples. Satan is eager to sift Simon as wheat (Lk 22^'), and enters, like a demon, into Judas (v.^). The prevailing belief that physical maladies were due to the direct agency of evil spirits (see Demon) was recognized by Christ.

This demonic power that works physical havoc is under the su- preme control of Satan, and is ascribed to him in the case of the afflicted woman (Lk 13'^). In the expulsion of demons by His disciples Christ sees the overthrow of Satan's power (Lk 10^*, in which utterance our Lord recurs to the well-known passage in Is 14'-'-).

Accordingly the dualistic tendency, to which we have before adverted, is detinitely limited by the absolute nature of God's righteous rule, whereby a definite term is set to Satan's sway. Meanwhile the anarchy which prevails works its baleful effects in the rival king- dom which Satan sets up as a qunsi-god of this world (cf. 2 Co 4"). This evil is intellectual and moral as well as physical.

The devil takes the seed of the Bivine word out of the heart of man (Mk 4", Mt 13"-3») and plants the spurious wheat (darnel, fifdna). In other words, to borrow Pauline phraseology, he shows his craft by beclouding the understanding, ' blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that they are unable to behold the gospel light of Christ's glory ' (2 Co 4). {h) Pauline tear/iing. — This stands in perfect continuity with that of Jesus reflected in the Synoptic tradition.

We are still in the presence of many of the ideas that prevailed in contemporary Judaism, viz. of the Book of Enoch in the more remote past ; of the Book of Wisdom, the Testa- ments of the XII Patriarchs, and of the Book of Jubilees in the age that immediately preceded the time when St. Paul wrote ; of the Assumption of Moses coeval with the time of his literary activity and of the Apocalypse of Bartich, which immedi- ately followed it.

The apostle's conceptions re- specting angelology and denionology have been others, e.g. B&b el Maodel (for Mandeb). — The theory supported jy Riehm is t^rtainly worthy of consideration, that Beelzebub ■o the time of Christ was understood aa H^^"^ hy^ * lord of .nmity' — 3j«j3«Am ; see Brockelmann's Lex, Syr. tub voce, and •A. Awyr. Mi doMM. Of. art. Baalzkbub. carefully examined by Everling in a s\iecia] treatise, and abundantly illustrated from the litera tuie just mentioned.

In the writings of St. Paul we are confronted by an array of supernatural agencies which are not all definitely evil or good, but some of which stand in relative opposition to God (Ritschl, Bcchtfert. u. Vers.^ ii. p. 251, quoted by Everling). In Ro 8^, 1 Co 15-* we find them designated by the names apxai, 4^ovjlai, and owdjufis. Here the dpxai are perhaps to be identified with the ipxa'Tci Tov diuipoi rovTov oi 1 Co 2^.

Tliegodsof the heathen are not absolutely non-existent (see Demon), but have a subordinate potency in heathen sacra as deal Kal Kvpioi (1 Co S"", cf. 12'-). These super- natural ' rulers of this world ' have a certain wisdom of their own (1 Co 2°- *), to which the eternal wisdom revealed by God's Spirit to siniple- ininded faith appears to be folly. Such wisdom will be brought to nought (cf. 2 Co 10').

To the Kuptoi Kai Oeoi correspond the aroix^la tov K6(Tfjiov, which may be considered to be an abstraction t standing in place of the personal concrete names (cf. dpxo.1, iiovaiai, Spoyoi, and KvpiirrjTet), or, a» SpittaJ would interpret the phrase, the aroixfta represent the sphere of their personal activity. These are the KO(T/j.oKpdTop(s of the dark spiritual world against which the Christian is to arm him- self (Eph 6'-) ; over which Jesus triumphed in the Cross (Col 2=», see Lightfoot).

Over all this world of evU energy Satan reigns, and all its collective power for evil is gathered up in his personality. He is the tempter (6 Treipdiuv, 1 Th 3^ 1 Co 7= ; cf. Mt i^'^ and parallels). Bodily diseases are ascribed to him just as in Lk 13"". Indeed, in one remarkable passage, 1 Co 5*- ', we even see Satan utilized for the advantage of the individual and the Church.

The offender in a solemn Church assembly is to be delivered over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, in order that the spirit of the sinner may be saved in the day of the Lord's appearing. Satan, as the inflicter of physical malady, is apparently identified with the destroyer. Ex 12=^ (LXX A dXeepevuv, see APOL- LYON), Nu 16'i»-, to which 1 Co lO'" evidently alludes. Compare also the destroying angel of 2 S 24", 2 K 19^, and also Wis IS-'.

According to Wis 2-* death entered into the world througli the devU, an idea which is closely related to the conception which prevails all through biblical literature, that long life is the reward of the righteous (Ex 20" etc.), while the wicked are cut ofl' and their lamp (of life) put out. Thus, accord- ing to St. Paul's own belief, surrender to Satan brought death as its ultimate consequence (1 Co 5', 2 Co 2") ; while in Jn 8" Satan is dvdpuTroKTbvos dv dpxni (cf. Gn 3").

This power Jesus destroyed by death (He 2"). St. Paul ascribed his own physical maladies to Satan's agency. ' The stake (<7k6\o\I/) in the flesh ' he calls ' Satan's messenger ' (2 Co 12'). The phrase iv daOeveltf in v.* followed by if dfrSevdcui clearly points to some bodily aflliction, probably chronic fever (see Ramsay, Expositor, July 1899, pp. 20-23). Here again Satan is made subordinate to God's purposes of grace, and becomes a servant of moral discipline which St.

Paul was strengthened to bear, though he prayed frequently to be delivered from it. With this passage and 1 Co 6- ' cf. 1 Ti P». The apostle, like his contemporaries, did not think of the demons as inhabitmg subterranean regions (as the Arabs and ancient Babylonians Helnrid doubts this, and would prefer to Identify th« Stpx^iTK here with those of Ac 1337. t Identified with tl xerii^xfinfit in Teit. Saiam.; sea Ever ling, p. 70. J Der ZuKiU Britf det Petnu, eto. p. S7a SATAN SATAX 41i did).

The angels of God had their residence in the higher regions of the heavens ; and even Satan and liis retinue dwelt, not beneath the earth (their tinal destination after the last judgment), but in the lower atmospheric realm. Thus in Eph 2- .Satan is called 6 dpx"" '"^5 iiowriat toO aipoi. Cf. Eph 6" ' the wicked host of spirits 4y Toil iTTovpanioii.' An interesting j>arallel may be found in the Textitincnts of the X II Patr.

, Levi 3, where it is stated that ' he who fears God and loves hiK neighbours cannot be smitten by the spirit of the air (rot' aepiou in-ei/^aros), Beliar.' Other interesting illustrations may be found in Everling's treatise, p. 1U7 tl'. The most signilitant is from Asceivsion of Isaiah W (ed. Charles, pj). 'i, 132), in which we Teail that Jesus descends through all the seven heavens, assuming at each stage tlie form of the angels which inliabit that special region.

At length He comes to the lirraanient where dwells the ' prince of this world' (cf. 7 11^). Beliar, the variant of the name Belial (see Belial), is apjiarently identihed by St. Paul in 2 Co 6" with .Satan ; but about this question of identitication we have the greatest divergence in the Jewish and early Christian tradition. The subject is discussed in Bousset's learned mono- graph, Der AntUhrist, part II. ch. iv., Anhang i. (p. iii) fl'.)

Belial seems identical with the 'Man of Sin ' in 2 Th 2" (see M.AN OF Sl\). St. I'aul follows the Jewish tradition in identify- ing Satan with the serpent which tempted Eve. This clearly underlies Ro 16-'" ' The God of peace shall bruise Satan under j'our feet,' obviously based on On 3" (cf. 1 Ti 2"\ Kev 12' 20-). This view is again apparent in 2 Co 11, ', where the apostle speaks of himself as though he were Christ's o .vn irapavviiipio'i (K.

-sficJ), to guard the chastity of the Church from the devil's wiles of seduction (on the image, cf. Jn S'"), whereby Satan even transforms himself into an angel of light (v.") (<•) The Book of Revelation obviously stands apart from the rest of the New Testament by reason of its strongly-marked Apocalyptic char- acter. Into the recent controversies respecting its original form, suggested by the ingenious theory of Vischer (supported by Harnack's autho- rity), this is not the place to enter.

In the Book of Kevelation we enter a transcendental region where the world-drama is enacted before us in a scries of scenes of conflict between superhuman personalities. It is a xiXf^oj iv oipavtii between tjod with His angels of light, and Satan or the dragon, the 'old serpent,' the deceiver of the whole world (12"), with liis hosts of darkness. Chapter 12 has been the subject of much dis- cussion since Gunkel wrote his stimulating treatise, Scluipfung u. C'A/t'/.» (pp. 171-398).

At the founda- tion of the story he sees Babylonian legend thinlj veiled. The dragon is Tifimat, the woman is Damkina, the mother of Murduk (here expressed by Christ). This primitive Habylonian myth was worke<l im into Jewish ajjocalyptic, Chaos or the Dragon CTiimat) being interpreted as Kome, and the entire legend transferred to the end of the world. But such a theory raises certain dilticulties, though some appear to be solved. Bous.set (Anti- christ, Anhan<^, p.

16'J) is by no means disposed to agree to the dictum that no essential trait in the narrative is of Christian origin. After the last great overthrow of the Bea-st and the kings of the earth (Kev 19), Satan is imjirisoned in the bottom- less pit a thousand years (20"). After this he is loos^ and deceives the nations, but at length ia • In Ak, It, O he appears oa Beliar, and in 7* as SammoeU Oe«. Tha. 1. 210 notes the rendering of Belial (Beliar) by domimu Qiru in Svriao lexicOffmpherB.

Sense as well oa sound f«v corresponds to the ending) contribut«d to this translation, which stxords with tradition respecting Beliar's realm. finally cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet are (20'", cf. Enoch 54'- «, 2 P V). (d) In St. John's Goxpel ari'l Epistles such legend- ary features disappear. We move in a serener, clearer atmosphere of sharply-marked antitheses. Satan and Christ are mutually opjiosed.

Satan cannot touch hiiu who is born of God and siuueth not (1 Jn 5'). The devil is the ruler of this world, and has nothing in Christ (Jn 14™ 16", cf. 12"). Sin enslaves through the power of the devil (S*) ; and this bondage is estaulislied, as St. John and St. Paul alike taught, through the tlesh, which is the organic point of human attachment to the Kia/ios. Satan sinned from the be":inning (I Jn 3"), and was the cause of death (Jn 8"). Falsehood is his special realm (8").

Jesus stands outside the world that is ruled by him (8^ 11'*- '"), and gradually ^vins individuals from him into the kingdom of God. First, Christ's own discijiles are rescued from Satan's worldly dominion (15'" I7'-' '^). One only lias abandoned himself to the devil to his own ruin (G""). The world is at present in hostility to Jesus and His disciples (I4".i».22 I518. 11. J68 179^ 1 Jn 2">-" etc.), but we are as.sured of Christ's final conquest of the world iJn 16", cf. 1721.

83) YoT the Son of God was manifested for the express purpose of destroying the works of the devil (1 Jn 3'). This is in harmony with Christ's own teaching respecting Satan's overthrow re- ported in Lk iO"*. In Jn 16" the judgment and condemnation of the devil are regarded, according to the tense usage which frequently occurs in the NT, as already finally accomplished {niKpiTai, cf. 12"). See the eloquent remarks on this passage in the Pulpit Commentary by the late Dr. H. K. Reynolds. V.

General Conclusions. — From the preceding exposition of the biblical conceiitions respecting Satan we clearly see that early Christianity shared in the prevailing Jewish belief in demons and Satan. The attempt has been made by Beyschlag to deny the inference to which the Synoptic narratives lead us, that Jesus accepted the belief in a jicr- sonal Satan. And with the elimination of a per- sonal Satan he would also erase a belief in demons and angels from the inner consciousness of Christ.

' It is certain that .lesus did not recognize as jier- sonal deWls the demons in whom the popular Jewish belief saw personal angels of Satan.' ' The form of the representation is undoubtedly personi- fying, but all the pas.sages are poetic in style.' If lantjuage is to be manipulated in this fashion, it is diflicult to see why Christ's belief in a personal God may not be eliminated also, or why such a process of evaporation might not be successfullj' ap|died to all contemporary literature.

Jesus used parabolic language, and His discourses are steeped in similitudes ; out when He used a symbol, it was understood to be such, or, if not at once so understood, its actual meaning was nearly always di.sclosed (Jn 3'-« 4"'-'»- »"•"•' 6'>"- » 11'"-, but in 2'» the enigma was solved by the close of His earthly career).

But to suppose that Jesus persistently and consistently used the ordinary language of angelology and deinonology, and even acted in accordance with it, and yet all the time held in secret opinions totally at variance with those of all His fellow-countrymen, and never revealed them by a single hint, — surely this is to invalidate Christ's claims to candour.

'Vet there is not a particle of evidence adduced by Rcj-schlag to sup- port his monstrous contention that Jesus did not mean by the words Satan, demon, and angel, what His contemporaries meant and understood Him to mean. See Beyschlag, NT Tlicol. vol. i. pp. 93- 95. Our argument by no means implies that Jesni 412 SATAN SAUL sbated in all the current conceptions respecting demons. The problem, as we liave already indi- cated, is a complex one.

We liave to give due place to two considerations : (1) that Christ's sa3'ings and deeds are necessarily coloured by the representative human media through which they are conveyed to us ; (2) that the demonology of Christ's belief is scarcely visible in the Fourth Gospel, though His belief in a personal Satan is clearly apparent.

There can, however, be no scientific Christology which does not recognize that Christ's hutnaiiity was so genuine and complete that He shared in the cosmic presuppositions of His time. His Deity spoke to us through a true humanity. It was veiled and limited during His earthly ministry by those very conditions which He, in His Kivuim, voluntarily assumed when ' He took the form of a slave, and being found in the likeness of man, emptied Him- self (Ph 2').

Now, demonology was a necessary part of the intellectual apparatus of that period. It was t)ie latest phase of that animistic inter- pretation of the universe which was destined still to survive for centuries until the gradual growth of our inductive methods has substituted for de- monology (as formerly understood) a rationally co- ordinated nexus of physical causality and law.

But the ultimate and fundamental truth of angelology and demonology has not been and never can be destroj'ed by the march of modem science. Behind and bej'ond the physical nexus of interrelations there must lie personality and, moreover, per- sonalities. However complex the material con- ditions, at both ends — nay, even along the entire path — of the intricate windings of the phenomenal chain there must ever live personal power.

Our whole life rests upon the presupposition of our own individual initiatives of volition operating upon one another in the phenomenal world and modifying its successions and coexistences. That a supreme transcendent and personal (and, to the Christian consciousness, righteous) reason and will is ever present and potent in the entire realm, is a necessary postulate of any intelligible universe.

The assumption that other superhuman as well as subordinate agencies are at work, and that some among these are embodiments of e^ol influence, adds no fundamental difficulty to those which already exist. No moral world is conceivable except as in- volving interrelations between personalities. Now, it is matter of historic notoriety that some person- alities have lived in this world that might be called incarnations of evil influence.

The supposi- tion that other and superhuman personalities may also be foci of evil moral energy, and operate like ganglionic centres in a nervous system, presents no fundamental difficulty in addition to the diffi- culties already involved in the problem of evil. That Satan exists as a personal centre of evil influence, physical as well as moral (for the two are closely associated), is the undoubted teaching of the Bible.

He is not represented to us as the absolute origin of evil or the only source of it, but as its most potent superhuman representative. See Dorner, Christliche GlaubensUhre, % 86, 3, vol. ii. p. 213 ff. LrrRRATURB. — Tn ftddltlon to the reff. in the article, see art. •Teufel' in PRK^ and 'Satan' in Smith's DB; also Dorner, Christliche Glaubeiwlehre, lid. iL pp. 183-217, and the list of literature on p. 189 ; Martensen, Chrintian Dogmatics, pp. 188-203 ; Kaftan, Doftmatik, pp. 348 ff.

(much to be commended), 478. On Bcclt^iofttical teaching (which does not come within the Bcope of a Bible Diet.) aee esp. Hamack, Dogmengesch. (Index, ». Teufel' and ' Damonen ): Iren. adv. Ihrr. v. 1. 1; Origen, c Celsuin, vii, 17 ; Nitzsch, Lehrb. der Erang. Dogm. §.;$33ff.; Donier, i6. iL p. 197 ff. RespectiDC the Mohammedan octrine (baaed on Jewish), see Hughes, Diet, of Jstam, s.v. Devil ' (where Mi«hkat i. 3 Is cited). Cf. also art. * Genii,' and on this subject (Jinn) E. W.

Lane's elaborate note 21 tx> his Introduction to his translation of the 'Thousand and One (Arabian) Nights.' The Devil was called IblU (im^iXtt) and Sdenti&ed with Satan (as in NT)l There were also Shaititns (plur.), lust as in Jewish belief. — In Kordn see 2i63f. 3SI (oi Satan ' driven forth by stoninjj,' cf. Palmer's note) 4-2. 73 53211 7-A) 1242 I42tiff. igji. Satan is constantly called man's open toa ' OvvKN C. Whitehouse.

SATHRABUZANES CZadpafioviavn^), 1 Es &^^■* (LXX-") 7' = Shcthar-Bozenai (cf. Ezr 5^-« 6«-").