Samuel, Books of – Sand Lizard

Samuel, Books of

1. Title.— The two Books of Samuel are really parts of what was originally one book. This is shown not only by the fact that the narrative of Book I. is continued without the slightest interruption in Book II., and that the style, tone, point of view, and purpose are the same throughout, but also by their appearance as one book bearing the simple title • Samuel’ in the oldest known Hebrew MSS. The division of the Hebrew text into two books was first made in print by Daniel Romberg in his Hebrew Bible (2nd ed. 1517). In doing so he was in part following the text of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, in which the Books of Samuel and Kings are described as the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Books of Kingdoms (LXX), or Kings (Vulgate). The title ‘Samuel,’ less accurately descriptive of the contents than that of ‘Kingdoms’ or ‘Kings,’ owes its origin to the prominent place held by Samuel in 1 S 1-16. A late Jewish interpretation regarded it as declaring Samuel’s authorship of the narrative; but this is impossible, in view of the fact that the history extends through the reign of David, long after the death of Samuel (1 Samuel 25:1).

2. Contents. — The period covered by the Books of Samuel extends from the oirth of Samuel to the close of David’s reign, i.e. approximately from b.c. 1070 to B.C. 970. The narrative falls into three main divisions: — I.: Samuel and Saul, 1 S 1-15; II.: The Rise of David, 1 S 16-2 S 5:3; III.: David as king of United Israel, 2 Samuel 5:4. Division I. is made up of three sections: (1) The childhood and youth of Samuel, to the downfall of Eli’s house and the captivity of the Ark (1 Samuel 17) (2) Samuel’s career as Judge, including his defeat of the Philistines, his anointing of Saul, and his farewell address (1 Samuel 7:2) (3) Saul’s reign till his rejection (I S 13-15). Division II. likewise includes three sections: (1) David at Saul’s Court (1 Samuel 16:1); (2) David as a fugitive outlaw (1 Samuel 21:2 S 1); (3) David as kmg in Hebron (2 Samuel 25). Division III. forms three more sections: (1) establishment of Jerusalem as the religious and national capital, and a brief summary of David’s reign (2 Samuel 5:4) ; (2) supplementary narratives, setting forth particularly David’s great sin and subsequent troubles (2 S 9-20); (3) a series of appendixes (2 S 21-24) . 1 Kings 12 really belongs to 2 Sam., since it relates the circumstances attending the death of David, and thus brings the narrative to its natural close.

3 . Text and Versions . — The text of Samuel is the worst in the OT; only Ezekiel and Hosea can approach it in this respect. Many passages are unintelligible on the basis of the Massoretic text. The large amount of corruption may be due in part to the relatively great antiquity of the text, much of the narrative being among the oldest writings in the Hebrew Bible; and, in part, to the fact that these books were not used in the ordinary synagogue services, and so were not so carefully transmitted as they otherwise would have been. Unfortunately, the oldest existing Hebrew manuscript of Samuel dates its origin no farther back than the tenth century of our era. With each copying and recopying during the many preceding centuries fresh opportunity tor error was afforded; and the wonder is not that there are so many errors, but that there are not more. In any effort to recover the original text large use must be made of the Septuagint, which is based upon a Hebrew text at least as old as the 3rd cent, b.c, and has preserved the original reading in many cases, while showing traces of it in others. The Syriac and Vulgate versions are also useful, but to a far less extent.

4. Sources and Date. — The Books of Samuel, like almost every other OT writing, are a compilation from various sources, rather than the result of a careful study of earlier sources presented in the form of a unified, logical, and philosophical statement of facts and conelusions. We are here given the sources themselves, and are in large part left to draw our own conclusions. The composite character of the books is evidenced (1) by the existence of differing literary styles within them; (2) by the presence of varying and conflicting theological standpoints; (3) by the fact that they exhibit radically different attitudes towards the founding of the monarchy (cf. e.g. 1 Samuel 8 and S’-‘"- "); and (4) by the appearance of two or more narratives of one and the same event. In illustration of this last point we may cite (a) the three accounts of Saul’s choice as king given in 1 S 9-11; (6) the two accounts of David’s introduction to Saul in 1 Samuel 16:17 ff. and 17; (c) the twofold announcement of the fate of Eli’s house in 1 Samuel 2:27–36 and 3:11 ff.; (d) the double rejection of Saul in 1 Samuel 13:7–15 and IS’-^s; (e) the two accounts of David’s flight to Achish in 1 Samuel 21:10 ff. and 27:1 ff.; (/) the two narratives of David sparing Saul’s life in 1 Samuel 23:19 ff. and 26:1 ff. — one of the most marked examples of a doublet; (fir) the differing descriptions of the death of Saul given in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1; (h) the varying traditions of Absalom’s family found in 2 S 14 and 18:18; (i) the inconsistency of 1 Samuel 7 with 13-14; and (j) the story that Goliath was slain by David in 1 Samuel 17, but by Elhanan in 2 Samuel 21:19. Phenomena of this kind are much more easily accounted tor on the supposition that we are dealing here with the works of different hands, than on the hypothesis of a single author upon whom alone all the responsibility for the contents of the books must be placed.

This fact of composite origin is granted by all students of the Books of Samuel. In the attempt, however, to resolve the narrative into its original elements, two different schools of analysts have been formed. To the one belong such scholars as Budde. Cornill, H. P. Smith, Driver, Nowack, Stenning, and Kent; to the other, Wellhausen, Kuenen, LOhr, Kittel, Stade, and Kennedy. Budde and his followers find two main sources running through the books and covering practically the same ground, though from differing points of view. These sources, which Budde himself assigns to the same school of prophetic writers that produced the J and E narratives of the Hexateuch, are supposed to have originated from the 9th to the 8th cents. B.C.; the J source being the older of the two. These two sources were then supplemented and united by editors somewhere in the early part of the 7th cent. B.C.; and finally the books were given their present form by a Deuteronomio editor who revised the existing materials and added materials of his own some time in the Exile. Budde’s distribution of the materials among the sources is as follows [figures within parentheses in J indicate later elements; in E they designate the older portions of the document]: —

J= l 9:1, (10:8). 10, 13 (!b-15».) lSb-I8. (19-21) 22, 14, 14. 16:14–23. 18:5–11. 18:20–30, 9:1, 4–6. 20 22 22:20 23:20 25; 27 28; 2 Samuel 1 "- 12. 2:1 S^*-"**- 9:1 23: 24:1–25. ‘‘‘‘

E= l S 1. 2. 3. (41-18a 5:1) 7:2

12:1–25, 15:1. (15:2–23), 152’-s>, (15:32 f.),

7.

Pke-exiuc Editors = 1 Samuel 1:6. 2, 4:15, 22. gnb. 15. 17- isa. 8. 9:25, 9. 10:9. 16b- 11:7. 8b. 13:19, 16, 17:12 f.. 18. 19:2 f. 7a. 18-24, 20*""- ^0-42, 21. 22. 23, 24. 25:1. 28:3, 16–18, SQS. ISb; 2’s I’, 2. 3 *80, g6b* 11 11, 13:18. 14:25, 20:23–26. 21. 23:14 23a, ‘

Exilic Editor = 1 Samuel 2:27–36. 3:11–14. 13:1, i447’-si- 2 S ii""- ", 5:4 f.;. 7:13. igi-e. 14b- 16; 2 Samuel 12:7, 8, 10, 24:1.

Op uncertain (Drigin = 1 Samuel 2:1–10; -2 S 22:1 ff.: 23:1 ff.:

This, which we may call the two-source theory because of the predominant place of the two main sources, is in its general features the prevailing view at the present time. In the assignment of certain passages, however, there is considerable variety of opinion, and in the identification of the two main sources with J and E, Budde and Cornill are not followed by several adherents of the two-source view.

The analysis presented by the opposing school (Wellhausen, Stade, Kennedy, et al.) differs from the foregoing chiefly (a) in denying the unity of the two sources, J and E respectively; (6) in refusing to recognize any relationship of these sources to J and E; and (c) in proposing another chronological assignment of the sources. Kennedy, e.g., the latest representative of this school, resolves Budde’s J into three main elements, and dates these three documents from the middle of the 10th cent. B.C. Budde’s E likewise falls into three fragments under Kennedy’s examination; one of these is a lite of Samuel dating from about b.c. 630; another and larger portion Is from a Deuteronomic writer; and a small remainder consists of pre-exilio duplicates of some narratives appearing in Budde’s J.

The precise delimitation of the various sources and the exact way in which the Books of Samuel assumed their present form must remain for the future to determine. The unmistakable tact is that these books in their present form are due to the labours of late exilic editors who wrought them out of existing documents, some of which show Deuteronomic colouring, while others come from early pre-exilic times, somewhere about B.C. 900. As compared with the Books of Kings and Chronicles, or even the Book of Judges, Samuel shows far less evidence of editorial additions and modifications. The various sources are tor the most part allowed to tell their stories in their ‘own way. There is a total absence of any such theological straitjacket as is found in the editorial framework of the Books of Kings. We thus have in the Books of Samuel some of the finest examples of the historical writings of the Hebrews in the various stages of their development.

5. Historical value.— In estimating the historical value of the Books of Samuel, care must be taken to discriminate sharply between the books themselves and the sources which constitute them. The books themselves are the product of a long literary history, the work of various men living in widely scattered periods. They thus form a source-book, rather than a history in the modern sense. It is tor this reason that they are so extremely valuable to the modern historian of Israel. For a correct picture of the times of Samuel, Saul, and David, it goes without saying that the oldest sources are the most trustworthy. Failure to paint original scenes and characters with a proper perspective increases in direct proportion to the distance of the narrator from the things he describes. Hence the later elements in these books are primarily of value not as sources of information concerning the times of the early monarchy, but as reflecting the point of view and the background of their -writers. The older sources, however, coming from a period within a century or two of the events they narrate, furnish us with accurate information and are among the best historical records in the OT. They are especially rich in biographical materials. They help us to see Saul and David and their contemporaries as they really were. They give us glimpses of Samuel as the local seer, known only within the narrow limits of his own immediate district; of Da-vid as the fugitive, the freebooter, the outlaw, the idol of his men, the devoted servant of Jehovah, and yet capable of the most dastardly deeds; of Saul as the brave warrior, the patriot, the religious enthusiast, the moody chieftain of his clan. These men, with Joab, Absalom, and others, live and move before our eyes.

A still further service of the Books of Samuel is in the light they throw upon the development of religious practices and ideas in Israel. Kennedy rightly says: ‘The study of this book has contributed more than anything else to the more accurate views of the historical development of religious thought in OT times, which are characteristic of the present day.’ The books represent from first to last a period of about five hundred years, during which time the religion of Israel was advancing by leaps and bounds under the leadership of the prophets. They contain, therefore, the record of this progress. Instances of this may be seen in the wide difference between the attitude towards foreign gods ascribed to David in 1 Samuel 26:19 (an early source), and that appearing in 12:21 (a late source); in the primitive conception of revelation presented in the story of Samuel’s call (Si"-); in the narratives dealing with the origin of prophecy (9:7 ff.), and the sons of the prophets (e.g. 10:5 ff.) in the use of the teraphim (19:13 ff.) and the ephod (23:6–12) and in the advanced conception of God appearing in such passages as 2 Samuel 7:22. The Books of Samuel are thus invaluable to the historian of Israel’s religious, social, and political life.

6. Purpose. — But the purpose of these books is not to serve as a bare, cold record of events and their causes; such matters are of only secondary importance; they are but means to an end. Their great purpose is to teach religion; they give sermons, not annals; they are prophecy, not history. In the Hebrew canon they occupy a place alongside of the prophetic books, and the entire division to which they belong is entitled ‘the Prophets.’ Just as Amos and Isaiah deal with the facts of the present, interpreting them as expressions of Jehovah’s will and using them to drive home moral and spiritual truth to the hearts and consciences of their hearers, so these writers have dealt with the facts of the past. What they have given us, then, is history seen through the eyes of prophets. The horizon of the prophets, however, was filled with religion; they themselves were nothing if not religious; their whole being throbbed with the energy of religion. Consequently it is not surprising that everything in the narratives is presented from the point of view of religion, and in such a way as to count most for the furtherance of religious ideals. This is not saying that these writers consciously and deliberately changed the course of events, or shifted the emphasis from one pomt to another in order to accomplish their purpose; but rather that they wrote things as they themselves conceived of them, and that, being prophets, they could conceive of Israel’s history in no other way than as through and through religious, as the embodiment of Jehovah’s revelation of Himself and His will to His people. This is the prophets’ philosophy of history, and as such must commend itself to the mind and conscience of the Christian Church. J. M. P. Smith.

Sanaas

Sanaas (1 Esdras 5). See Senaah.

Sanabassar, Sanabassarus

Variants in 1 Es 212 Qis. 20 of the name Sheshbazzar (wh. see).

Sanasib

A family that returned with Zerub. (1 Esdras 5:24; Ezra 2:36 omits).

Sanballat

Sanballat ( Assyr. Sin-ballit = ‘Sin, save the life ‘) . — The most inveterate of the opponents of Nehemiah. He was a native of Beth-horon, and apparently belonged to an old Bab. family holding office under the Persian government. When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem to repair the walls, he, with his allies (Tobiah the Ammonite and Gesbem the Arabian) , met him with derision ; and after the work was well under way he stirred up the garrison of Samaria and planned an attack against the builders. This was prevented by the watchfulness of Nehemiah and the workmen. Several devices aimed against the life of Nehemiah were also thwarted by the sagacity of the latter. On Nehemiah’s second visit he banished from Jerusalem Manasseh (a son-in-law of Sanballat, and grandson of EUashib), who founded the Samaritan sect. See Nehemiah 2 4:1 ff. 6. 13.

J. F. McCuRDY.

Sahotipioation, Sanctify

‘Sanctify’ (Latin, from the Vulgate^ = the native Eng ■hallow’ (i.e. make, count, keep holy), the latter word jeing in use somewhat the loftier EV employs ‘hallow’ J5 times in OT and twice in NT (Matthew 6:9 = Luke 11:2). ‘sanctity’ thrice as often in C)T and 26 times in NT — for identical

I Hebrew and Greek terms. For the meaning of the root word ‘holy,’ see art. Holiness. The noun ‘sanctigcation’ — denoting first the aci or process of maldng holy (hallowing), then the resultant state (hallowedness) — appears in 5 NT passages in the AV, giving way to ‘holiness’ in others (Romans 6. 1 Thessalonians 4:7. 1 Timothy 2:15. Hebrews 12:14) though the Greek noun is the same, where RV makes the needed correction; -everywhere, except in 1 Peter 1:2. the state rather than the process is implied. ‘To Paul belong 8 out of the 10 examples of the noun, and 11 out of the 28 examples of the verb in NT (including Acts 20:32 and 26) 7 of the latter are found in Hebrews. AV employs the synonymous ‘consecrate’ for ‘sanctify’ in 7 OT passages, which the RV emends in three instances, -leaving consecrate’ for the regular Hebrew verb in 2 C!h 26:18 29 3l’. Ezra 3:5; the ‘consecrate’ of Hebrews 7:28 and of 10:20 is corrected by the RV to ‘perfect’ and ‘dedicate’ respectively.

1. In the Israelite, as in other ancient religions, that is ‘holy’ which is set apart for Divine use, so that the ‘sanctified’ is the opposite of the ‘common,’ secular, profane. Isaiah 65:3 ff. 66:17 illustrate the application of this term in heathenism. With this broad signification it is applicable to whatever is devoted to the public service of J": to persons — priests, Nazirites, etc.; to sacrifices; to vessels, garments, buildings, days (especially the Sabbath). In Isaiah 13:3, Joel 3:9, Jeremiah 6:4 (see EVm), even a ‘war’ is ‘sanctified’ and the warriors are J"‘s’ sanctified ones,’ when it is put under J"‘s auspices (cf. the Mohammedan Yihad or Holy War); accordingly, in Numbers 21:14 we hear of a’ book of the wars of J". ‘The numerous Levitical and other kindred uses of the verb bear this formal sense. But as’ holy’ came to designate the specific character of J" — ‘the Holy One of Israel’ (see Is. passim) — in distinction from heathen gods, ‘sanctify’ acquired a corresponding ethical connotation; holiness came to imply a character (actual or ideal) in the holy people, accordant with its status. For Israel, being J"‘s servant, is’ brought near’ to Him (Exodus 19:4 ff.: Deuteronomy 4:7, Jeremiah 2:2. Psalms 65:4 73:27 f. 148:14; contrast Exodus 19:12–24, Jer 2:13, Hosea 9:1 etc.), and such proximity necessitates congeniality— that congruity of nature whereof circumcision and the ceremonial cleansings were symbolical (Psalms 16. 24; cf. Isaiah 1:4, 16 f. 3:8 68-8, jer 4:1–4. Habakkuk 1:12 f.: Ezekiel 36. Psalms 51 etc.). The refrain I am Jehovah resounds through the Law of Holiness in Lv 17-26; this code blends the ritual and the moral in the holiness it demands from Israel, which is the corollary of J"‘s own holiness. Such is the OT doctrine of sanctification. The prophets, it is said, taught an ethical monotheism — which is to say, in effect, they ethicized holiness. The sanctification binding Israel to J" was, in a sense, reciprocal:’ Ye shall not profane my holy name (cf. Exodus 20:7. Lv 19:12 22:2. Amos 2:7. Mai 1:11 f.) but / will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am J", which hallow you’ (Lv 22) ‘to sanctify’ J" or His ‘name’ is to recognize and act towards Him as holy, to ‘make him holy’ in one’s thoughts and attitude (see Isaiah 8:13; cf. 1 Peter 3:15). This expression is characteristic of Isaiah (5 29) and Ezekiel (20 28 36 agis 39). who regard J" as ‘sanctified’ when His awe-awakening judgments bring men to acknowledge His Deity and character; in this connexion ‘sanctify’ is parallel to ‘magnify,’ ‘glorify,’ • exalt,’ as in Ezekiel 36:23 38:23. J" is even said to ‘sanctify himself,’ or His ‘great name,’ when He vindicates His holiness and ‘makes’ Himself ‘known in the sight of many nations’ for what in truth He is.

2. In the NT we must distinguish the usage of our Lord, of the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of the Apostle Paul.

(1) Adopting the language of Leviticus 22:32 and of the prophets, Jesus bids the disciples pray, ‘Our Father . . . hallowed be thy name ... on earth’ (Matthew 6:9 f. =Lk 11:2) — the unique example of such use of ‘sanctify’ in the NT, apart from the citation in 1 Peter 3:15; elsewhere ‘glorify thy name’ (John 12:28 etc.). To bring about this ‘hallowing’ is the very work of Jesus, who for this end ‘makes known’ the Father’s ‘name’ (Jn !"• " 14:7–9 17:6, 25 f.: Matthew 11:27) cf. John 17:3. 2 Corinthians 4, also Jeremiah 9:23 f. 31:34). In (o) John 10:36 and (6) 17:17–19 our Lord makes Himself the object of the verb, — in the second instance the subject also, (a) The Father ‘consecrated’ Him for Hia world-mission (a pre-incarnate destination; see 1:18, 1 John 4:9, 14; ct. Jeremiah 1:5) (6) at the Last Supper the Son endorses that consecration in view of its dread issue, and proposes to share it with His disciples, as He dedicates Himself to the sacrifice of the cross. Thus in the Person of Jesus Christ sanctification assumes a new and very definite character; as Christian holiness, general consecration to the service of God becomes a specific consecration to the mission of redemption. In Matthew 23:17–19 Jesus speaks ad hominem, appealing to the axiom that ‘the holy place’ sanctifies whatever is devoted to it.

(2) The Epistle to the Hebrews builds upon the OT conception of holiness. Its doctrine of sanctification is found in 2:11 9:11–13 lO"-"- 12:14 13:11–12. Being ‘the captain of salvation’ and ‘high priest’ of mankind, it is the office of Jesus to ‘sanctify’ His brethren, i.e. to consecrate them to God’s service, for which as sinners they have been disabled (5:1 10:22). This He effects God- ward by ‘making propitiation for’ their ‘sins’ (2:17), and man-ward by ‘cleansing their conscience’ with the virtue of ‘his blood’ — by removing the sense of personal guilt before God — even as the animal sacrifices’ sanctified’ the Israelites ‘unto the cleanness of the flesh’ (9:13 f.). and made their ritual worship possible. The chasm which sin has opened between man and God was bridged by the mediation of Jesus Christ; no longer is he kept aloof from the Divine presence, but is bidden to ‘come with boldness unto the throne of grace’ (4:16 10:19–22). ‘Once for all’ this access has been secured, this qualification bestowed on ‘the people’ whom ‘Jesus sanctified by means of his own blood’ (13:12) ‘we have been sanctified’ according to ‘the will of God,’ which Jesus embraced and whose demands He met on our behalf with perfect loyalty, in ‘the offering of his body’ (10:5–10). By that ‘one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ — He has assured, for all who will accept it, till the world’s end, a full qualification for fellowship with God (10:14). Hebrews supplies the link between the ‘I sanctify myself of Jesus, and ‘that they also may be sanctified in truth’ (John 17:19). With the writer of Heb., ‘cleansing’ and ‘sanctification’ define, on the negative and positive sides, all that St. Paul means by ‘justification’ and ‘sanctification ‘; only, the second term is here made more prominent and wider in meaning than with the Apostle. St. Paul sees the sinner confronted by the Law of God, guilty and impotent; his fellow-teacher sees him standing outside the temple of God, defiled and banned. Sanctification means, for the former, engagement to God’s service (Romans 6:12–22) for the latter, empowerment for God’s worship. That this grace imports, however, in Hebrews more than a status once conferred, is evident from 12:14; it is a state to be increasingly realized, an ideal to be pursued to the end.

(3) St . Paul addresses his readers constantly as ‘saints’ (see art. Holiness) ; once as ‘sanctified in Christ Jesus’ (1 Corinthians 1:2). — a phrase synonymous with ‘called saints,’ i.e. made holy by God’s call which they obeyed, when He summoned them into His Kingdom (cf. vv. 9, 26 1 Thessalonians 1:4 2:12). . The former expression points to the completed act of God by which they have become His saints (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11, Acts 20:32 26:18). That sanctity, with St. Paul, is a term of relationship, not primarily of character, is evident from 1 Corinthians 7:14. where ‘the unbelieving husband’ or ‘wife’ is said to ‘have been sanctified in’ the Christian wedded partner, so that their offspring are ‘holy’: the person of the unbeliever, under the marriage-bond, is holy in the believer’s eyes, as indeed every possession and instrument of life must be (see 1 Timothy 4). In the case of the believer himself, who ‘in Christ Jesus’ is brought into immediate personal contact with God (Colossians 3:3), destination and use imply moral condition — ‘the vessels of the Lord’ must be ‘clean’ and " made ready for every good work’ (2 Timothy 2:19–22; cf. 1 above, touching the OT Law of Holiness); so that, while ‘sanctity’ does not denote character, it normally connotes this; all virtue comes under the category of that which ‘becometh saints’ or ‘is fit in the Lord’ (Ephesians 5:31. Colossians 3:12, 18 etc.). Accordingly, in 1 Thessalonians 4:4, 7 ‘sanctification’ is opposed specifically to ‘lust’ and sexual ‘uncleanneas’— by contrast, probably, with the pagan ‘consecration’ to impure deities, as in the case of the hieroduloi of Corinth icf. 1 Corinthians 6:13–20).

Sanctification completes justification (wh. see); together, these constitute the present work of salvation, the re-instatement of the sinful man before his Maker, his instatement into the Christian standing and condition(see 1 Corinthians 6:11. and the connexion between chs. 5 and 6 of Ro.). In principle the former depends on the latter, in experience they are concomitant (Romans 6). They are alike acts of God, dealing with men in His grace through Christ (Romans 8:30, 33, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 f.: John 17:17) cf. Leviticus 22:32 f.). The ‘anointing’ and ‘sealing’ of 2 Corinthians 1:21 f.; while referring formally to baptism, substantially describe sanctification, since God consecrates the believer for His use and marks him in baptism with His ‘broad arrow."

As the writer of Hebrews shows in his own way — see (2) above — Christ is the mediator of sanctification no less than of justification. He ‘bought’ men with the ‘price’ of His blood — the bodily ‘limbs’ along with the inner self — so that we are no longer ‘our own’ and may not ‘live for ourselves,’ but are, from the hour we know this, men ‘living for God in Christ Jesus’; and Christ ‘presents’ His redeemed ‘to God as holy’ and makes them God’s ‘sure possession,’ destined ‘for the praise of His glory’ (1 Corinthians 6:19 f.; Ko 6:11–14 12:1. Colossians 1:22, Ephesians 1:14, 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:6 etc.). Once, in relation to the Church His bride, Christ is Himself called the ‘sanctifier’ (Ephesians 5:26; cf. Hebrews 13:12). Being our Head and Representative before God, dedicating ‘all his own’ ( John 17:10) to the Father in the offering of Calvary, Jesus virtually accomplished the sanctification of His people, with their justification, once for all (1 Corinthians 1:30) Paul’s saying, ‘I have been crucified with Christ’ (Galatians 2 6:14). implies that he has been, by anticipation, included in the perfect sacrifice; he thus unfolds the implicit doctrine of John 17:9 f. and " is (see (1) above; cf. Hebrews 10:14).

Collectively, believers were sanctified in the self-devotion of their redeeming Lord; individually, they are sanctified when they accept the Redeemer’s sacrifice and personally endorse His action. From the latter point of view, sanctification is the man’s own deed: he ‘presents himself to God as alive from the dead’ (Ro &"■ but the sinner is never, as in OT phrase, said to ‘sanctify himself,’ — though 1 Timothy 4:3–5 approaches this mode of statement. The Holy Spirit is, with much emphasis, identified with the work of sanctification; Christian believers are ‘sanctified in the Holy Spirit’ (Romans 15:16, 1 Corinthians 6:11; also 1 Thessalonians 4:7 f.: Ephesians 4:30; cf. 1 Peter 1:2 etc.). To receive ‘the’gif t of the Spirit’ and to be sanctified are the same thing; when God takes possession of the believer, his ‘body’ becomes a ‘temple of the Holy Ghost’ (1 Corinthians 6:19) — then he is a holy man; and to possess ‘the Spirit’ is, in effect, to have ‘Christ dwelling in the heart’ (Ephesians 3:16, 19). . This twofold identity (‘sanctified’ =‘in the Spirit’ — ‘joined unto the Lord ‘) holds alike of the Church and of the individual Christian (1 Corinthians 3; Ephesians 2:21 f.; ct. 1 Peter 2:9). Paitli conditions this experience (Ac26i8, Ephesians 1:13 f.). Like the author of Hebrews, Paul recognizes a progressive holiness based upon the fundamental sanctification of the believer, the former being the growing and finally complete realization of the latter. Holiness is the starting-point, perfect holiness the goal of the Christian course — the progress’ is a growth in holiness rather than to holiness’ (Bartlet). Hence in Romans 6:19–22 the aim of one’s ‘service to God’ and ‘righteousness’ is found in ‘sanctification’; and in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 f. the Apostle prays that God will ‘sanctify to full completeness’ his readers, who are still lacking in many respects (3:10), so that their ‘spirit, soul, and body in full integrity may be preserved," and thus found’ blameless in holiness before God at the coming of our Lord Jesus’ (3:13). This supplication touches the ideal life in Christ; but it is an ideal to the present Christian state, and is not to be relegated to the visionary or the celestial: ‘Faithful is he who calleth you; who also will do it’ (1 Thessalonians 5:24).

St. John does not employ in his Epistles either ‘sanctify’ or ‘sanctiflcation,’ but their whole substance is there. 1 John 1 and 2:1 f. recall the teaching of Hebrews In spealsing of ‘the propitiation’ made by our ‘Advocate,’ whose ‘blood cleanses from all sin’ and thus brings the sinner into ‘fellowship with the Father.’ Paul’s doctrine of holiness is resumed in such passages as S*"- 4:13 f. 5"- setting forth union with Christ through the indwelling Spirit as the spring of a new, eternal life for the man, in the strength of which God’s commandments are Icept In love, sin and fear are cast out, and the world is overcome. G. G. Findlat.

Sanctuary

See High Place ;,Tabehnacle, 11(6) ; Temple.

Sand

Minute particles of silex, mica, felspar, etc., easily rolled before the wind; hence, probably, its Heb. name, chSl. It lies in great stretches along the Palestinian and Egyptian sea-board — an apt symbol of the incalculably vast or numerous (Genesis 22:17 41:49, Jeremiah 33:22 etc.). For ‘sand,’ in Job 29:18, we should probably read, with RVm, ‘phoenix.’ However compact and firm, sand at once becomes soft at the touch of water (Matthew 7 etc.). W. EwiNG.

Sandal

See Dress, 6.

Sand Flies

See Lice.

Sand Lizard

See Lizard.