Saraias – Satraps

Saraias

sa-ra'-yas, sa-ri'-as (Saraias; Latin, Sareus):

(1) = Seraiah, the high priest in the reign of Zedekiah (1 Esdras 5:5, compare 1 Chronicles 6:14).

(2) Sareus the father of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:1) = "Seraiah" in Ezra 7:1, sometimes identified with Saraias under (1). He is probably identical with the "Azaraias" of 1 Esdras 8:1.

(3) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Azaraias" (1 Esdras 8:1).

Saramel

sar'-a-mel: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ASARAMEL (which see).

Saraph

sa'-raf, sa'-raf (saraph, "noble one"; compare saraph, "burn" "shine"): A descendant of Judah through Shelah (1 Chronicles 4:22).

Sarchedonus

sar-ked'-o-nus (Codex Vaticanus Sacherdonos; Codex Alexandrinus Sacherdan, but Sacherdonosos in Tobit 1:22): An incorrect spelling, both in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), for Sacherdonus in Tobit 1:21 f, another form of Esar-haddon.

Sardeus

sar-de'-us: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) ZARDEUS (which see).

Sardin(E); Sardius

sar'-din, sar'-din.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sardis

sar'-dis (Sardeis): Sardis is of special interest to the student of Herodotus and Xenophon, for there Artaphernes, the brother of Darius, lived, and from there Xerxes invaded Greece and Cyrus marched against his brother Artaxerxes; it is also of interest to the student of early Christian history as the home of one of the Seven Churches of Re (1:11; 3:1 ff). It was moreover one of the oldest and most important cities of Asia Minor, and until 549 BC, the capital of the kingdom of Lydia. It stood on the northern slope of Mt. Tmolus; its acropolis occupied one of the spurs of the mountain. At the base flowed the river Pactolus which served as a moat, rendering the city practically impregnable. Through the failure to watch, however, the acropolis had been successfully scaled in 549 BC by a Median soldier, and in 218 by a Cretan (compare Revelation 3:2,Revelation 3:3). Because of its strength during the Persian period, the satraps here made their homes. However, the city was burned by the Ionians in 501 BC, but it was quickly rebuilt and regained its importance. In 334 BC it surrendered to Alexander the Great who gave it independence, but its period of independence was brief, for 12 years later in 322 BC it was taken by Antigonus. In 301 BC, it fell into the possession of the Seleucidan kings who made it the residence of their governor. It became free again in 190 BC, when it formed a part of the empire of Pergamos, and later of the Roman province of Asia. In 17 AD, when it was destroyed by an earthquake, the Roman emperor Tiberius remitted the taxes of the people and rebuilt the city, and in his honor the citizens of that and of neighboring towns erected a large monument, but Sardis never recovered its former importance (compare Revelation 3:12). Again in 295 AD, after the Roman province of Asia was broken up, Sardis became the capital of Lydia, and during the early Christian age it was the home of a bishop. The city continued to flourish until 1402, when it was so completely destroyed by Tamerlane that it was never rebuilt. Among the ruins there now stands a small village called Sert, a corruption of its ancient name. The ruins may be reached by rail from Smyrna, on the way to Philadelphia.

The ancient city was noted for its fruits and wool, and for its temple of the goddess Cybele, whose worship resembled that of Diana of Ephesus. Its wealth was also partly due to the gold which was found in the sand of the river Pactolus, and it was here that gold and silver coins were first struck. During the Roman period its coins formed a beautiful series, and are found in abundance by the peasants who till the surrounding fields. The ruins of the buildings which stood at the base of the hill have now been nearly buried by the dirt washed down from above. The hill upon which the acropolis stood measures 950 ft. high: the triple walls still surround it. The more imposing of the ruins are on the lower slope of the hill, and among them the temple of Cybele is the most interesting, yet only two of its many stone columns are still standing. Equally imposing is the necropolis of the city, which is at a distance of two hours' ride from Sert, South of the Gygaean lake. The modern name of the necropolis is Bin Tepe or Thousand Mounds, because of the large group of great mounds in which the kings and nobles were buried. Many of the mounds were long ago excavated and plundered.

We quote the following from the Missionary Herald (Boston, Massachusetts, August, 1911, pp. 361-62):

Dr. C. C. Tracy, of Marsovan, has made a visit to ancient Sardis and observed the work of his countryman, Professor Butler, of Princeton University, who is uncovering the ruins of that famous city of the past. Already rich "finds" have been made; among them portions of a temple of Artemis, indicating a building of the same stupendous character as those at Ephesus and Baalbec, and a necropolis from whose tombs were unearthed three thousand relics, including utensils, ornaments of gold and precious stones, mirrors, etc. What chiefly impressed Dr. Tracy was the significance of those "Seven Churches of Asia," of which Sardis held one. "When I think of the myriads of various nationality and advanced civilization for whose evangelization these churches were responsible, the messages to the Christian communities occupying the splendid strategic centers fill me with awe. While established amid the splendors of civilization, they were set as candlesticks in the midst of gross spiritual darkness. Did they fulfill their mission?"

One of Dr. Butler's recoveries is the marble throne of the Bishop of Sardis; looking upon it the message to Sardis recurs to mind. A fact of current history quickened the visitor's appreciation of the word to "the angel" of that church. "Yonder among the mountains overhanging Sardis there is a robber gang led by the notorious Chakirjali. He rules in the mountains; no government force can take him. Again and again he swoops down like an eagle out of the sky, in one quarter of the region or another. From time immemorial these mountains have been the haunts of robbers; very likely it was so when Re was written, `I will come upon thee as a thief.' In each case the message was addressed to `the angel of the church.' Over every church in the world there is a spirit hovering, as it were--a spirit representing that church and by whose name it can be addressed. The messages are as vital as they were at the first. `He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.'"

E. J. Banks

Sardite

sar'-dit.

See SERED.

Sardius

sar'-di-us.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sardonyx

sar'-do-niks.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sarepta

sa-rep'-ta (Sarepta): The name in Luke 4:26 the King James Version, following the Greek, of the Phoenician town to which Elijah was sent in the time of the great famine, in order to save the lives of a widow and her son (1 Kings 17:9,1 Kings 17:10). The Revised Version (British and American) adopts the form of the name based upon the Hebrew, and as found in the Old Testament: ZAREPHATH (which see).

Sargon

sar'-gon (722-705 BC): The name of this ruler is written cargon, in the Old Testament, Shar-ukin in the cuneiform inscriptions, Arna, in the Septuagint, and Arkeanos, in the Ptolemaic Canon. Sargon is mentioned but once by name in the Old Testament (Isaiah 20:1), when he sent his Tartan (turtannu) against Ashdod, but he is referred to in 2 Kings 17:6 as "the king of Assyria" who carried Israel into captivity.

Shalmaneser V had laid siege to Samaria and besieged it three years. But shortly before or very soon after its capitulation, Sargon, perhaps being responsible for the king's death, overthrew the dynasty, and in his annals credited himself with the capture of the city and the deportation of its inhabitants. Whether he assumed the name of the famous ancient founder of the Accad dynasty is not known.

Sargon at the beginning of his reign was confronted with a serious situation in Babylon. Merodach-baladan of Kaldu, who paid tribute to previous rulers, on the change of dynasty had himself proclaimed king, New Year's Day, 721 BC. At Dur-ilu, Sargon fought with the forces of Merodachbalddan and his ally Khumbanigash of Elam, but although he claimed a victory the result was apparently indecisive. Rebellions followed in other parts of the kingdom.

In 720 BC Ilu-bi'di (or Yau-bi'di), king of Hamath, formed a coalition against Sargon with Hanno of Gaza, Sib'u of Egypt, and with the cities Arpad, Simirra, Damascus and Samaria. He claims that Sib'u fled, and that he captured and flayed Ilu-bi'di, burned Qarqar, and carried Hanno captive to Assyria. After destroying Rapihu, he carried away 9,033 inhabitants to Assyria.

In the following year Ararat was invaded and the Hittite Carchemish fell before his armies. The territory of Rusas, king of Ararat, as well as a part of Melitene became Assyrian provinces.

In 710 BC Sargon directed his attention to Merodachbaladan, who no longer enjoyed the support of Elam, and whose rule over Babylon had not been popular with his subjects. He was driven out from Babylon and also from his former capital Bit-Yakin, and Sargon had himself crowned as the shakkanak of Babylon.

In 706 BC the new city called Dur-Sharrukin was dedicated as his residence. A year later he was murdered. It was during his reign that the height of Assyrian ascendancy had been reached.

A. T. Clay

Sarid

sa'-rid (saridh; Codex Vaticanus Esedekgola, Seddouk; Codex Alexandrinus Sarthid, Sarid): A place on the southern border of Zebulun to the West of Chisloth-tabor (Joshua 19:10,Joshua 19:12). It is mentioned but not identified in Eusebius, Onomasticon. Probably we should read "Sadid," and in that case may with Conder locate it at Tell Shaddu, an artificial mound with some modern ruins and good springs, which stands on the plain, about 5 miles West of Iksal.

Saron

sa'-ron, (Saron): the King James Version; Greek form of Sharon (Acts 9:35).

Sarothie

sa-ro'-thi-e (Codex Alexandrinus Sarothie; Codex Vaticanus and Swete, Sarothei): Name of a family of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:34); it is wanting in the parallel lists in Ezra 2:57; Nehemiah 7:59.

Sarsechim

sar'-se-kim, sar-se-kim (sarckhim): A prince of Nebuchadnezzar, present at the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the 11th year of Zedekiah (Jeremiah 39:3). The versions with their various readings--"Nabousachar" "Nabousarach," "Sarsacheim"--point to a corrupt text. The best emendation is the reading "Nebhoshazibhon" ( = Nabusezib-anni, "Nebo delivers me"); this is based on the reading in Jeremiah 39:13.

Saruch

sa'-ruk (Sarouch, Serouch): the King James Version; Greek form of Serug (thus, Luke 3:35 the Revised Version (British and American)).

Satan

sa'-tan (saTan), "adversary," from the verb saTan, "to lie in wait" (as adversary); Satan, Satanas, "adversary," diabolos, "Devil," "adversary" or "accuser," kategor (altogether unclassical and unGreek) (used once in Revelation 12:10), "accuser"):

I. DEFINITION

II. SCRIPTURAL FACTS CONCERNING SATAN

1. Names of Satan

2. Character of Satan

3. Works of Satan

4. History of Satan

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Scripture Doctrine of Satan Not Systematized

2. Satan and God

3. Satan Essentially Limited

4. Conclusions

LITERATURE

I. Definition.

A created but superhuman, personal, evil, world-power, represented in Scripture as the adversary both of God and men.

II. Scriptural Facts concerning Satan.

1. Names of Satan:

The most important of these are the Hebrew and Greek equivalents noticed above. These words are used in the general sense justified by their etymological significance. It is applied even to Yahweh Himself (Numbers 22:22,Numbers 22:32; compare 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; Psalms 109:6, etc.). The word "Satan" is used 24 times in the Old Testament. In Job (1:6 f) and Zec (3:1 f) it has the prefixed definite article. In all cases but one when the article is omitted it is used in a general sense. This one exception is 1 Chronicles 21:1 (compare 2 Samuel 24:1), where the word is generally conceded to be used as a proper name. This meaning is fixed in New Testament times. We are thus enabled to note in the term "Satan" (and Devil) the growth of a word from a general term to an appellation and later to a proper name. All the other names of Satan save only these two are descriptive titles. In addition to these two principal names a number of others deserve specific enumeration. Tempter (Matthew 4:5; 1 Thessalonians 3:5); Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24); Enemy (Matthew 13:39); Evil One (Matthew 13:19,Matthew 13:38; 1 John 2:13,1 John 2:14; 1 John 3:12, and particularly 1 John 5:18); Belial (2 Corinthians 6:15); Adversary (antidikos), (1 Peter 5:8); Deceiver (literally "the one who deceives") (Revelation 12:9); Dragon (Great) (Revelation 12:3); Father of Lies (John 8:44); Murderer (John 8:44); Sinner (1 John 3:8)--these are isolated references occurring from 1 to 3 times each. In the vast majority of passages (70 out of 83) either Satan or Devil is used.

2. Character of Satan:

Satan is consistently represented in the New Testament as the enemy both of God and man. The popular notion is that Satan is the enemy of man and active in misleading and cursing humanity because of his intense hatred and opposition to God. Matthew 13:39 would seem to point in this direction, but if one were to venture an opinion in a region where there are not enough facts to warrant a conviction, it would be that the general tenor of Scripture indicates quite the contrary, namely, that Satan's jealousy and hatred of men has led him into antagonism to God and, consequently, to goodness. The fundamental moral description of Satan is given by our Lord when He describes Satan as the "evil one" (Matthew 13:19,Matthew 13:38; compare Isaiah's description of Yahweh as the "Holy One," Isaiah 1:4 and often); that is, the one whose nature and will are given to evil. Moral evil is his controlling attribute. It is evident that this description could not be applied to Satan as originally created. Ethical evil cannot be concreated. It is the creation of each free will for itself. We are not told in definite terms how Satan became the evil one, but certainly it could be by no other process than a fall, whereby, in the mystery of free personality, an evil will takes the place of a good one.

3. Works of Satan:

The world-wide and age-long works of Satan are to be traced to one predominant motive. He hates both God and man and does all that in him lies to defeat God's plan of grace and to establish and maintain a kingdom of evil, in the seduction and ruin of mankind. The balance and sanity of the Bible is nowhere more strikingly exhibited than in its treatment of the work of Satan. Not only is the Bible entirely free from the extravagances of popular Satanology, which is full of absurd stories concerning the appearances, tricks, and transformations of Satan among men, but it exhibits a dependable accuracy and consistency, of statement which is most reassuring. Almost nothing is said concerning Satanic agency other than wicked men who mislead other men. In the controversy with His opponents concerning exorcism (Mark 3:22 f and parallel's) our Lord rebuts their slanderous assertion that He is in league with Satan by the simple proposition that Satan does not work against himself. But in so saying He does far more than refute this slander. He definitely aligns the Bible against the popular idea that a man may make a definite and conscious personal alliance with Satan for any purpose whatever. The agent of Satan is always a victim. Also the hint contained in this discussion that Satan has a kingdom, together with a few other not very definite allusions, are all that we have to go upon in this direction. Nor are we taught anywhere that Satan is able to any extent to introduce disorder into the physical universe or directly operate in the lives of men. It is true that in Luke 13:16 our Lord speaks of the woman who was bowed over as one "whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years," and that in 2 Corinthians 12:7 Paul speaks of his infirmity as a "messenger of Satan sent to buffet him." Paul also speaks (1 Thessalonians 2:18) of Satan's hindering him from visiting the church at Thessalonica. A careful study of these related passages (together with the prologue of Job) will reveal the fact that Satan's direct agency in the physical world is very limited. Satan may be said to be implicated in all the disasters and woes of human life, in so far as they are more or less directly contingent upon sin (see particularly Hebrews 2:14) On the contrary, it is perfectly evident that Satan's power consists principally in his ability to deceive. It is interesting and characteristic that according to the Bible Satan is fundamentally a liar and his kingdom is a kingdom founded upon lies and deceit. The doctrine of Satan therefore corresponds in every important particular to the general Biblical emphasis upon truth. "The truth shall make you free" (John 8:32)--this is the way of deliverance from the power of Satan.

Now it would seem that to make Satan pre-eminently the deceiver would make man an innocent victim and thus relax the moral issue. But according to the Bible man is particeps criminis in the process of his own deception. He is deceived only because he ceases to love the truth and comes first to love and then to believe a lie (2 Corinthians 1:10). This really goes to the very bottom of the problem of temptation. Men are not tempted by evil, per se, but by a good which can be obtained only at the cost of doing wrong. The whole power of sin, at least in its beginnings, consists in the sway of the fundamental falsehood that any good is really attainable by wrongdoing. Since temptation consists in this attack upon the moral sense, man is constitutionally guarded against deceit, and is morally culpable in allowing himself to be deceived. The temptation of our Lord Himself throws the clearest possible light upon the methods ascribed to Satan and The temptation was addressed to Christ's consciousness of divine sonship; it was a deceitful attack emphasizing the good, minimizing or covering up the evil; indeed, twisting evil into good. It was a deliberate, malignant attempt to obscure the truth and induce to evil through the acceptance of falsehood. The attack broke against a loyalty to truth which made self-deceit, and consequently deceit from without, impossible. The lie was punctured by the truth and the temptation lost its power (see TEMPTATION OF CHRIST). This incident reveals one of the methods of Satan--by immediate suggestion as in the case of Judas (Luke 22:3; John 13:2,John 13:27). Sometimes, however, and, perhaps, most frequently, Satan's devices (2 Corinthians 2:11) include human agents. Those who are given over to evil and who persuade others to evil are children and servants of Satan (See Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33; Luke 4:8; John 6:70; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; Acts 13:1 John 3:8). Satan also works through persons and institutions supposed to be on the side of right but really evil. Here the same ever-present and active falseness and deceit are exhibited. When he is called "the god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4) it would seem to be intimated that he has the power to clothe himself in apparently divine attributes. He also makes himself an angel of light by presenting advocates of falsehood in the guise of apostles of truth (2 Corinthians 11:13,2 Corinthians 11:15; 1 John 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 12:9; Revelation 19:20). In the combination of passages here brought together, it is clearly indicated that Satan is the instigator and fomenter of that spirit of lawlessness which exhibits itself as hatred both of truth and right, and which has operated so widely and so disastrously in human life.

4. History of Satan:

The history of Satan, including that phase of it which remains to be realized, can be set forth only along the most general lines. He belongs to the angelic order of beings. He is by nature one of the sons of Elohim (Job 1:6). He has fallen, and by virtue of his personal forcefulness has become the leader of the anarchic forces of wickedness. As a free being he has merged his life in evil and has become altogether and hopelessly evil. As a being of high intelligence he has gained great power and has exercised a wide sway over other beings. As a created being the utmost range of his power lies within the compass of that which is permitted. It is, therefore, hedged in by the providential government of God and essentially limited. The Biblical emphasis upon the element of falsehood in the career of Satan might be taken to imply that his kingdom may be less in extent than appears. At any rate, it is confined to the cosmic sphere and to a limited portion of time. It is also doomed. In the closely related passages 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 it is affirmed that God cast the angels, when they sinned, down to Tartarus and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. This both refers to the constant divine control of these insurgent forces and also points to their final and utter destruction. The putting of Satan in bonds is evidently both constant and progressive. The essential limitation of the empire of evil and its ultimate overthrow are foreshadowed in the Book of Job (chapters 38-41), where Yahweh's power extends even to the symbolized spirit of evil.

According to synoptic tradition, our Lord in the crisis of temptation immediately following the baptism (Matthew 4:1–25 and parallel) met and for the time conquered Satan as His own personal adversary. This preliminary contest did not close the matter, but was the earnest of a complete victory. According to Luke (10:18), when the Seventy returned from their mission flushed with victory over the powers of evil, Jesus said: `I saw Satan fall (not "fallen"; see Plummer, "Luke," ICC, in the place cited.) as lightning from heaven.' In every triumph over the powers of evil Christ beheld in vision the downfall of Satan. In connection with the coming of the Hellenists who wished to see Him, Jesus asserted (John 12:31), "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." In view of His approaching passion He says again (John 14:30), "The prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me." Once again in connection with the promised advent of the Spirit, Jesus asserted (John 16:11) that the Spirit would convict the world of judgment, "because the prince of this world hath been judged." In Hebrews (2:14,15) it is said that Christ took upon Himself human nature in order "that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil." In 1 John 3:8 it is said, "To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil." In Revelation 12:9 it is asserted, in connection with Christ's ascension, that Satan was cast down to the earth and his angels with him. According to the passage immediately following (12:10-12), this casting down was not complete or final in the sense of extinguishing his activities altogether, but it involves the potential and certain triumph of God and His saints and the equally certain defeat of Satan. In 1 John 2:13 the young men are addressed as those who "have overcome the evil one." In Revelation 20:1–15 the field of the future is covered in the assertion that Satan is "bound a thousand years"; then loosed "for a little time," and then finally "cast into the lake of fire."

A comparison of these passages will convince the careful student that while we cannot construct a definite chronological program for the career of Satan, we are clear in the chief points. He is limited, judged, condemned, imprisoned, reserved for judgment from the beginning. The outcome is certain though the process may be tedious and slow. The victory of Christ is the defeat of Satan; first, for Himself as Leader and Saviour of men (John 14:30); then, for believers (Luke 22:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 16:20; James 4:7; 1 John 2:13; 1 John 5:4,1 John 5:18); and, finally, for the whole world (Revelation 20:10). The work of Christ has already destroyed the empire of Satan.

III. General Considerations.

There are, no doubt, serious difficulties in the way of accepting the doctrine of a personal, superhuman, evil power as Satan is described to be. It is doubtful, however, whether these diffificulties may not be due, at least in part, to a misunderstanding of the doctrine and certain of its implications. In addition, it must be acknowledged, that whatever difficulties there may be in the teaching, they are exaggerated and, at the same time, not fairly met by the vague and irrational skepticism which denies without investigation. There are difficulties involved in any view of the world. To say the least, some problems are met by the view of a superhuman, evil world-power. In this section certain general considerations are urged with a view to lessening difficulties keenly felt by some minds. Necessarily, certain items gathered in the foregoing section are here emphasized again.

1. Scripture Doctrine of Satan Not Systematized:

The Scriptural doctrine of Satan is nowhere systematically developed. For materials in this field we are shut up to scattered and incidental references. These passages, which even in the aggregate are not numerous, tell us what we need to know concerning the nature, history, kingdom and works of Satan, but offer scant satisfaction to the merely speculative temper. The comparative lack of development in this field is due partly to the fact that the Biblical writers are primarily interested in God, and only secondarily in the powers of darkness; and partly to the fact that in the Bible doctrine waits upon fact. Hence, the malign and sinister figure of the Adversary is gradually outlined against the light of God's holiness as progressively revealed in the providential world-process which centers in Christ. It is a significant fact that the statements concerning Satan become numerous and definite only in the New Testament. The daylight of the Christian revelation was necessary in order to uncover the lurking foe, dimly disclosed but by no means fully known in the earlier revelation. The disclosure of Satan is, in form at least, historical, not dogmatic.

2. Satan and God:

In the second place, the relationship of Satan to God, already emphasized, must be kept constantly in mind. The doctrine of Satan merges in the general doctrine concerning angels (see ANGEL). It has often been pointed out that the personal characteristics of angels are very little insisted upon. They are known chiefly by their functions: merged, on the one hand, in their own offices, and, on the other, in the activities of God Himself.

In the Old Testament Satan is not represented as a fallen and malignant spirit, but as a servant of Yahweh, performing a divine function and having his place in the heavenly train. In the parallel accounts of David's numbering of Israel (1 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 21:1) the tempting of David is attributed both to Yahweh and Satan. The reason for this is either that `the temptation of men is also a part of his providence,' or that in the interval between the documents the personality of the tempter has more clearly emerged. In this case the account in Chronicles would nearly approximate the New Testament teaching. In the Book of Job (1:6), however, Satan is among the Sons of God and his assaults upon Job are divinely permitted. In Zec (3:1,2) Satan is also a servant of Yahweh. In both these passages there is the hint of opposition between Yahweh and Satan. In the former instance Satan assails unsuccessfully the character of one whom Yahweh honors; while in the latter Yahweh explicitly rebukes Satan for his attitude toward Israel (see G. A. Smith, BTP, II, 316 f). The unveiling of Satan as a rebellious world-power is reserved for the New Testament, and with this fuller teaching the symbolic treatment of temptation in Ge is to be connected. There is a sound pedagogical reason, from the viewpoint of revelation, for this earlier withholding of the whole truth concerning Satan. In the early stages of religious thinking it would seem to be difficult, if not impossible, to hold the sovereignty of God without attributing to His agency those evils in the world which are more or less directly connected with judgment and punishment (compare Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6). The Old Testament sufficiently emphasizes man's responsibility for his own evil deeds, but super-human evil is brought upon him from above. "When willful souls have to be misled, the spirit who does so, as in Ahab's case, comes from above" (G. A. Smith, op. cit., 317). The progressive revelation of God's character and purpose, which more and more imperatively demands that the origin of moral evil, and consequently natural evil, must be traced to the created will in opposition to the divine will, leads to the ultimate declaration that Satan is a morally fallen being to whose conquest the Divine Power in history is pledged. There is, also, the distinct possibility that in the significant transition from the Satan of the Old Testament to that of the New Testament we have the outlines of a biography and an indication of the way by which the angels fell.

3. Satan Essentially Limited:

A third general consideration, based upon data given in the earlier section, should be urged in the same connection. In the New Testament delineation of Satan, his limitations are clearly set forth. He is superhuman, but not in any sense divine. His activities are cosmic, but not universal or transcendent. He is a created being. His power is definitely circumscribed. He is doomed to final destruction as a world-power. His entire career is that of a secondary and dependent being who is permitted a certain limited scope of power--a time-lease of activity (Luke 4:6).

4. Conclusions:

These three general considerations have been grouped in this way because they dispose of three objections which are current against the doctrine of Satan.

(1) The first is, that it is mythological in origin. That it is not dogmatic is a priori evidence against this hypothesis. Mythology is primitive dogma. There is no evidence of a theodicy or philosophy of evil in the Biblical treatment of Satan. Moreover, while the Scriptural doctrine is unsystematic in form, it is rigidly limited in scope and everywhere essentially consistent. Even in the Apocalypse, where naturally more scope is allowed to the imagination, the same essential ideas appear. The doctrine of Satan corresponds, item for item, to the intellectual saneness and ethical earnestness of the Biblical world-view as a whole. It is, therefore, not mythological. The restraint of chastened imagination, not the extravagance of mythological fancy, is in evidence throughout the entire Biblical treatment of the subject. Even the use of terms current in mythology (as perhaps Genesis 3:1,Genesis 3:13,Genesis 3:14; Revelation 12:7–9; compare 1 Peter 5:8) does not imply more than a literary clothing of Satan in attributes commonly ascribed to malignant and disorderly forces.

(2) The second objection is that the doctrine is due to the influence of Persian dualism (see PERSIAN RELIGION; ZOROASTRIANISM). The answer to this is plain, on the basis of facts already adduced. The Biblical doctrine of Satan is not dualistic. Satan's empire had a beginning, it will have a definite and permanent end. Satan is God's great enemy in the cosmic sphere, but he is God's creation, exists by divine will, and his power is relatively no more commensurate with God's than that of men. Satan awaits his doom. Weiss says (concerning the New Testament representation of conflict between God and the powers of evil): "There lies in this no Manichaean dualism,.... but only the deepest experience of the work of redemption as the definite destruction of the power from which all sin in the world of men proceeds" (Biblical Theology New Testament, English tanslations of the Bible, II, 272; compare G.A. Smith, op. cit., II, 318).

(3) The third objection is practically the same as the second, but addressed directly to the doctrine itself, apart from the question of its origin, namely, that it destroys the unity of God. The answer to this also is a simple negative. To some minds the reality of created wills is dualistic and therefore untenable. But a true doctrine of unity makes room for other wills than God's--namely of those beings upon whom God has bestowed freedom. Herein stands the doctrine of sin and Satan. The doctrine of Satan no more militates against the unity of God than the idea, so necessary to morality and religion alike, of other created wills set in opposition to God's. Just as the conception of Satan merges, in one direction, in the general doctrine of angels, so, in the other, it blends with the broad and difficult subject of evil (compare "Satan," HDB, IV, 412a).

LITERATURE.

All standard works on Biblical Theology, as well as Dictionaries, etc., treat with more or less thoroughness the doctrine of Satan. The German theologians of the more evangelical type, such as Weiss, Lange, Martensen (Danish), Dorner, while exhibiting a tendency toward excessive speculation, discern the deeper aspects of the doctrine. Of monographs known to the writer none are to be recommended without qualification. It is a subject on which the Bible is its own best interpreter.

Louis Matthews Sweet

Satan, Depths Of

(ta bathea tou Satana): Found in Revelation 2:24, and has reference to false teaching at Thyatira. It is a question (that perhaps may not be decided) whether tou Satana, "of Satan," represents the claim of the false teachers, or is thrown in by the Lord. Did those false teachers claim to know "the depths" of Satan? Or was it that they claimed to know "the depths" of Deity, and the Lord said it was rather "the depths of Satan"? In either case the antithesis to "depths of Satan" is "depths of God," as referred to in Romans 11:33; 1 Corinthians 2:10.

E. J. Forrester

Satan, Synagogue Of

The expression occurs neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek of the Old Testament, nor in Apocrypha. Three passages in the Old Testament and one in Apocrypha suggest the idea conveyed in the expression. In Numbers 14:27,Numbers 14:35, Yahweh expresses His wrath against "the evil congregation" Septuagint sunagoge ponera) which He threatens to consume in the wilderness. In Psalms 21:1–13 (22):16, we find, "A company of evil doers (the Septuagint sunagoge ponereuomenon) have enclosed me." In Sirach 16:6, we read, "In the congregation of sinners (the Septuagint sunagoge hamartolon) shall a fire be kindled."

Only in the New Testament occurs the phrase "synagogue of Satan," and here only twice (Revelation 2:9; Revelation 3:9). Three observations are evident as to who constituted "the synagogue of Satan" in Smyrna and Philadelphia.

(1) They claimed to be Jews, i.e. they were descendants of Abraham, and so laid claim to the blessings promised by Yahweh to him and his seed.

(2) But they are not regarded by John as real Jews, i.e. they are not the genuine Israel of God (the same conclusion as Paul reached in Romans 2:28).

(3) They are persecutors of the Christians in Smyrna.

The Lord "knows their blasphemy," their sharp denunciations of Christ and Christians. They claim to be the true people of God, but really they are "the synagogue of Satan." The gen. Satana, is probably the possessive gen. These Jewish persecutors, instead of being God's people, are the "assembly of Satan," i.e. Satan's people.

In Polycarp, Mar. xvii.2 (circa 155 AD) the Jews of Smyrna were still persecutors of Christians and were conspicuous in demanding and planning the martyrdom of Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna, the same city in which the revelator calls persecuting Jews "the assembly of Satan."

In the 2nd century, in an inscription (CIJ, 3148) describing the classes of population in Smyrna, we find the expression hoi pote Ioudaioi, which Mommsen thinks means "Jews who had abandoned their religion," but which Ramsay says "probably means those who formerly were the nation of the Jews, but have lost the legal standing of a separate people."

LITERATURE.

Ramsay, The Seven Churches of Asia, chapter xii; Swete, The Apocalypse of John, 31, 32; Polycarp, Mar. xiii ff.17,2; Mommsen, Historische Zeitschrift, XXXVII, 417.

Charles B. Williams

Satchel

sach'-el.

See BAG.

Sathrabuzanes

sath-ra-bu'-za-nez, sath-ra-bu-za'-nez (Sathrabouzanes): In 1 Esdras 6:3,7,27 = "Shethar-bozenai" in Ezra 5:3,Ezra 5:6; Ezra 6:6,Ezra 6:13.

Satisfaction

sat-is-fak'-shun: Occurs twice in the King James Version (Numbers 35:31,Numbers 35:32) as a rendering of the Hebrew kopher (the Revised Version (British and American) "ransom"). It means a price paid as compensation for a life, and the passage cited is a prohibition against accepting such, in case of murder, or for the return of the manslayer. Such compensation was permitted in ancient justice among many peoples. Compare poine, which Liddell and Scott define as "properly quit-money for blood spilt, the fine paid by the slayer to the kinsman of the slain, as a ransom from all consequences." The same custom prevailed among Teutonic peoples, as seen in the German Wergeld and Old English wergild. The Hebrew lairs of the Old Testament permit it only in the case of a man or woman gored to death by an ox (Exodus 21:30–32).

Benjamin Reno Downer

Satraps

sa'-traps, sat'-raps ('achashdarpenim, Ezra 8:36; Esther 3:12; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3, the King James Version "lieutenants"; Daniel 3:2,Daniel 3:3,Daniel 3:27; Daniel 6:1 ff, the King James Version "princes"): The viceroys or vassal rulers to whom was entrusted the government of the provinces in the Persian empire. The word answers to the Old Persian khshathrapavan, "protectors of the realm."