International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Samson — Sea

Samson

Samson - sam'-sun (shimshon.

1. Name: Derived probably from shemesh, "sun" with the diminutive ending -on, meaning "little sun" or "sunny," or perhaps "sun-man"; Sampson; Latin and English, Samson): His home was near Bethshemesh, which means "house of the sun." Compare the similar formation shimshay (Ezra 4:8-9, 17, 23).

2. Character: Samson was a judge, perhaps the last before Samuel. He was a Nazirite of the tribe of Dan (Judges 13:5); a man of prodigious strength, a giant and a gymnast--the Hebrew Hercules, a strange champion for Yahweh! He intensely hated the Philistines who had oppressed Israel some 40 years (Judges 13:1), and was willing to fight them alone. He seems to have been actuated by little less than personal vengeance, yet in the New Testament he is named among the heroes of faith (Hebrews 11:32), and was in no ordinary sense an Old Testament worthy. He was good-natured, sarcastic, full of humor, and fought with his wits as well as with his fists. Milton has graphically portrayed his character in his dramatic poem Samson Agonistes (1671), on which Handel built his oratorio, Samson (1743).

3. Story of His Life: The story of Samson's life is unique among the biographies of the Old Testament. It is related in Judges 13:1-25 through Judges 16:1-31. Like Isaac, Samuel and John the Baptist, he was a child of prayer (Judges 13:8, 12). To Manoah's wife the angel of Yahweh appeared twice (Judges 13:3, 9), directing that the child which should be born to them should be a Nazirite from the womb, and that he would "begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines" (Judges 13:5, 7, 14). The spirit of Yahweh first began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol (Judges 13:25). On his arriving at manhood, five remarkable circumstances are recorded of him.

(1) His marriage with a Philistine woman of Timnah (Judges 14:1-20). His parents objected to the alliance (Judges 14:3), but Samson's motive in marrying her was that he "sought an occasion against the Philistines" At the wedding feast Samson propounded to his guests a riddle, wagering that if they guessed its answer he would give them 30 changes of raiment. Dr. Moore felicitously renders the text of the riddle thus:

`Out of the eater came something to eat,

And out of the strong came something sweet' (Judges 14:14).

The Philistines threatened the life of his bride, and she in turn wrung from Samson the answer; whereupon he retorted (in Dr. Moore's version):

`If with my heifer ye did not plow,

Ye had not found out my riddle, I trow' (Judges 14:18).

Accordingly, in revenge, Samson went down to Ashkelon, slew some 30 men, and paid his debt; he even went home without his wife, and her father to save her from shame gave her to Samson's "best man" (Judges 14:20). It has been suggested by W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 70-76) that Samson did not from the first intend to take his bride to his home, his marriage being what is known among the Arabs as a tsadiqat, or gift marriage, by which is meant that the husband becomes a part of the wife's tribe. This assumes that the social relations of the Hebrews at that time were matriarchate, the wife remaining with her family, of which custom there are other traces in the Old Testament, the husband merely visiting the wife from time to time. But this is not so obvious in Samson's case in view of his pique (Judges 14:19), and especially in view of his parents' objection to his marrying outside of Israel (Judges 14:3). Not knowing that his bride had been given by her father to his friend, Samson went down to Timnah to visit her, with a kid; when he discovered, however, that he had been taken advantage of, he went out and caught 300 jackals, and putting firebrands between every two tails, he burned up the grain fields and olive yards of the Philistines. The Philistines, however, showed they could play with fire, too, and burned his wife and her father. Thereupon, Samson smote the Philistines in revenge, "hip and thigh" (Judges 15:1-8).

(2) When he escaped to Etam, an almost vertical rock cliff in Judah (by some identified with `Araq Ismain) not far from Zorah, Samson's home, the Philistines invaded Judah, encamped at Lehi above Etam, and demanded the surrender of their arch-enemy. The men of Judah were willing to hand Samson over to the Philistines, and accordingly went down to the cliff Etam, bound Samson and brought him up where the Philistines were encamped (Judges 15:9-13). When Samson came to Lehi the Philistines shouted as they met him, whereupon the spirit of Yahweh came mightily upon him, so that he broke loose from the two new ropes with which the 3,000 men of Judah had bound him, and seizing a fresh jawbone of an ass he smote with it 1,000 men of the Philistines, boasting as he did so in pun-like poetry, `With the jawbone of an ass, m-ass upon m-ass'; or, as Dr. Moore translates the passage, `With the bone of an ass, I ass-ailed my ass-ailants' (Judges 15:16). At the same time, Samson reverently gave Yahweh the glory of his victory (Judges 15:18). Samson being thirsty, Yahweh provided water for him at a place called En-hakkore, or "Partridge Spring," or "the Spring of the Caller"--another name for partridge (Judges 15:17-19).

(3) Samson next went down to Gaza, to the very stronghold of the Philistines, their chief city. There he saw a harlot, and, his passions not being under control, he went in unto her. It was soon noised about that Samson, the Hebrew giant, was in the city. Accordingly, the Philistines laid wait for him. But Samson arose at midnight and laid hold of the doors of the gate and their two posts, and carried them a full quarter of a mile up to the top of the mountain that looketh toward Hebron (Judges 16:1-3).

(4) From Gaza Samson betook himself to the valley of Sorek where he fell in love with another Philistine woman, named Delilah, through whose machinations he lost his spiritual power. The Philistine lords bribed her with a very large sum to deliver him into their hands. Three times Samson deceived her as to the secret of his strength, but at last he explains that he is a Nazirite, and that his hair, which has never been shorn, is the secret of his wonderful power. J. G. Frazer (Golden Bough, III, 390 ff) has shown that the belief that some mysterious power resides in the hair is still widespread among savage peoples, e.g. the Fiji Islanders. Thus, Samson fell. By disclosing to Delilah this secret, he broke his covenant vow, and the Spirit of God departed from him (Judges 16:4-20). The Philistines laid hold on him, put out his eyes, brought him down to Gaza, bound him with fetters, and forced him to grind in the prison house. Grinding was women's work! It is at this point that Milton catches the picture and writes,

"Eyeless in Gaza, at the mill with slaves."

Howbeit, the hair of his head began to grow again; but his eyes did not! (Judges 16:21-22).

(5) The final incident recorded of Samson is in connection with a great sacrificial feast which the Philistine lords gave in honor of Dagon, their god. In their joyous celebration they sang in rustic rhythm:

`Our god has given us into our hand

The foe of our land,

Whom even our most powerful band

Was never able to withstand' (Judges 16:24).

This song was accompanied probably, as Mr. Macalister suggests, by hand-clapping (Gezer, 129). When they became still more merry, they called for Samson to play the buffoon, and by his pranks to entertain the assembled multitude. The house of Dagon was full of people; about 3,000 were upon the roof beholding as Samson made sport. With the new growth of his hair his strength had returned to him. The dismantled giant longed to be avenged on his adversaries for at least one of his two eyes (Judges 16:28). He prayed, and Yahweh heard his prayer. Guided by his attendant, he took hold of the wooden posts of the two middle pillars upon which the portico of the house rested, and slipping them off their pedestals, the house fell upon the lords and upon all the people that were therein. "So the dead that he slew at his death were more than they that he slew in his life" (Judges 16:29-30). His kinsmen came and carried him up and buried him near his boyhood home, between Zorah and Eshtaol, in the family burying-ground of his father. "And he judged Israel twenty years" (Judges 16:31).

4. Historical Value: The story of Samson is a faithful mirror of his times: "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6; 21:25). There was no king in those days, i.e. no central government. Each tribe was separately occupied driving out their individual enemies. For 40 years the Philistines had oppressed Samson's tribal compatriots. Their suzerainty was also recognized by Judah (Judges 14:4; 15:11). Samson was the hero of his tribe. The general historicity of his story cannot be impeached on the mere ground of improbability. His deeds were those which would most naturally be expected from a giant, filled with a sense of justice. He received the local popularity which a man of extraordinary prowess would naturally be given. All peoples glory in their heroes. The theory that the record in Judges 13:1-25 through Judges 16:1-31 is based upon some "solar myth" is now generally abandoned. That there are incidents in his career which are difficult to explain, is freely granted. For example, that he killed a lion (Judges 14:6) is not without a parallel; David and Benaiah did the same (1 Samuel 17:34-36; 2 Samuel 23:20). God always inspires a man in the line of his natural endowments. That God miraculously supplied his thirst (Judges 15:19) is no more marvelous than what God did for Hagar in the wilderness (Genesis 21:19). That Samson carried off the doors of the gate of Gaza and their two posts, bar and all, must not confound us till we know more definitely their size and the distance from Gaza of the hill to which he carried them. The fact that he pulled down the roof on which there were 3,000 men and women is not at all impossible, as Mr. Macalister has shown. If we suppose that there was an immense portico to the temple of Dagon, as is quite possible, which was supported by two main pillars of wood resting on bases of stone, like the cedar pillars of Solomon's house (1 Kings 7:2), all that Samson, therefore, necessarily did, was to push the wooden beams so that their feet would slide over the stone base on which they rested, and the whole portico would collapse. Moreover, it is not said that the whole of the 3,000 on the roof were destroyed (Judges 16:30). Many of those in the temple proper probably perished in the number (R. A. S. Macalister, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer, 1906, 127-38).

5. Religious Value: Not a few important and suggestive lessons are deducible from the hero's life: (1) Samson was the object of parental solicitude from even before his birth. One of the most suggestive and beautiful prayers in the Old Testament is that of Manoah for guidance in the training of his yet unborn child (Judges 13:8). Whatever our estimate of his personality is, Samson was closely linked to the covenant. (2) He was endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh--the spirit of personal patriotism, the spirit of vengeance upon a foe of 40 years' standing (Judges 13:1, 25; 14:6:Judges 19:1-30; 15:14). (3) He also prayed, and Yahweh answered him, though in judgment (Judges 16:30). But he was prodigal of his strength. Samson had spiritual power and performed feats which an ordinary man would hardly perform. But he was unconscious of his high vocation. In a moment of weakness he yielded to Delilah and divulged the secret of his strength. He was careless of his personal endowment. He did not realize that physical endowments no less than spiritual are gifts from God, and that to retain them we must be obedient. (4) He was passionate and therefore weak. The animal of his nature was never curbed, but rather ran unchained and free. He was given to sudden fury. Samson was a wild, self-willed man. Passion ruled. He could not resist the blandishments of women. In short, he was an overgrown schoolboy, without self-mastery. (5) He accordingly wrought no permanent deliverance for Israel; he lacked the spirit of cooperation. He undertook a task far too great for even a giant single-handed. Yet, it must be allowed that Samson paved the way for Saul and David. He began the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines. He must, therefore, be judged according to his times. In his days there was unrestrained individual independence on every side, each one doing as he pleased. Samson differed from his contemporaries in that he was a hero of faith (Hebrews 11:32). He was a Nazirite, and therefore dedicated to God. He was given to revenge, yet he was ready to sacrifice himself in order that his own and his people's enemies might be overthrown. He was willing to lay down his own life for the sake of his fellow-tribesmen--not to save his enemies, however, but to kill them. (Compare Matthew 5:43 f; Romans 5:10.)

LITERATURE.

(1) Comma. on Jgs, notably those by G. F. Moore, ICC, 1895; Budde, Kurzer Handkommentar, 1897; Nowack, Handkommentar, 1900; E. L. Curtis, The Bible for Home and School, 1913; Bachmann, 1868; Keil, 1862; Farrar in Ellicott's Commentaries; Watson, Expositor's Bible. (2) Articles on "Samson" in the various Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias; in particular those by Budde, HDB; C. W. Emmet, in 1-vol HDB; S. A. Cook, New Encyclopedia Brit; Davis, Dict. of the Bible.

George L. Robinson

Samuel

Samuel - sam'-u-el (shemu'el; Samouel): The word "Samuel" signifies "name of God," or "his name is El" (God). Other interpretations of the name that have been offered are almost certainly mistaken. The play upon the name in 1 Samuel 1:20 is not intended of course to be an explanation of its meaning, but is similar to the play upon the name Moses in Exodus 2:10 and frequently elsewhere in similar instances. Thus, by the addition of a few letters shemu'el becomes sha'ul me'el, "asked of God," and recalls to the mother of Samuel the circumstances of the divine gift to her of a son. Outside of 1st Samuel the name of the great judge and prophet is found in Jeremiah 15:1; Psalms 99:6 and in 1 and 2 Chronicles. The reference in Jeremiah seems intended to convey the same impression that is given by the narrative of 1 Samuel, that in some sense Samuel had come to be regarded as a second Moses, upon whom the mantle of the latter had fallen, and who had been once again the deliverer and guide of the people at a great national crisis.

1. Sources and Character of the History: The narrative of the events of the life of Samuel appears to be derived from more than one source (see SAMUEL, BOOKS OF). The narrator had before him and made use of biographies and traditions, which he combined into a single consecutive history. The completed picture of the prophet's position and character which is thus presented is on the whole harmonious and consistent, and gives a very high impression of his piety and loyalty to Yahweh, and of the wide influence for good which he exerted. There are divergences apparent in detail and standpoint between the sources or traditions, some of which may probably be due merely to misunderstanding of the true nature of the events recorded, or to the failure of the modern reader rightly to appreciate the exact circumstances and time. The greater part of the narrative of the life of Samuel, however, appears to have a single origin.

2. Life: In the portion of the general history of Israel contained in 1 Samuel are narrated the circumstances of the future prophet's birth (chapter 1); of his childhood and of the custom of his parents to make annual visits to the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:11,18-21,26); of his vision, and the universal recognition of him as a prophet enjoying the special favor of Yahweh (3 through 4:1). The narrative is then interrupted to describe the conflicts with the Philistines, the fate of Eli and his sons, and the capture of the ark of God. It is only after the return of the ark, and apparently at the close of the 20 years during which it was retained at Kiriath-jearim, that Samuel again comes forward publicly, exhorting the people to repentance and promising them deliverance from the Philistines. A summary narrative is then given of the summoning of a national council at Mizpah, at which Samuel "judged the children of Israel," and offered sacrifice to the Lord, and of Yahweh's response in a great thunderstorm, which led to the defeat and panic-stricken flight of the Philistines. Then follows the narrative of the erection of a commemorative stone or pillar, Eben-ezer, "the stone of help," and the recovery of the Israelite cities which the Philistines had captured (7:5-14). The narrator adds that the Philistines came no more within the border of Israel all the days of Samuel (7:13); perhaps with an intentional reference to the troubles and disasters of which this people was the cause in the time of Saul. A brief general statement is appended of Samuel's practice as a judge of going on annual circuit through the land, and of his home at Ramah (7:15-17).

No indication is given of the length of time occupied by these events. At their close, however, Samuel was an old man, and his sons who had been appointed judges in his place or to help him in his office proved themselves unworthy (1 Samuel 8:1-3). The elders of the people therefore came to Samuel demanding the appointment of a king who should be his successor, and should judge in his stead. The request was regarded by the prophet as an act of disloyalty to Yahweh, but his protest was overruled by divine direction, and at Samuel's bidding the people dispersed (1 Samuel 8:4-22).

At this point the course of the narrative is again interrupted to describe the family and origin of Saul, his personal appearance, and the search for the lost asses of his father (1 Samuel 9:1-5); his meeting with Samuel in a city in the land of Zuph, in or on the border of the territory of Benjamin (Zuph is the name of an ancestor of Elkanah, the father of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 1:1), a meeting of which Samuel had received divine pre-intimation (1 Samuel 9:15 f) ; the honorable place given to Saul at the feast; his anointing by Samuel as ruler of Israel, together with the announcement of three "signs," which should be to Saul assurances of the reality of his appointment and destiny; the spirit of prophecy which took possession of the future king, whereby is explained a proverbial saying which classed Saul among the prophets; and his silence with regard to what had passed between himself and Samuel on the subject of the kingdom (1 Samuel 9:6 through 1 Samuel 10:16).

It is usually, and probably rightly, believed that the narrative of these last incidents is derived from a different source from that of the preceding chapters. Slight differences of inconsistency or disagreement lie on the surface. Samuel's home is not at Ramah, but a nameless city in the land of Zuph, where he is priest of the high place, with a local but, as far as the narrative goes, not a national influence or reputation; and it is anticipated that he will require the customary present at the hands of his visitors (1 Samuel 9:6-8). He is described, moreover, not as a judge, nor does he discharge judicial functions, but expressly as a "seer," a name said to be an earlier title equivalent to the later "prophet" (1 Samuel 9:9, 11, 19). Apart, however, from the apparently different position which Samuel occupies, the tone and style of the narrative is altogether distinct from that of the preceding chapters. It suggests, both in its form and in the religious conceptions which are assumed or implied, an older and less elaborated tradition than that which has found expression in the greater part of the book; and it seems to regard events as it were from a more primitive standpoint than the highly religious and monotheistic view of the later accounts. Its value as a witness to history is not impaired, but perhaps rather enhanced by its separate and independent position. The writer or compiler of 1 Samuel has inserted it as a whole in his completed narrative at the point which he judged most suitable. To the same source should possibly be assigned the announcement of Saul's rejection in 1 Samuel 13:88-15a.

The course of the narrative is resumed at 1 Samuel 10:17 ff, where, in a second national assembly at Mizpah, Saul is selected by lot and accepted by the people as king (1 Samuel 10:17-24); after which the people dispersed, and Saul returned to his home at Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:25-27). At a solemn assembly at Gilgal, at which the kingship is again formally conferred upon Saul, Samuel delivered a farewell address to his fellow-countrymen. A thunderstorm terrified the people; they were reassured, however, by Samuel with promises of the protection and favor of Yahweh, if they continued to fear and serve Him (1 Samuel 11:14 through 1 Samuel 12:25). Later the rejection of Saul for disobedience and presumption is announced by Samuel (1 Samuel 13:88-15a). The commission to destroy Amalek is delivered to Saul by Samuel; and the rejection of the king is again pronounced because of his failure to carry out the command. Agag is then slain by Samuel with his own hand; and, the latter having returned to his home at Ramah, the narrator adds that he remained there in seclusion until the day of his death, "mourning" for Saul, but refusing to meet him again (1 Samuel 15:1-35). Finally the death and burial of Samuel at Ramah, together with the lamentation of the people for him, are briefly recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, and referred to again in 1 Samuel 28:3.

Two incidents of Samuel's life remain, in which he is brought into relation with the future king David. No indication of date or circumstance is given except that the first incident apparently follows immediately upon the second and final rejection of Saul as recorded in 1 Samuel 15:1-35. In 16:1-13 is narrated the commission of Samuel to anoint a successor to Saul, and his fulfillment of the commission by the choice of David the son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite. And, in a later chapter (19:18-24), a second occasion is named on which the compelling spirit of prophecy came upon Saul, and again the proverbial saying, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" is quoted (19:24; compare 10:11,12), and is apparently regarded as taking its origin from this event.

The anointing of David by Samuel is a natural sequel to his anointing of Saul, when the latter has been rejected and his authority and rights as king have ceased. There is nothing to determine absolutely whether the narrative is derived from the same source as the greater part of the preceding history. Slight differences of style and the apparent presuppositions of the writer have led most scholars to the conclusion that it has a distinct and separate origin. If so, the compiler of the Books of Samuel drew upon a third source for his narrative of the life of the seer, a source which there is no reason to regard as other than equally authentic and reliable. With the second incident related in 1 Samuel 19:18-24, the case is different. It is hardly probable that so striking a proverb was suggested and passed into currency independently on two distinct occasions. It seems evident that here two independent sources or authorities were used, which gave hardly reconcilable accounts of the origin of a well-known saying, in one of which it has been mistakenly attributed to a similar but not identical occurrence in the life of Saul. In the final composition of the book both accounts were then inserted, without notice being taken of the inconsistency which was apparent between them.

Yet later in the history Samuel is represented as appearing to Saul in a vision at Endor on the eve of his death (1 Samuel 28:11-20). The witch also sees the prophet and is stricken with fear. He is described as in appearance an old man "covered with a robe" (1 Samuel 28:14). In characteristically grave and measured tones he repeats the sentence of death against the king for his disobedience to Yahweh, and announces its execution on the morrow; Saul's sons also will die with him (1 Samuel 28:19), and the whole nation will be involved in the penalty and suffering, as they all had a part in the sin.

The high place which Samuel occupies in the thought of the writers and in the tradition and esteem of the people is manifest throughout the history. The different sources from which the narrative is derived are at one in this, although perhaps not to an equal degree. He is the last and greatest of the judges, the first of the prophets, and inaugurates under divine direction the Israelite kingdom and the Davidic line.

3. Character and Influence of Samuel: It is not without reason, therefore, that he has been regarded as in dignity and importance occupying the position of a second Moses in relation to the people. In his exhortations and warnings the Deuteronomic discourses of Moses are reflected and repeated. He delivers the nation from the hand of the Philistines, as Moses from Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and opens up for them a new national era of progress and order under the rule of the kings whom they have desired. Thus, like Moses, he closes the old order, and establishes the people with brighter prospects upon more assured foundations of national prosperity and greatness. In nobility of character and utterance also, and in fidelity to Yahweh, Samuel is not unworthy to be placed by the side of the older lawgiver. The record of his life is not marred by any act or word which would appear unworthy of his office or prerogative. And the few references to him in the later literature (Psalms 99:6; Jeremiah 15:1; 1 Chronicles 6:28; 9:22; 11:3; 26:28; 29:29; 2 Chronicles 35:18) show how high was the estimation in which his name and memory were held by his fellow-countrymen in subsequent ages.

LITERATURE.

The literature is given in the article, SAMUEL, BOOKS OF (which see).

A. S. Geden

Samuel, Books of

Samuel, Books of - I. PLACE OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL IN THE HEBREW CANON

II. CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS AND PERIOD OF TIME COVERED BY THE HISTORY

III. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

1. Life of Samuel (1 Samuel 1 through 15)

2. Reign and Death of Saul (1 Samuel 16 through 2 Samuel 1)

3. Reign of David (2 Samuel 2 through 20)

(1) David's Seven and a Half Years' Reign over Judah in Hebron (2 Samuel 2:1 through 2 Samuel 5:3).

(2) Reign of David in Jerusalem over United Israel (2 Samuel 5:4 through 2 Samuel 20:26).

4. Appendix (2 Samuel 21 through 24)

IV. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY

Two Main and Independent Sources

V. CHARACTER AND DATE OF THE SOURCES

VI. GREEK VERSIONS OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL

VII. ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS TEACHING

LITERATURE

I. Place of the Books of Samuel in the Hebrew Canon.

In the Hebrew Canon and enumeration of the sacred books of the Old Testament, the two Books of Samuel were reckoned as one, and formed the third division of the Earlier Prophets (nebhi'im ri'shonim). The one book bore the title "Samuel" (shemu'el), not because Samuel was believed to be the author, but because his life and acts formed the main theme of the book, or at least of its earlier part. Nor was the Book of Samuel separated by any real division in subject-matter or continuity of style from the Book of Kings, which in the original formed a single book, not two as in the English and other modern versions. The history was carried forward without interruption; and the record of the life of David, begun in Samuel, was completed in Kings. This continuity in the narrative of Israelite history was made more prominent in the Septuagint, where the four books were comprised under one title and were known as the four "Books of the Kingdoms" (bibloi basileion). This name was probably due to the translators or scholars of Alexandria. The division into four books, but not the Greek title, was then adopted in the Latin translation, where, however, the influence of Jerome secured the restoration of the Hebrew names, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings (Regum). Jerome's example was universally followed, and the fourfold division with the Hebrew titles found a place in all subsequent versions of the Old Testament Scriptures. Ultimately, the distinction of Samuel and Kings each into two books was received also into printed editions of the Hebrew Bible. This was done for the first time in the editio princeps of the Rabbinic Bible, printed at Venice in 1516-17 AD.

II. Contents of the Books and Period of Time Covered by the History.

The narrative of the two Books of Samuel covers a period of about a hundred years, from the close of the unsettled era of the Judges to the establishment and consolidation of the kingdom under David. It is therefore a record of the changes, national and constitutional, which accompanied this growth and development of the national life, at the close of which the Israelites found themselves a united people under the rule of a king to whom all owed allegiance, controlled and guided by more or less definitely established institutions and laws. This may be described as the general purpose and main theme of the books, to trace the advance of the people under divine guidance to a state of settled prosperity and union in the promised land, and to give prominence to theocratic rule which was the essential condition of Israel's life as the people of God under all the changing forms of early government. The narrative therefore centers itself around the lives of the three men, Samuel, Saul and David, who were chiefly instrumental in the establishment of the monarchy, and to whom it was due more than to any others that Israel emerged from the depressed and disunited state in which the tribes had remained during the period of the rule of the Judges, and came into possession of a combined and effective national life. If the formal separation therefore into two books be disregarded, the history of Israel as it is narrated in "Samuel" is most naturally divided into three parts, which are followed by an appendix recording words and incidents which for some reason had not found a place in the general narrative:

A. The life and rule of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1-28 through 1 Samuel 15:1-35) (death 1 Samuel 25:1).

B. The life, reign and death of Saul (1 Samuel 16:1-23 through 2 Samuel 1:1-27).

C. The reign and acts of David to the suppression of the two rebellions of Absalom and Sheba (2 Samuel 2:1-32 through 2 Samuel 20:1-26).

D. Appendix; other incidents in the reign of David, the names of his chief warriors and his Song or Psalm of Praise (2 Samuel 21:1-222-2 Samuel 24:1-25).

III. Summary and Analysis. To present a brief and clear analysis of these Books of Samuel is not altogether easy. For as in the Pentateuch and the earlier historical Books of Joshua and Judges, repetitions and apparently duplicate accounts of the same event are found, which interfere with the chronological development of the narrative. Even the main divisions, as stated above, to a certain extent overlap.

1. Life of Samuel (1 Samuel 1 through 15): (1) Visit of Hannah to Shiloh, and promise of the birth of a son (1 Samuel 1:1-19); birth and weaning of Samuel, and presentation to Eli at Shiloh (1 Samuel 1:19-28).

(2) Hannah's song or prayer (1 Samuel 2:1-10); ministry of Samuel to Eli the priest (1 Samuel 2:11, 18-21, 26); the evil practices of the sons of Eli and warning to Eli of the consequences to his house (1 Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25, 27-36).

(3) Samuel's vision at the sanctuary and his induction to the prophetic office (1 Samuel 3:1 through 1 Samuel 4:1).

(4) Defeat of the Israelites by the Philistines, capture of the ark of God, death of the two sons of Eli and of Eli himself (1 Samuel 4:1-22).

(5) Discomfiture of Dagon before the ark of God at Ashdod; return of the ark to Beth-shemesh, with expiatory offerings of golden tumors and golden mice; its twenty years' sojourn at Kiriath-jearim (1 Samuel 5:1 through 1 Samuel 7:4).

(6) Assembly of Israel under Samuel at Mizpah, and victory over the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:5-14); Samuel established as judge over all Israel (1 Samuel 7:15-17).

(7) Samuel's sons appointed to be judges and the consequent demand of the people for a king; Samuel's warning concerning the character of the king for whom they asked (1 Samuel 8:1-22).

(8) Saul's search for, the lost asses of his father and meeting with Samuel (1 Samuel 9:1-27).

(9) Saul is anointed by Samuel to be ruler over the people of Israel, and receives the gift of prophecy (1 Samuel 10:1-16); second assembly of the people under Samuel at Mizpah, and election of Saul to be king (1 Samuel 10:17-27).

(10) Victory of Saul over the Ammonites and deliverance of Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 11:1-13); Saul made king in Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:14-15).

(11) Samuel's address to the people in Gilgal, defending his own life and action, and exhorting them to fear and serve the Lord (1 Samuel 12:1-25).

(12) Saul at Gilgal offers the burnt offering in Samuel's absence; gathering of the Philistines to battie at Michmash; the Israelites' lack of weapons of iron (1 Samuel 13:1-23).

(13) Jonathan's surprise of the Philistine army, and their sudden panic (1 Samuel 14:1-23); Saul's vow, unwittingly broken by Jonathan, whom the people deliver from the fatal consequences (1 Samuel 14:24-45); victories of Saul over his enemies on every side (1 Samuel 14:46-52).

(14) War against Amalek, and Saul's disobedience to the divine command to exterminate the Amaleldtes (1 Samuel 15:1-35).

2. Reign and Death of Saul (1 Samuel 16:1-23 through 2 Samuel 1:1-27):

(1) Anointing of David as Saul's successor (1 Samuel 16:1-13); his summons to the court of Saul to act as minstrel before the king (1 Samuel 16:14-23).

(2) David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17). (3) The love of David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-4); the former's advancement and fame, the jealousy of Saul, and his attempt to kill David (1 Samuel 18:5-16, 29-30); David's marriage to the daughter of Saul (1 Samuel 18:17-28).

(4) Saul's renewed jealousy of David and second attempt to kill him (1 Samuel 19:1-17); David's escape to Ramah, whither the king followed (1 Samuel 19:18-24).

(5) Jonathan's warning to David of his father's resolve and their parting (1 Samuel 20:1-42).

(6) David at Nob (1 Samuel 21:1-9); and with Achish of Gath (1 Samuel 21:10-15).

(7) David's band of outlaws at Adullam (1 Samuel 22:1-2); his provision for the safety of his father and mother in Moab (1 Samuel 22:3-5); vengeance of Saul on those who had helped David (1 Samuel 22:6-23).

(8) Repeated attempts of Saul to take David (1 Samuel 23:1-29; 1 Samuel 24:1-22).

(9) Death of Samuel (1 Samuel 25:1); Abigail becomes David's wife, after the death of her husband Nabal (1 Samuel 25:2-44).

(10) Saul's further pursuit of David (1 Samuel 26). (11) David's sojourn with Achish of Gath (1 Samuel 27:1 through 1 Samuel 28:2, 25); Saul and the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:3-25).

(12) David's pursuit of the Amalekites who had raided Ziklag, and victory (1 Samuel 30:1-31).

(13) Battle between the Philistines and Israel in Mt. Gilboa and death of Saul (1 Samuel 31:1-13).

(14) News of Saul's death brought to David at Ziklag (2 Samuel 1:1-16); David's lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:17-27).

3. Reign of David (2 Samuel 2 through 20): (1) David's Seven and a Half Years' Reign over Judah in Hebron (2 Samuel 2:1 through 2 Samuel 5:3).

(a) Consecration of David as king in Hebron (2 Samuel 2:11-2 Samuel 4:11-12a); message to the men of Jabesh-gilead (2 Samuel 2:1-322:2 Samuel 4:11-12b-2 Samuel 7:1-29); Ish-bosheth made king over Northern Israel (2 Samuel 2:8-11); defeat of Abner and death of Asahel (2 Samuel 2:12-32).

(b) Increase of the fame and prosperity of David, and the names of his sons (2 Samuel 3:1-5); Abner's submission to David, and treacherous murder of the former by Joab (2 Samuel 3:6-39).

(c) Murder of Ish-bosheth and David's vengeance upon his murderers (2 Samuel 4:1-3, 5-12); notice of the escape of Mephibosheth, when Saul and Jonathan were slain at Jezreel (2 Samuel 4:4).

(d) David accepted as king over all Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-3).

(2) Reign of David in Jerusalem over United Israel (2 Samuel 5:4 through 2 Samuel 20:26).

(a) Taking of Jerusalem and victories over the Philistines (2 Samuel 5:4-25).

(b) Return of the ark to the city of David (2 Samuel 6:1-23).

(c) David's purpose to build a temple for the Lord (2 Samuel 7:1-3); the divine answer by the prophet Nathan, and the king's prayer (2 Samuel 7:4-29).

(d) Victories over the Philistines, Syrians, and other peoples (2 Samuel 8:1-18).

(e) David's reception of Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9). (f) Defeat of the Ammonites and Syrians by the men of Israel under the command of Joab (2 Samuel 10:1 through 2 Samuel 11:1).

(g) David and Uriah, the latter's death in battle, and David's marriage with Bath-sheba (2 Samuel 11:2-27).

(h) Nathan's parable and David's conviction of sin (2 Samuel 122:12Sa 5:1-25a); the king's grief and intercession for his sick son (2 Samuel 122:12Sa 5:1-25b-25); siege and capture of Rabbah, the Ammonite capital (2 Samuel 12:26-31).

(i) Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1-22); Absalom's revenge and murder of Amnon (2 Samuel 13:23-36); flight of Absalom (2 Samuel 13:37-39).

(j) Return of Absalom to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 14:1-24); his beauty, and reconciliation with the king (2 Samuel 14:25-33).

(k) Absalom's method of ingratiating himself with the people (2 Samuel 15:1-6); his revolt and the flight of the king from Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:7-31); meeting with Hushai (2 Samuel 15:33-322Sa 7:1-29a); Absalom in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 155:32Sa 7:1-29b).

(l) David's' meeting with Ziba (2 Samuel 16:1-4), and Shimei (2 Samuel 16:5-14); counsel of Ahitophel and Hushai (2 Samuel 16:15 through 2 Samuel 17:14); the news carried to David (2 Samuel 17:15-22); death of Ahitophel (2 Samuel 17:23).

(m) David at Mahanaim (2 Samuel 17:24-29). (n) The revolt subdued, death of Absalom, and reception by David of the tidings (2 Samuel 18:1 through 2 Samuel 199:8a).

(o) Return of the king to Jerusalem, and meetings with Shimei, Mephibosheth, and Barzillai the Gileadite (2 Samuel 19:1-433:2 Samuel 8:11-18b-43).

(p) Revolt of Sheba the Benjamite, and its suppression by Joab with the death of Amasa (2 Samuel 20:1-2, 4-22); the king's treatment of the concubines left at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 20:3); the names of his officers (2 Samuel 20:23-26).

4. Appendix (2 Samuel 21 through 24): (1) Seven male descendants of Saul put to death at the instance of the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:1-14); incidents of wars with the Philistines (2 Samuel 21:15-22).

(2) David's song of thanksgiving and praise (2 Samuel 22:1-51).

(3) The "last words" of David (2 Samuel 23:1-7); names and exploits of David's "mighty men" (2 Samuel 23:8-39).

(4) The king's numbering of the people, the resulting plague, and the dedication of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:1-25).

IV. Sources of the History. The natural inference from the character and contents of the Books of Samuel, as thus reviewed, is that the writer has made use of authorities, "sources" or "documents," from which he has compiled a narrative of the events which it was his desire to place on record. The same characteristics are noticeable here which are found in parts of the Pentateuch and of the Books of Joshua and Judges, that in some instances duplicate or parallel accounts are given of one and the same event, which seems to be regarded from different points of view and is narrated in a style which is more or less divergent from that of the companion record. Examples of this so-called duplication are more frequent in the earlier parts of the books than in the later. There are presented, for instance, two accounts of Saul's election as king, and an act of disobedience is twice followed, apparently quite independently, by the sentence of rejection. Independent also and hardly consistent narratives are given of David's introduction to Saul (1 Samuel 16:14-23; 17:31 ff,55 ff); and the two accounts of the manner of the king's death can be imperfectly reconciled only on the hypothesis that the young Amalekite told a false tale to David in order to magnify his own part in the matter. In these and other instances little or no attempt seems to be made to harmonize conflicting accounts, or to reconcile apparent discrepancies. In good faith the writer set down the records as he found them, making extracts or quotations from his authorities on the several events as they occurred, and thus building up his own history on the basis of the freest possible use of the materials and language of those who had preceded him.

However alien such a method of composition may appear to modern thought and usage in the West, it is characteristic of all early oriental writing. It would be almost impossible to find in any eastern literature a work of any length or importance which was not thus silently indebted to its predecessors, had incorporated their utterances, and had itself in turn suffered interpolation at the hands of later editors and transcribers. Accordingly, early Hebrew historical literature also, while unique in its spirit, conformed in its methods to the practice of the age and country in which it was composed. It would have been strange if it had been otherwise.

Two Main and Independent Sources:

Apart from the appendix and minor additions, of which Hannah's song or psalm in 1 Samuel 2:1-36 is one, the main portion of the book is derived from two independent sources, which themselves in all probability formed part of a larger whole, a more or less consecutive history or histories of Israel. These sources may, however, have been, as others think, rather of a biographical nature, presenting and enforcing the teaching of the acts and experience of the great leaders and rulers of the nation. The parallelism and duplication of the narrative is perhaps most evident in the history of Saul. The broad lines of distinction between the two may be defined without much difficulty or uncertainty. The greater part of the first eight chapters of 1 Samuel is in all probability derived from the later of these two sources, to which is to be assigned more or less completely 1 Samuel 10:1-27 through 1 Samuel 12:15; 1 Samuel 17:1-58 through 1 Samuel 19:1-24; 1 Samuel 21:1-15 through 1 Samuel 25:1-44; 1 Samuel 28:1-25 and 2 Samuel 1:1-27 through 2 Samuel 7:1-29. The earlier source has contributed 1 Samuel 9:1-27 with parts of 1 Samuel 10:1-27; 1 Samuel 11:1-15; 1 Samuel 13:1-23; 1 Samuel 14:1-52; 1 Samuel 16:1-23; 1 Samuel 20:1-42 and considerable portions of 1 Samuel 22:1-23; 1 Samuel 23:1-29; 1 Samuel 26:1-25 through 1 Samuel 27:1-12; 1 Samuel 29:1-11 through 1 Samuel 31:1-13; 2 Samuel 1:1-27 (in part); 2 through 6; 9 through 20. Some details have probably been derived from other sources, and additions made by the editor or editors. This general determination of sources rests upon a difference of standpoint and religious conception, and upon slighter varieties of style which are neither so pronounced nor so readily distinguished as in the books of the Pentateuch. It is reasonable also to bear in mind that a close and exact division or line of demarcation in every detail is not to be expected.

V. Character and Date of the Sources. Attempts which have been made to determine the date of these two sources, or to identify them with one or other of the principal authorities from which the historical narratives of the Pentateuch are derived, have not been convincing. In the judgment of some, however, the later of the two sources should be regarded as a continuation of the narrative or document known as E, and the earlier be assigned to J. The style of the latter has much in common with the style of J, and is clear, vigorous and poetical; the religious conceptions also that are embodied and taught are of a simple and early type. The later writing has been supposed to give indications of the influence of the prophetic teaching of the 8th century. The indications, however, are not sufficiently decisive to enable a final judgment to be formed. If it is borne in mind that J and E represent rather schools of teaching and thought than individual writers, the characteristics of the two sources of the Books of Sam would not be out of harmony with the view that from these two schools respectively were derived the materials out of which the history was compiled. The "sources" would then, according to the usual view, belong to the 9th and 8th centuries before the Christian era; and to a period not more than a century or a century and a half later should be assigned the final compilation and completion of the book as it is contained in the Hebrew Canon of Scripture.

VI. Greek Versions of the Books of Samuel. For an exact estimate and understanding of the history and text of the Books of Samuel count must further be taken of the Greek version or versions. In the Septuagint there is great divergence from the Hebrew Massoretic text, and it is probable that in the course of transmission the Greek has been exposed to corruption to a very considerable extent. At least two recensions of the Greek text are in existence, represented by the Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts respectively, of which the latter is nearer to the Hebrew original, and has apparently been conformed to it at a later period with a view to removing discrepancies; and this process has naturally impaired its value as a witness to the primary shape of the Greek text itself. There are therefore three existing types of the text of Samuel; the Massoretic Hebrew and Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus in the Greek. The original form of the Septuagint, if it could be recovered, would represent a text anterior to the Massoretic recension, differing from, but not necessarily superior to, the latter. For the restoration of the Greek text, the Old Latin, where it is available, affords valuable help. It is evident then that in any given instance the agreement of these three types or recensions of the text is the strongest possible witness to the originality and authenticity of a reading; but that the weight attaching to the testimony of A will not in general, on account of the history of its text, be equivalent to that of either of the other two.

VII. Ethical and Religious Teaching. The religious teaching and thought of the two Books of Samuel it is not difficult to summarize. The books are in form a historical record of events; but they are at the same time and more particularly a history conceived with a definite purpose, and made to subserve a definite moral and religious aim. It is not a narrative of events solely, or the preservation of historical detail, that the writer has in view, but rather to elucidate and enforce from Israel's experience the significance of the divine and moral government of the nation. The duty of king and people alike is to obey Yahweh, to render strict and willing deference to His commands, and on this path of obedience alone will national independence and prosperity be secured. With the strongest emphasis, and with uncompromising severity, sin even in the highest places is condemned; and an ideal of righteousness is set forth in language and with an earnestness which recalls the exhortations of Deuteronomy. Thus the same is true of the Books of Samuel as is manifest in the preceding books of the canonical Old Testament: they are composed with a didactic aim. The experience of the past is made to afford lessons of warning and encouragement for the present. To the writer or writers--the history of the development and upbuilding of the Israelite kingdom is pregnant with a deeper meaning than lies on the surface, and this meaning he endeavors to make plain to his readers through the record. The issues of the events and the events themselves are under the guidance and control of Yahweh, who always condemns and punishes wrong, but approves and rewards righteousness. Thus the narrative is history utilized to convey moral truth. And its value is to be estimated, not primarily as recording the great deeds of the past, but as conveying ethical teaching; that by means of the history with all its glamor and interest the people may be recalled to a sense of their high duty toward God, and be warned of the inevitable consequences of disobedience to Him.

LITERATURE.

Upon all points of introduction, criticism and interpretation, the commentaries afford abundant and satisfactory guidance. The principal English commentaries. are by H. P. Smith in ICC, Edinburgh, 1899, and S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd edition, Oxford, 1913; A. R. S. Kennedy, "Samuel," New Century Bible, New York, Frowde, 1905; in German by R. Budde, 1902, W. Nowack, 1902, A. Klostermann, 1887. See also the articles "Samuel" inHDB , Encyclopedia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia.

A. S. Geden

Sanaas

Sanaas - san'-a-as (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Sanaas; Codex Vaticanus Sama; the King James Version, Annaas): The sons of Sanaas returned in large numbers with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:23) = "Senaah" in Ezra 2:35; Nehemiah 7:38. The numbers vary in each case (Esdras, 3,330 or 3,301; Ezra, 3,630; Nehemiah, 3,930).

Sanabassar; Sanabassarus

Sanabassar; Sanabassarus - san-a-bas'-ar, san-a-bas'-a-rus (in 1 Esdras 2:12, 15), (in 1 Esdras 6:18, 10; a name appearing in many variations, Codex Alexandrinus always reading Sanabassaros; Codex Vaticanus Sanamassaro, in 1 Esdras 2:12(11) (the Revised Version margin, Samanassar), Samanassarou, in 1 Esdras 2:15(14), but Sabanassaro, in 1 Esdras 6:18 (17) (Revised Version margin) and Sanabassaros, in 1 Esdras 6:20 (19)): He was "governor of Judea" under Cyrus, conveyed the holy vessels of the temple from Babylon to Jerusalem and "laid the foundations of the house of the Lord" for the first time since its destruction (1 Esdras 2:12, 15; 1 Esdras 6:18-20) = "SHESHBAZZAR (which see) the prince of Judah" (Ezra 1:8).

Some identify him with Zerubbabel as the King James Version margin in 1 Esdras 6:18: "Z., which is also Sanabassar the ruler." This view appears to be favored by the order of the words here, where, in case of two persons, one might expect "Sanabassar the ruler" to come first. Zerubbabel appears as "governor of Judea" also in 1 Esdras 6:27-29. Ezra 3:10 speaks of the foundation of the temple under Zerubbabel and 5:16 as under Sheshbazzar. There is further the analogy of 1 Esdras 5:40, where Nehemias and Attharias refer to the same person. Against this identification: Zerubbabel is not styled ruler or governor either in Nehemiah or Ezra, but in Haggai 1:14; 2, 21 he is pechah or governor of Judah; no explanation is given of the double name, as in the case of e.g. Daniel, Belteshazzar; the language of Ezra 5:14 f seems to refer to work commenced under a different person than Zerubbabel. Nor is there any reason against supposing a first return under Sheshbazzar (Sanabassar) and a foundation of the temple previous to the time of Zerubbabel--an undertaking into which the Jews did not enter heartily, perhaps because Sanabassar may have been a foreigner (though it is uncertain whether he was a Babylonian, a Persian, or a Jew). A later proposal is to identify Sanabassar with Shenazzar, the uncle of Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3:18. But either of these identifications must remain doubtful.

See SHENAZZAR; ZERUBBABEL.

S. Angus

Sanasib

Sanasib - san'-a-sib (Fritzsche, Sanasib, but Codex Vaticanus and Swete, Sanabeis; Codex Alexandrinus Anaseib): Found only in 1 Esdras 5:24, where the sons of Jeddu, the son of Jesus, are a priestly family returning "among the sons of Sanasib." The name is not found in the parallel Ezra 2:36; Nehemiah 7:39, and is perhaps preserved in the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) "Eliasib."

Sanballat

Sanballat - san-bal'-at (canebhallaT; Greek and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Sanaballat; Peshitta, Samballat): Sanballat the Horonite was, if the appellation which follows his name indicates his origin, a Moabite of Horonaim, a city of Moab mentioned in Isaiah 15:5; Jeremiah 48:2, 5, 34; Josephus, Ant, XIII, xxiii; XIV, ii. He is named along with Tobiah, the Ammonite slave (Nehemiah 4:1), and Geshem the Arabian (Nehemiah 6:1) as the leading opponent of the Jews at the time when Nehemiah undertook to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:10; 4:1; 6:1). He was related by marriage to the son of Eliashib, the high priest at the time of the annulment of the mixed marriages forbidden by the Law (Nehemiah 13:28).

Renewed interest has been awakened in Sanballat from the fact that he is mentioned in the papyri I and II of Sachau (Die aramaischen Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, Berlin, 1908, and in his later work, Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka, Leipzig, 1911; compare Staerk's convenient edition in Lietzmanns Kleine Texte, Numbers 32:1-42, 1908) as having been the governor (pachath) of Samaria some time before the 17th year of Darius (Nothus), i.e. 408-407 BC, when Bagohi was governor of Judah. His two sons, Delaiah and Shelemiah, received a letter from Jedoniah and his companions the priests who were in Yeb (Elephantine) in Upper Egypt. This letter contained information concerning the state of affairs in the Jewish colony of Yeb, especially concerning the destruction of the temple or synagogue (agora) which had been erected at that place.

The address of this letter reads as follows: "To our lord Bagohi, the governor of Judea, his servants Jedoniah and his companions, the priests in the fortress of Yeb (Elephantine). May the God of Heaven inquire much at every time after the peace of our lord and put thee in favor before Darius the king," etc. The conclusion of the letter reads thus: "Now, thy servants, Jedoniah and his companions and the Jews, all citizens of Yeb, say thus: If it seems good to our lord, mayest thou think on the rebuilding of that temple (the agora which had been destroyed by the Egyptians). Since it has not been permitted us to rebuild it, do thou look on the receivers of thy benefactions and favors here in Egypt. Let a letter with regard to the rebuilding of the temple of the God Jaho in the fortress of Yeb, as it was formerly built, be sent from thee. In thy name will they offer the meal offerings, the incense, and the burnt offerings upon the altar of the God Jaho; and we shall always pray for thee, we and our wives and our children and all the Jews found here, until the temple has been rebuilt. And it will be to thee a meritorious work (tsedhaqah) in the sight of Jaho, the God of Heaven, greater than the meritorious work of a man who offers to him a burnt offering and a sacrifice of a value equal to the value of 1,000 talents of silver. And as to the gold (probably that which was sent by the Jews to Bagohi as a baksheesh) we have sent word and given knowledge. Also, we have in our name communicated in a letter all (these) matters unto Delaiah and Shelemiah, the sons of Sanballat, governor of Samaria. Also, from all that has been done to us, Arsham (the satrap of Egypt) has learned nothing.

The 20th of Marcheshvan in the 17th year of Darius the king."

Sanballat is the Babylonian Sin-uballit, "may Sin give him life," a name occurring a number of times in the contract tablets from the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, and Darius Hystaspis. (See Tallquist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, 183.)

R. Dick Wilson

Sanctification

Sanctification - sank-ti-fi-ka'-shun:

Etymology

I. THE FORMAL SENSE

1. In the Old Testament

2. In the New Testament

II. THE ETHICAL SENSE

1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea

2. Our Relation to God as Personal: New Testament Idea

3. Sanctification as God's Gift

4. Questions of Time and Method

5. An Element in All Christian Life

6. Follows from Fellowship with God

7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire?

8. Sanctification as Man's Task

LITERATURE

Etymology:

The root is found in the Old Testament in the Hebrew verb qadhash, in the New Testament in the Greek verb hagoazo. The noun "sanctification" (hagiasmos) does not occur in the Old Testament and is found but 10 times in the New Testament, but the roots noted above appear in a group of important words which are of very frequent occurrence. These words are "holy," "hallow," "hallowed," "holiness," "consecrate," "saint," "sanctify," "sanctification." It must be borne in mind that these words are all translations of the same root, and that therefore no one of them can be treated adequately without reference to the others. All have undergone a certain development. Broadly stated, this has been from the formal, or ritual, to the ethical, and these different meanings must be carefully distinguished.

I. The Formal Sense. By sanctification is ordinarily meant that hallowing of the Christian believer by which he is freed from sin and enabled to realize the will of God in his life. This is not, however, the first or common meaning in the Scriptures. To sanctify means commonly to make holy, that is, to separate from the world and consecrate to God.

1. In the Old Testament: To understand this primary meaning we must go back to the word "holy" in the Old Testament. That is holy which belongs to Yahweh. There is nothing implied here as to moral character. It may refer to days and seasons, to places, to objects used for worship, or to persons. Exactly the same usage is shown with the word "sanctify." To sanctify anything is to declare it as belonging to God. "Sanctify unto me all the first-born .... it is mine" (Exodus 13:2; compare Numbers 3:13; 8:17). It applies thus to all that is connected with worship, to the Levites (Numbers 3:12), the priests and the tent of meeting (Exodus 29:44), the altar and all that touches it (Exodus 29:36 f), and the offering (Exodus 29:27; compare 2 Maccabees 2:18; Ecclesiastes 7:29). The feast and holy days are to be sanctified, that is, set apart from ordinary business as belonging to Yahweh (the Sabbath, Nehemiah 13:19-22; a fast, Joel 1:14). So the nation as a whole is sanctified when Yahweh acknowledges it and receives it as His own, "a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:5-6). A man may thus sanctify his house or his field (Leviticus 27:14, 16), but not the firstling of the flock, for this is already Yahweh's (Leviticus 27:26).

It is this formal usage without moral implication that explains such a passage as Genesis 38:21. The word translated "prostitute" here is from the same root qadhash, meaning literally,, as elsewhere, the sanctified or consecrated one (qedheshah; see margin and compare Deuteronomy 23:18; 1 Kings 14:24; Hosea 4:14). It is the hierodule, the familiar figure of the old pagan temple, the sacred slave consecrated to the temple and the deity for immoral purposes. The practice is protested against in Israel (Deuteronomy 23:17 f), but the use of the term illustrates clearly the absence of anything essentially ethical in its primary meaning (compare also 2 Kings 10:20, "And Jehu said, Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal. And they proclaimed it"; compare Joel 1:14).

Very suggestive is the transitive use of the word in the phrase, "to sanctify Yahweh." To understand this we must note the use of the word "holy" as applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament. Its meaning is not primarily ethical. Yahweh's holiness is His supremacy, His sovereignty, His glory, His essential being as God. To say the Holy One is simply to say God. Yahweh's holiness is seen in His might, His manifested glory; it is that before which peoples tremble, which makes the nations dread (Exodus 15:11-18; compare 1 Samuel 6:20; Psalms 68:35; 89:7; Psalms 99:2-3). Significant is the way in which "jealous" and "holy" are almost identified (Joshua 24:19; Ezekiel 38:23). It is God asserting His supremacy, His unique claim. To sanctify Yahweh, therefore, to make Him holy, is to assert or acknowledge or bring forth His being as God, His supreme power and glory, His sovereign claim. Ezekiel brings this out most clearly. Yahweh has been profaned in the eyes of the nations through Israel's defeat and captivity. True, it was because of Israel's sins, but the nations thought it was because of Yahweh's weakness. The ethical is not wanting in these passages. The people are to be separated from their sins and given a new heart (Ezekiel 36:25-26, 33). But the word "sanctify" is not used for this. It is applied to Yahweh, and it means the assertion of Yahweh's power in Israel's triumph and the conquest of her foes (Ezekiel 20:41; 28:25; 36:23; 38:16; 39:27). The sanctification of Yahweh is thus the assertion of His being and power as God, just as the sanctification of a person or object is the assertion of Yahweh's right and claim in the same.

The story of the waters of Meribah illustrates the same meaning. Moses' failure to sanctify Yahweh is his failure to declare Yahweh's glory and power in the miracle of the waters (Numbers 20:12-13; 27:14; Deuteronomy 32:51). The story of Nadab and Abihu points the same way. Here "I will be sanctified" is the same as "I will be glorified" (Leviticus 10:1-3). Not essentially different is the usage in Isaiah 5:16: "Yahweh of hosts is exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness." Holiness again is the exaltedhess of God, His supremacy, which is seen here in the judgment (justice, righteousness) meted out to the disobedient people (compare the recurrent refrain of Isaiah 5:25; 12, 17, 21; 10:4; see JUSTICE). Isaiah 8:13; 29:23 suggest the same idea by the way in which they relate "sanctify" to fear and awe. One New Testament passage brings us the same meaning (1 Peter 3:15): "Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," that is, exalt Him as supreme.

2. In the New Testament: In a few New Testament passages the Old Testament ritual sense reappears, as when Jesus speaks of the temple sanctifying the gold, and the altar the gift (Matthew 23:17, 19; compare also Hebrews 9:13; 1 Timothy 4:5). The prevailing meaning is that which we found in the Old Testament. To sanctify is to consecrate or set apart. We may first take the few passages in the Fourth Gospel. As applied to Jesus in John 10:36; 17:19, sanctify cannot mean to make holy in the ethical sense. As the whole context shows, it means to consecrate for His mission in the world. The reference to the disciples, "that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth," has both meanings: that they may be set apart, (for Jesus sends them, as the Father sends Him), and that they may be made holy in truth.

This same meaning of consecration, or separation, appears when we study the word saint, which is the same as "sanctified one." Aside from its use in the Psalms, the word is found mainly in the New Testament. Outside the Gospels, where the term "disciples" is used, it is the common word to designate the followers of Jesus, occurring some 56 times. By "saint" is not meant the morally perfect, but the one who belongs to Christ, just as the sanctified priest or offering belonged to Yahweh. Thus Paul can salute the disciples at Corinth as saints and a little later rebuke them as carnal and babes, as those among whom are jealousy and strife, who walk after the manner of men (1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 3:1-3). In the same way the phrase "the sanctified" or "those that are sanctified" is used to designate the believers. By "the inheritance among all them that are sanctified" is meant the heritage of the Christian believer (Acts 20:32; 26:18; compare 1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11; Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 1:12). This is the meaning in Hebrews, which speaks of the believer as being sanctified by the blood of Christ. In 10:29 the writer speaks of one who has fallen away, who "hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing." Evidently it is not the inner and personal holiness of this apostate that is referred to, especially in view of the tense, but that he had been separated unto God by this sacrificial blood and had then counted the holy offering a common thing. The contrast is between sacred and common, not between moral perfection and sin (compare 10:10; 13:12). The formal meaning appears again in 1 Corinthians 7:12-14, where the unbelieving husband is said to be sanctified by the wife, and vice versa. It is not moral character that is meant here, but a certain separation from the profane and unclean and a certain relation to God. This is made plain by the reference to the children: "Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." The formal sense is less certain in other instances where we have the thought of sanctification in or by the Holy Spirit or in Christ; as in Romans 15:16, "being sanctified by the Holy Spirit"; 1 Corinthians 1:2, to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus"; 1 Peter 1:2, "in sanctification of the Spirit." Paul's doctrine of the Spirit as the new life in us seems to enter in here, and yet the reference to 1 Corinthians suggests that the primary meaning is still that of setting apart, the relating to God.

II. The Ethical Sense. We have been considering so far what has been called the formal meaning of the word; but the chief interest of Christian thought lies in the ethical idea, sanctification considered as the active deed or process by which the life is made holy.

1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea: Our first question is, How does the idea of belonging to God become the idea of transformation of life and character? The change is, indeed, nothing less than a part of the whole movement for which the entire Scriptures stand as a monument. The ethical is not wanting at the beginning, but the supremacy of the moral and spiritual over against the formal, the ritual, the ceremonial, the national, is the clear direction in which the movement as a whole tends. Now the pivot of this movement is the conception of God. As the thought of God grows more ethical, more spiritual, it molds and changes all other conceptions. Thus what it means to belong to God (holiness, sanctification) depends upon the nature of the God to whom man belongs. The hierodules of Corinth are women of shame because of the nature of the goddess to whose temple they belong. The prophets caught a vision of Yahweh, not jealous for His prerogative, not craving the honor of punctilious and proper ceremonial, but with a gracious love for His people and a passion for righteousness. Their great message is: This now is Yahweh; hear what it means to belong to such a God and to serve Him. "What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? .... Wash you, make you clean; .... seek justice, relieve the oppressed" (Isaiah 1:11, 16-17). "When Israel was a child, then I loved him. .... I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than bunt-offerings" (Hosea 11:1; 6:6).

In this way the formal idea that we have been considering becomes charged with moral meaning. To belong to God, to be His servant, His son, is no mere external matter. Jesus' teaching as to sonship is in point here. The word "sanctification" does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels at all, but "sonship" with the Jews expressed this same relation of belonging. For them it meant a certain obedience on the one hand, a privilege on the other. Jesus declares that belonging to God means likeness to Him, sonship is sharing His spirit of loving good will (Matthew 5:43-48). Brother and sister for Jesus are those who do God's will (Mark 3:35). Paul takes up the same thought, but joins it definitely to the words "saint" and "sanctify." The religious means the ethical, those "that are sanctified" are "called to be saints" (1 Corinthians 1:2). The significant latter phrase is the same as in Romans 1:1, "Paul .... called to be an apostle." In this light we read Ephesians 4:1, "Walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called." Compare 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Philippians 1:27. And the end of this calling is that we are "foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29). We must not limit ourselves to the words "saint" or "sanctify" to get this teaching with Paul. It is his constant and compelling moral appeal: You belong to Christ; live with Him, live unto Him (Colossians 3:1-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:10). It is no formal belonging, no external surrender. It is the yielding of the life in its passions and purposes, in its deepest affections and highest powers, to be ruled by a new spirit (Ephesians 4:13, 10, 23-24, 32; compare Romans 12:1).

2. Our Relation to God as Personal: New Testament Idea:

But we do not get the full meaning of this thought of sanctification as consecration, or belonging, until we grasp the New Testament thought of our relation to God as personal. The danger has always been that this consecration should be thought of in a negative or passive way. Now the Christian's surrender is not to an outer authority but to an inner, living fellowship. The sanctified life is thus a life of personal fellowship lived out with the Father in the spirit of Christ in loving trust and obedient service. This positive and vital meaning of sanctification dominates Paul's thought. He speaks of living unto God, of living to the Lord, and most expressively of all, of being alive unto Golf (Romans 14:8; compare Romans 6:13; Galatians 2:19). So completely is his life filled by this fellowship that he can say, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20). But there is no quietism here. It is a very rich and active life, this life of fellowship to which we are surrendered. It is a life of sonship in trust and love, with the spirit that enables us to say "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6). It is a life of unconquerable kindness and good will (Matthew 5:43-48). It is a life of "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6), it is having the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5). The sanctified life, then, is the life so fully surrendered to fellowship with Christ day by day that inner spirit and outward expression are ruled by His spirit.

3. Sanctification as God's Gift: We come now to that aspect which is central for Christian interest, sanctification as the making holy of life, not by our act, but by God's deed and by God's gift. If holiness represents the state of heart and life in conformity with God's will, then sanctification is the deed or process by which that state is wrought. And this deed we are to consider now as the work of God. Jesus prays that the Father may sanctify His disciples in truth (John 17:17). So Paul prays for the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 5:23), and declares that Christ is to sanctify His church (compare Romans 6:22; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:21; 1 Peter 1:2). Here sanctification means to make clean or holy in the ethical sense, though the idea of consecration is not necessarily lacking. But aside from special passages, we must take into account the whole New Testament teaching, according to which every part of the Christian life is the gift of God and wrought by His Spirit. "It is God that worketh in you both to will and to work" (Philippians 2:13; compare Romans 8:2-4, 9, 14, 16-26; Galatians 5:22 f). Significant is the use of the words "creature" ("creation," see margin) and "workmanship" with Paul (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15; Ephesians 2:10; 4:24). The new life is God's second work of creation.

4. Questions of Time and Method: When we ask, however, when and how this work is wrought, there is no such clear answer. What we have is on the one hand uncompromising ideal and demand, and on the other absolute confidence in God. By adding to these two the evident fact that the Christian believers seen in the New Testament are far from the attainment of such Christian perfection, some writers have assumed to have the foundation here for the doctrine that the state of complete holiness of life is a special experience in the Christian life wrought in a definite moment of time. It is well to realize that no New Testament passages give a specific answer to these questions of time and method, and that our conclusions must be drawn from the general teaching of the New Testament as to the Christian life.

5. An Element in All Christian Life: First, it must be noted that in the New Testament view sanctification in the ethical sense is an essential element and inevitable result of all Christian life and experience. Looked at from the religious point of view, it follows from the doctrine of regeneration. Regeneration is the implanting of a new life in man. So far as that is a new life from God it is ipso facto holy. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit teaches the same (see HOLY SPIRIT). There is no Christian life from the very beginning that is not the work of the Spirit. "No man can (even) say, Jesus is Lord, but in the .... Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3). But this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether with Paul we say Spirit of Christ or Spirit of God (Romans 8:9). His presence, therefore, in so far forth means holiness of life. From the ethical standpoint the same thing is constantly declared. Jesus builds here upon the prophets: no religion without righteousness; clean hands, pure hearts, deeds of mercy are not mere conditions of worship, but joined to humble hearts are themselves the worship that God desires (Amos 5:21-25; Micah 6:6-8). Jesus deepened the conception, but did not, change it, and Paul was true to this succession. "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, .... the spirit is life because of righteousness" (Romans 8:9-10). There is nothing in Paul's teaching to suggest that sanctification is the special event of a unique experience, or that there are two kinds or qualities of sanctification. All Christian living meant for him clean, pure, right living, and that was sanctification. The simple, practical way in which he attacks the bane of sexual impurity in his pagan congregations shows this. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor. For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification" (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, 7). The strength of Paul's teaching, indeed, lies here in this combination of moral earnestness with absolute dependence upon God.

6. Follows from Fellowship with God: The second general conclusion that we draw from the New Testament teaching as to the Christian life is this: the sanctification which is a part of all Christian living follows from the very nature of that life as fellowship with God. Fundamental here is the fact that the Christian life is personal, that nothing belongs in it which cannot be stated in personal terms. It is a life with God in which He graciously gives Himself to us, and which we live out with Him and with our brothers in the spirit of Christ, which is His Spirit. The two great facts as to this fellowship are, that it is God's gift, and that its fruit is holiness. First, it is God's gift. What God gives us is nothing less than Himself. The gift is not primarily forgiveness, nor victory over sin, nor peace of soul, nor hope of heaven. It is fellowship with Him, which includes all of these and without which none of these can be. Secondly, the fruit of this fellowship is holiness. The real hallowing of our life can come in no other way. For Christian holiness is personal, not something formal or ritual, and its source and power can be nothing lower than the personal. Such is the fellowship into which God graciously lifts the believer. Whatever its mystical aspects, that fellowship is not magical or sacramental. It is ethical through and through. Its condition on our side is ethical. For Christian faith is the moral surrender of our life to Him in whom truth and right come to us with authority to command. The meaning of that surrender is ethical; it is opening the life to definite moral realities and powers, to love, meekness, gentleness, humility, reverence, purity, the passion for righteousness, to that which words cannot analyze but which we know as the Spirit of Christ. Such a fellowship is the supreme moral force for the molding of life. An intimate human fellowship is an analogue of this, and we know with what power it works on life and character. It cannot, however, set forth either the intimacy or the power of this supreme and final relation where our Friend is not another but is our real self. So much we know: this fellowship means a new spirit in us, a renewed and daily renewing life.

It is noteworthy that Paul has no hard-and-fast forms for this life. The reality was too rich and great, and his example should teach us caution in the insistence upon theological forms which may serve to compress the truth instead of expressing it. Here are some of his expressions for this life in us: to "have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5), "the Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9), "Christ is in you" (Romans 8:10), "the spirit which is from God" (1 Corinthians 2:12), "the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 3:16), "the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:19), "the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 3:17), "the Lord the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:18). But in all this one fact stands out, this life is personal, a new spirit in us, and that spirit is one that we have in personal fellowship with God; it is His Spirit. Especially significant is the way in which Paul relates this new life to Christ. We have already noted that Paul uses indifferently "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ," and that in the same passage (Romans 8:9). Paul's great contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit lies here. As he states it in 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Now the Lord is the Spirit." With that the whole conception of the Spirit gains moral content and personal character. The Spirit is personal, not some thing, nor some strange and magical power. The Spirit is ethical; there is a definite moral quality which is expressed when we say Christ. He has the Spirit who has the qualities of Christ. Thus the presence of the Spirit is not evidenced in the unusual, the miraculous, the ecstatic utterance of the enthusiast, or some strange deed of power, but in the workaday qualities of kindness, goodness, love, loyalty, patience, self-restraint (Galatians 5:22 f). With this identification of the Spirit and the Christ in mind, we can better understand the passages in which Paul brings out the relation of Christ to the sanctification of the believer. He is the goal (Romans 8:29). We are to grow up in Him (Ephesians 4:15). He is to be formed in us (Galatians 4:19). We are to behold Him and be changed into His image (2 Corinthians 3:17 f). This deepens into Paul's thought of the mystical relation with Christ. The Christian dies to sin with Him that he may live with Him a new life. Christ is now his real life. He dwells in Christ, Christ dwells in him. He has Christ's thoughts, His mind. See Romans 6:3-11; Romans 8:9-10; 1 Corinthians 2:16; 15:22; Galatians 2:20.

This vital and positive conception of the sanctification of the believer must be asserted against some popular interpretations. The symbols of fire and water, as suggesting cleansing, have sometimes been made the basis for a whole superstructure of doctrine. (For the former, note Isaiah 6:6 f; Luke 3:16; Acts 2:3; for the latter, Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22; Revelation 1:5; 7:14.) There is a two-fold danger here, from which these writers have not escaped. The symbols suggest cleansing, and their over-emphasis has meant first a negative and narrow idea of sanctification as primarily separation from sin or defilement. This is a falling back to certain Old Testament levels. Secondly, these material symbols have been literalized, and the result has been a sort of mechanical or magical conception of the work of the Spirit. But the soul is not a substance for mechanical action, however sublimated. It is personal life that is to be hallowed, thought, affections, motives, desires, will, and only a personal agent through personal fellowship can work this end.

7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire?: The clear recognition of the personal and vital character of sanctification will help us with another problem. If the holy life be God's requirement and at the same time His deed, why should not this sanctification be instantaneous and entire? And does not Paul imply this, not merely in his demands but in his prayer for the Thessalonians, that God may establish their hearts in holiness, that He may sanctify them wholly and preserve spirit and soul and body entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 5:23)?

In answer to this we must first discriminate between the ideal and the empirical with Paul. Like John (1 John 1:6; 3:9), Paul insists that the life of Christ and the life of sin cannot go on together, and he knows no qualified obedience, no graduated standard. He brings the highest Christian demand to the poorest of his pagan converts. Nor have we any finer proof of his faith than this uncompromising idealism. On the other hand, how could he ask less than this? God cannot require less than the highest, but it is another question how the ideal is to be achieved. In the realm of the ideal it is always either .... or. In the realm of life there is another category. The question is not simply, Is this man sinner or saint? It is rather, What is he becoming? This matter of becoming is the really vital issue. Is this man turned the right way with all his power? Is his life wholly open to the divine fellowship? Not the degree of achievement, but the right attitude toward the ideal, is decisive. Paul does not stop to resolve paradoxes, but practically he reckons with this idea. Side by side with his prayer for the Thessalonians are his admonitions to growth and progress (1 Thessalonians 3:12; 5:14). Neither the absolute demand or the promise of grace gives us the right to conclude how the consummation shall take place.

8. Sanctification as Man's Task: That conclusion we can reach only as we go back again to the fundamental principle of the personal character of the Christian life and the relation thus given between the ethical and the religious. All Christian life is gift and task alike. "Work out your own salvation .... for it is God who worketh in you" (Philippians 2:12 f). All is from God; we can only live what God gives. But there is a converse to this: only as we live it out can God give to us the life. This appears in Paul's teaching as to sanctification. It is not only God's gift, but our task. "This is the will of God, even your sanctification" (1 Thessalonians 4:3). "Having therefore these promises .... let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness (hagiosune) in the fear of God" (2 Corinthians 7:1). Significant is Paul's use of the word "walk." We are to "walk in newness of life," "by (or in) the Spirit," "in love," and "in Christ Jesus the Lord" (Romans 6:4; Galatians 5:16; Ephesians 5:2; Colossians 2:6). The gift in each case becomes the task, and indeed becomes real and effective only in this activity. It is only as we walk by the Spirit that this becomes powerful in overcoming the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5:16; compare Galatians 5:25). But the ethical is the task that ends only with life. If God gives only as we live, then He cannot give all at once. Sanctification is then the matter of a life and not of a moment. The life may be consecrated in a moment, the right relation to God assumed and the man stand in saving fellowship with Him. The life is thus made holy in principle. But the real making holy is co-extensive with the whole life of man. It is nothing less than the constant in-forming of the life of the inner spirit and outer deed with the Spirit of Christ until we, "speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, who is the head" (Ephesians 4:15). (Read also Romans 6:1-23; that the Christian is dead to sin is not some fixed static fact, but is true only as he refuses the lower and yields his members to a higher obedience. Note that in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul in the same verse declares "ye are unleavened," and then exhorts "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump"; compare also 1 Thessalonians 5:5-10.)

We may sum up as follows: The word "sanctify" is used with two broad meanings: (1) The first is to devote, to consecrate to God, to recognize as holy, that is, as belonging to God. This is the regular Old Testament usage and is most common in the New Testament. The prophets showed that this belonging to Yahweh demanded righteousness. The New Testament deepens this into a whole-hearted surrender to the fellowship of God and to the rule of His Spirit. (2) Though the word itself appears in but few passages with this sense, the New Testament is full of the thought of the making holy of the Christian's life by the Spirit of God in that fellowship into which God lifts us by His grace and in which He gives Himself to us. This sanctifying, or hallowing, is not mechanical or magical. It is wrought out by God's Spirit in a daily fellowship to which man gives himself in aspiration and trust and obedience, receiving with open heart, living out in obedient life. It is not negative, the mere separation from sin, but the progressive hallowing of a life that grows constantly in capacity, as in character, into the stature of full manhood as it is in Christ. And from this its very nature it is not momentary, but the deed and the privilege of a whole life.

See also HOLY SPIRIT and the following article.

LITERATURE.

The popular and special works are usually too undiscriminating and unhistorical to be of value for the Biblical study. An exception is Beet, Holiness Symbolic and Real. Full Biblical material in Cremer, Biblical Theol. Lexicon, but treated from special points of view. See Systematic Theologies, Old Testament Theologies (compare especially Smend), and New Testament Theologies (compare especially Holtzmann).

Harris Franklin Rall

WESLEYAN DOCTRINE

1. Doctrine Stated

2. Objections Answered

3. Required for the Highest Success of the Preacher

4. Hymnology

5. Its Glorious Results

6. Wesley's Personal Testimony

1. Doctrine Stated: Christian perfection, through entire sanctification, by faith, here and now, was one of the doctrines by which John Wesley gave great offense to his clerical brethren in the Anglican church. From the beginning of his work in 1739, till 1760, he was formulating this doctrine. At the last date there suddenly arose a large number of witnesses among his followers. Many of these he questioned with Baconian skill, the result being a confirmation of his theories on various points.

In public address he used the terms "Christian Perfection," "Perfect Love," and "Holiness," as synonymous, though there are differences between them when examined critically. With Paul he taught that all regenerate persons are saints, i.e. holy ones, as the word "saint," from Latin sanctus, through the Norman-Fr, signifies (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1). His theory is that in the normal Christian the principle of holiness, beginning with the new birth, gradually expands and strengthens as the believer grows in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, till, by a final, all-surrendering act of faith in Christ, it reaches an instantaneous completion through the act of the Holy Spirit, the sanctifier: 2 Corinthians 7:1 "perfecting holiness," etc.; Ephesians 4:13, the King James Version "Till we all come .... unto a perfect man," etc. Thus sanctification is gradual, but entire sanctification is instantaneous (Romans 6:6, "our old man was crucified," etc., a sudden death; Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live"). In 1 Thessalonians 5:23, the word "sanctify" is a Greek aorist tense, signifying an act and not a process, as also in John 17:19, "that they .... may be sanctified in truth," or truly. (See Meyer's note.) Many Christians experience this change on their deathbeds. If death suddenly ends the life of a growing Christian before he is wholly sanctified, the Holy Spirit perfects the work. Wesley's advice to the preachers of this evangelical perfection was to draw and not to drive, and never to quote any threatenings of God's word against God's children. The declaration, "Without sanctification no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14), does not apply to the saints, "the holy ones."

Wesley's perfection of love is not perfection of degree, but of kind. Pure love is perfect love. The gradual growth toward perfect purity of love is beautifully expressed in Monod's hymn,

"O the bitter shame and sorrow!"

The first response to the Saviour's call is,

"All of self, and none of Thee."

But after a view of Christ on the cross. the answer is faintly,

"Some of self, and some of Thee."

Then, after a period of growing love, the cry is,

"Less of self, and more of Thee."

After another period, the final cry is,

"None of self, and all of Thee!"

an aspiration for pure love, without any selfishness.

The attainment of this grace is certified by the total cessation of all Servile fear (1 John 4:18). Wesley added to this the witness of the Spirit, for which his only proof-text is 1 Corinthians 2:12.

2. Objections Answered: (1) Paul, in Philippians 3:12, declares that he is not "made perfect": (a) in Philippians 3:15, he declares that he is perfect; (b) "made perfect" is a term, borrowed from the ancient games, signifying a finished course. This is one of the meanings of teleioo, as seen also in Luke 13:32 margin, "The third day I end my course." Paul no more disclaims spiritual perfection in these words than does Christ before "the third day." Paul claims in Philippians 3:15, by the use of an adjective, that he is perfect. In 3:12 Paul claims that he is not perfect as a victor, because the race is not ended. In 3:15 he claims that he is perfect as a racer.

(2) Paul says (1 Corinthians 15:31), "I die daily." This does not refer to death to sin, as some say that it does, but to his daily danger of being killed for preaching Christ, as in Romans 8:36, "we are killed all the day long."

(3) 1 John 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin," etc. (a) If this includes Christians, it contradicts John himself in the very next verse, and in 1 John 3:9, sin," "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no and John 8:36, "If .... the Son shall make you free," etc., and in all those texts in the New Testament declaring sins forgiven.

(b) Bishop Westcott says that the expression, "to have sin," is distinguished from "to sin," as the sinful principle is distinguished from the sinful act in itself. It includes the idea of personal guilt. Westcott asserts that John refers to the Gnostics, who taught that moral evil exists only in matter, and never touches spirit, which is always holy; and, therefore, though guilty of all manner of vice, their spirits had no need of atonement, because they were untouched by sin, which existed only in their bodies, as it does in all matter. When told that this made the body of Christ sinful, they denied the reality of His body, saying that it was only a phantom. Hence, in the very first verse of this Epistle, John writes evidently against the Gnostic error, quoting three of the five senses to prove the reality of Chrtst's humanity. (By all means, see "The Epistles of John," Cambridge Bible for Schools, etc., 17-21.)

3. Required for the Highest Success of the Preacher:

The relation of this doctrine to the Methodist Episcopal church in the United States is seen in the following questions, which have been affirmatively answered in public by all its preachers on their admission to the Conferences: "Are you going on to perfection?"; "Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?"; "Are you earnestly striving after it?" The hymns of the Wesleys, still universally sung, are filled with this doctrine, in which occur such expressions as:

4. Hymnology: "Take away our bent to sinning," ....

"Let us find that second rest," ....

"Make and keep me pure within," ....

"'Tis done! Thou dost this moment save,

With full salvation bless." ....

5. Its Glorious Results: To the preaching of Christian perfection Wesley ascribed the success of his work in the conversion, religious training and intellectual education of the masses of Great Britain. It furnished him a multitude of consecrated workers, many of them lay preachers, who labored in nearly every hamlet, and who carried the gospel into all the British colonies, including America. It is declared by secular historians that this great evangelical movement, in which the doctrine of entire sanctification was so prominent, saved England from a disastrous revolution, like that which drenched France with the blood of its royal family and its nobility, in the last decade of the 18th century. It is certain that the great Christian and humanitarian work of William Booth, originally a Methodist, was inspired by this doctrine which he constantly preached. This enabled his followers in the early years of the Salvation Army to endure the persecutions which befell them at that time.

6. Wesley's Personal Testimony: On March 6, 1760, Wesley enters in his Journal the following testimony of one Elizabeth Longmore: "`I felt my soul was all love. I was so stayed on God as I never felt before, and knew that I loved Him with all my heart. .... And the witness that God had saved me from all my sins grew clearer every hour. .... I have never since found my heart wander from God.' Now this is what I always did, and do now, mean by perfection. And this I believe many have attained, on the same evidence that I believe many are justified."

We have Wesley's only recorded testimony to his own justification in these words (May 24, 1738): "I felt my heart strangely warmed .... and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins," etc.

Daniel Steele

Sanctity, Legislation of

Sanctity, Legislation of - sank'-ti-ti, lej-is-la'-shun.

See ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 5, (6).

Sanctuary

Sanctuary - sank'-tu-a-ri, sank'-tu-a-ri (miqdash, miqqedhash, qodhesh, "holy place"; hagion):

1. Nature of Article

2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis

The Three Stages

3. Difficulties of the Theory

(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial

(2) Sacrifice and Theophany

(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries

(4) The Altar of God's House

(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy

4. The Alternative View

(1) Lay Sacrifice

(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals

5. The Elephantine Papyri

The Elephantine Temple

LITERATURE

1. Nature of Article: The present article is designed to supplement the articles on ALTAR; HIGH PLACE; PENTATEUCH; TABERNACLE; TEMPLE, by giving an outline of certain rival views of the course of law and history as regards the place of worship. The subject has a special importance because it was made the turning-point of Wellhausen's discussion of the development of Israel's literature, history and religion. He himself writes: "I differ from Graf chiefly in this, that I always go back to the centralization of the cult, and deduce from it the particular divergences. My whole position is contained in my first chapter" (Prolegomena, 368). For the purposes of this discussion it is necessary to use the symbols J, E, D, H, and the Priestly Code (P), which are explained in the article PENTATEUCH.

It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.

2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis: The Three Stages:

(1) In the first stage all slaughter of domestic animals for food purposes was sacrificial, and every layman could sacrifice locally at an altar of earth or unhewn stones. The law of JE is contained in Exodus 20:24-26, providing for the making of an altar of earth or stones, and emphasis is laid on the words "in every place ("in all the place" is grammatically an equally possible rendering) where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee." This, it is claimed, permits a plurality of sanctuaries. Illustrations are provided by the history. The patriarchs move about the country freely and build altars at various places. Later sacrifices or altars are mentioned in connection with Jethro (Exodus 18:12), Moses (Exodus 17:15, etc.), Joshua (Joshua 8:30), Gideon (Judges 6:26 etc.), Manoah (Judges 13:19), Samuel (1 Samuel 7:17, etc.), Elijah (1 Kings 18:32), to take but a few instances. Perhaps the most instructive case is that of Saul after the battle of Michmash. Observing that the people were eating meat with blood, he caused a large stone to be rolled to him, and we are expressly told that this was the first altar that he built to the Lord (1 Samuel 14:35). While some of these examples might be accounted for by theophanies or other special circumstances, they are too numerous when taken together for such an explanation to suffice. In many instances they represent the conduct of the most authoritative and religious leaders of the age, e.g. Samuel, and it must be presumed that such men knew and acted upon the Law of their own day. Hence, the history and the Law of Exodus 20:1-26 are in unison in permitting a multiplicity of sanctuaries. Wellhausen adds: "Altars as a rule are not built by the patriarchs according to their own private judgment wheresoever they please; on the contrary, a theophany calls attention to, or, at least afterward, confirms, the holiness of the place" (op. cit., 31).

(2) The second stage is presented by Deuteronomy in the Law and Josiah's reformation in the history. Undoubtedly, Deuteronomy 12:1-32 permits local non-sacrificial slaughter for the purposes of food, and enjoins the destruction of heathen places of worship, insisting with great vehemence on the central sanctuary. The narrative of Josiah's reformation in 2 Kings 23:1-37 tallies with these principles.

(3) The third great body of law (the Priestly Code, P) does not deal with the question (save in one passage, Leviticus 17:1-16). In Deuteronomy "the unity of the cult is commanded; in the Priestly Code it is presupposed. .... What follows from this forms the question before us. To my thinking, this: that the Priestly Code rests upon the result which is only the aim of Deuteronomy" (Prolegomena, 35). Accordingly, it is later than the latter book and dates from about the time of Ezra. As to Leviticus 17:1-9, this belongs to H (the Law of Holiness, Leviticus 17:1-16 through Leviticus 26:1-46), an older collection of laws than the Priestly Code (P), and is taken up in the latter. Its intention was "to secure the exclusive legitimation of the one lawful place of sacrifice. .... Plainly the common man did not quite understand the newly drawn and previously quite unknown distinction between the religious and the profane act" (Prolegomena, 50). Accordingly, this legislator strove to meet the difficulty by the new enactment.

See CRITICISM(The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis).

3. Difficulties of the Theory: (1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial

The general substratum afforded by the documentary theory falls within the scope of the article PENTATEUCH. The present discussion is limited to the legal and historical outline traced above. The view that all slaughter of domestic animals was sacrificial till the time of Josiah is rebutted by the evidence of the early books. The following examples should be noted: in Genesis 18:7 a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and in 27:9-14 (Jacob's substitute for venison) no altar or religious rite can fairly be postulated. In 1 Samuel 28:24 the slaughter is performed by a woman, so that here again sacrifice is out of the question. If Gideon performed a sacrifice when he "made ready a kid" (Judges 6:19) or when he killed an animal for the broth of which the narrative speaks, the animals in question must have been sacrificed twice over, once when they were killed and again when the food was consumed by flames. Special importance attaches to Exodus 22:1 (Hebrews 21:37), for there the JE legislation itself speaks of slaughter by cattle thieves as a natural and probable occurrence, and it can surely not have regarded this as a sacrificial act. Other instances are to be found in Genesis 43:16; 1 Samuel 25:11; 1 Kings 19:21. In 1 Samuel 8:13 the word translated "cooks" means literally, "women slaughterers." All these instances are prior to the date assigned to Deuteronomy. With respect to Leviticus 17:1-7 also, theory is unworkable. At any time in King Josiah's reign or after, it would have been utterly impossible to limit all slaughter of animals for the whole race wherever resident to one single spot. This part of theory therefore breaks down.

(2) Sacrifice and Theophany

The view that the altars were erected at places that were peculiarly holy, or at any rate were subsequently sanctified by a theophany, is also untenable. In the Patriarchal age we may refer to Genesis 4:26, where the calling on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (Genesis 12:8) and Mamre (Genesis 13:18), and Jacob's sacrifices (Genesis 31:54; 33:20). Compare later Samuel's altar at Ramah, Adonijah's sacrifice at En-rogel (1 Kings 1:1-53), Naaman's earth (2 Kings 5:1-27), David's clan's sacrifice (1 Samuel 20:6, 29). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to translate Exodus 20:24 "in all the place" (see supra 2, (1)) and to understand "the place" as the territory of Israel.

(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries

The hypothesis of a multiplicity of sanctuaries in JE and the history also leaves out of view many most important facts. The truth is that the word "sanctuary" is ambiguous and misleading. A plurality of altars of earth or stone is not a plurality of sanctuaries. The early legislation knows a "house of Yahweh" in addition to the primitive altars (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; compare the parts of Joshua 9:23, 27 assigned to J). No eyewitness could mistake a house for an altar, or vice versa.

(4) The Altar of God's House

Moreover a curious little bit of evidence shows that the "house" had quite a different kind of altar. In 1 Kings 1:50 f; 2:28 ff, we hear of the horns of the altar (compare Amos 3:14). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as required by the Law of Exodus 20:1-26) could provide such horns, and the historical instances of the altars of the patriarchs, religious leaders, etc., to which reference has been made, show that they had no horns. Accordingly, we are thrown back on the description of the great altar of burnt offering in Exodus 27:1-21 and must assume that an altar of this type was to be found before the ark before Solomon built his Temple. Thus the altar of the House of God was quite different from the customary lay altar, and when we read of "mine altar" as a refuge in Exodus 21:14, we must refer it to the former, as is shown by the passages just cited. In addition to the early legislation and the historical passages cited as recognizing a House of God with a horned altar, we see such a house in Shiloh where Eli and his sons of the house of Aaron (1 Samuel 2:27) ministered. Thus the data of both JE and the history show us a House of God with a horned altar side by side with the multiplicity of stone or earthen altars, but give us no hint of a plurality of legitimate houses or shrines or sanctuaries.

(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy also recognizes a number of local altars in 16:21 (see ICC , at the place) and so does Later Deuteronomistic editors in Joshua 8:30 ff. There is no place for any of these passages ia the Wellhausen theory; but again we find one house side by side with many lay altars.

4. The Alternative View: (1) Lay Sacrifice

The alternative view seeks to account for the whole of the facts noted above. In bald outline it is as follows: In pre-Mosaic times customary sacrifices had been freely offered by laymen at altars of earth or stone which were not "sanctuaries," but places that could be used for the nonce and then abandoned. Slaughter, as shown by the instances cited, was not necessarily sacrificial. Moses did not forbid or discourage the custom he found. On the contrary, he regulated it in Exodus 20:24-26; Deuteronomy 16:21 f to prevent possible abuses. But he also superimposed two other kinds of sacrifice--certain new offerings to be brought by individuals to the religious capital and the national offerings of Numbers 28:1-31; Numbers 29:1-40 and other passages. If the Priestly Code (P) assumes the religious capital as axiomatic, the reason is that this portion of the Law consists of teaching entrusted to the priests, embracing the procedure to be followed in these two classes of offerings, and does not refer at all to the procedure at customary lay sacrifices, which was regulated by immemorial custom. Deuteronomy thunders not against the lay altars--which are never even mentioned in this connection--but against the Canaanite high places. Deuteronomy 12:1-32 contemplates only the new individual offerings. The permission of lay slaughter for food was due to the fact that the infidelity of the Israelites in the wilderness (Leviticus 17:5-7) had led to the universal prohibition of lay slaughter for the period of the wanderings only, though it appears to be continued by Dt for those who lived near the House of God (see Leviticus 12:8, limited to the case "if the place .... be too far from thee").

(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals. The JE legislation itself recognizes the three pilgrimage festivals of the House of God (Exodus 34:22 f). One of these festivals is called "the feast of weeks, even of the bikkurim (a kind of first-fruits) of wheat harvest," and as Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26 require these bikkurim to be brought to the House of God and not to a lay altar, it follows that the pilgrimages are as firmly established here as in Deuteronomy. Thus we find a House (with a horned altar) served by priests and lay altars of earth or stone side by side in law and history till the exile swept them all away, and by breaking the continuity of tradition and practice paved the way for a new and artificial interpretation of the Law that was far removed from the intent of the lawgiver.

5. The Elephantine Papyri: The Elephantine Temple.

Papyri have recently been found at Elephantine which show us a Jewish community in Egypt which in 405 BC possessed a local temple. On the Wellhausen hypothesis it is usual to assume that the Priestly Code (P) and Deuteronomy were still unknown and not recognized as authoritative in this community at that date, although the Deuteronomic law of the central sanctuary goes back at least to 621. It is difficult to understand how a law that had been recognized as divine by Jeremiah and others could still have been unknown or destitute of authority. On the alternative view this phenomenon will have been the result of an interpretation of the Law to suit the needs of an age some 800 years subsequent to the death of Moses in circumstances he never contemplated. The Pentateuch apparently permits sacrifice only in the land of Israel: in the altered circumstances the choice lay between interpreting the Law in this way or abandoning public worship altogether; for the synagogue with its non-sacrificial form of public worship had not yet been invented. All old legislations have to be construed in this way to meet changing circumstances, and this example contains nothing exceptional or surprising.

LITERATURE

J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, chapter i, for the critical hypothesis; H. M. Wiener, EPC, chapter vi, PS passim for the alternative view; POT, 173 ff.

Harold M. Wiener

Sand

Sand - (chol; ammos; a variant of the more usual psammos; compare amathos, psamathos):

Sand is principally produced by the grinding action of waves. This is accompanied by chemical solution, with the result that the more soluble constituents of the rock diminish in amount or disappear and the sands tend to become more or less purely silicious, silica or quartz being a common constituent of rocks and very Insoluble. The rocks of Palestine are so largely composed of limestone that the shore and dune sands are unusually calcareous, containing from 10 to 20 per cent of calcium carbonate. This is subject to solution and redeposition as a cement between the sand grains, binding them together to form the porous sandstone of the seashore, which is easily worked and is much used in building.

See Rock,III , (2).

Figurative:

(1) Used most often as a symbol of countless multitude; especially of the children of Israel (Genesis 22:17; 32:12; 2 Samuel 17:11; 1 Kings 4:20; Isaiah 10:22; 48:19; Jeremiah 33:26; Hosea 1:10; Romans 9:27; Hebrews 11:12); also of the enemies of Israel (Joshua 11:4; Judges 7:12; 1 Samuel 13:5; compare Revelation 20:8). Joseph laid up gram as the sand of the sea (Genesis 41:49); God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore (1 Kings 4:29); Job says "I shall multiply my days as the sand" (Job 29:18); the multitude of quails provided for the Israelites in the desert is compared to the sand (Psalms 78:27); the Psalmist says of the thoughts of God, "They are more in number than the sand" (Psalms 139:18); Jeremiah, speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem, says that the number of widows is as the sand (Jeremiah 15:8). (2) Sand is also a symbol of weight (Job 6:3; Proverbs 27:3), and (3) of instability (Matthew 7:26).

It is a question what is meant by "the hidden treasures of the sand" in Deuteronomy 33:19.

Alfred Ely Day

Sand Flies

Sand Flies - sand'-fliz (kinnim (Exodus 8:16 margin; Wisdom of Solomon 19:10 margin)): English Versions of the Bible "lice."

See FLEA; GNAT; INSECTS; LICE.

Sand, Glowing

Sand, Glowing - glo'-ing.

See MIRAGE.

Sandal

Sandal - san'-dal.

See DRESS, sec. 6; SHOE; SHOE-LATCHET.

Sand-lizard

Sand-lizard - sand'-liz-ard. (chomeT; Septuagint saura, "lizard"; the King James Version snail): ChomeT is 7th in the list of unclean "creeping things" in Leviticus 11:29-30, and occurs nowhere else. It is probably a skink or some species of Lacerta.

See LIZARD

Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin - san'-he-drin (canhedhrin, the Talmudic transcription of the Greek sunedrion):

1. Name: The Sanhedrin was, at and before the time of Christ, the name for the highest Jewish tribunal, of 71 members, in Jerusalem, and also for the lower tribunals, of 23 members, of which Jerusalem had two (Tosephta' Chaghighah] 11 9; Sanhedrin 1 6; 11 2). It is derived from sun, "together," and hedra, "seat." In Greek and Roman literature the senates of Sparta, Carthage, and even Rome, are so called (compare Pausan. iii.11, 2; Polyb. iii.22; Dion Cassius xl.49). In Josephus we meet with the word for the first time in connection with the governor Gabinius (57-55 BC), who divided the whole of Palestine into 5 sunedria (Ant., XIV, v, 4), or sunodoi (B J, I, viii, 5); and with the term sunedrion for the high council in Jerusalem first in Ant, XIV, ix, 3-5, in connection with Herod, who, when a youth, had to appear before the sunedrion at Jerusalem to answer for his doings in Galilee. But before that date the word appears in the Septuagint version of Proverbs (circa 130 BC), especially in 22:10; 31:23, as an equivalent for the Mishnaic beth-din = "judgment chamber."

In the New Testament the word sometimes, especially when used in the plural (Matthew 10:17; Mark 13:9; compare Sanhedrin 1 5), means simply "court of justice," i.e. any judicatory (Matthew 5:22). But in most cases it is used to designate the supreme Jewish Court of Justice in Jerusalem, in which the process against our Lord was carried on, and before which the apostles (especially Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul) had to justify themselves (Matthew 26:59; Mark 14:55; 15:1; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; Acts 4:15; 5:21 ff; Acts 6:12 ff; Acts 22:3023:1 ff; Acts 24:20). Sometimes presbuterion (Luke 22:66; Acts 22:5) and gerousia (Acts 5:21) are substituted for sunedrion.

See SENATE.

In the Jewish tradition-literature the term "Sanhedrin" alternates with kenishta', "meeting-place" (Meghillath Ta'-anith 10, compiled in the 1st century AD), and beth-din, "court of justice" (Sanhedrin 11 2,4). As, according to Jewish tradition, there were two kinds of sunedria, namely, the supreme sunedrion in Jerusalem of 71 members, and lesser sunedria of 23 members, which were appointed by the supreme one, we find often the term canhedhrin gedholah, "the great Sanhedrin," or beth-din ha-gadhol, "the great court of justice" (Middoth 5 4; Sanhedrin 1 6), or canhedhrin gedholah ha-yoshebheth be-lishekhath hagazith, "the great Sanhedrin which sits in the hall of hewn stone."

2. Origin and History: There is lack of positive historical information as to the origin of the Sanhedrin. According to Jewish tradition (compare Sanhedrin 16) it was constituted by Moses (Numbers 11:16-24) and was reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from exile (compare the Targum to Song of Solomon 6:1). But there is no historical evidence to show that previous to the Greek period there existed an organized aristocratic governing tribunal among the Jews. Its beginning is to be placed at the period in which Asia was convulsed by Alexander the Great and his successors.

The Hellenistic kings conceded a great amount of internal freedom to municipal communities, and Palestine was then practically under home rule, and was governed by an aristocratic council of Elders (1 Maccabees 12:6; 2 Maccabees 1:10; 4:44; 11:27; 3 Maccabees 1:8; compare Josephus, Ant,XII , iii, 4;XIII , v, 8; Meghillath Ta`anith 10), the head of which was the hereditary high priest. The court was called Gerousia, which in Greek always signifies an aristocratic body (see Westermann in Pauly'sRE ,III , 49). Subsequently this developed into the Sanhedrin.

During the Roman period (except for about 10 years at the time of Gabinius, who applied to Judea the Roman system of government; compare Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, I, 501), the Sanhedrin's influence was most powerful, the internal government of the country being practically in its hands (Ant., XX, x), and it was religiously recognized even among the Diaspora (compare Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). According to Schurer (HJP, div II, volume 1, 171; GJV4, 236) the civil authority of the Sanhedrin, from the time of Archelaus, Herod the Great's son, was probably restricted to Judea proper, and for that reason, he thinks, it had no judicial authority over our Lord so long as He remained in Galilee (but see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, I, 416).

The Sanhedrin was abolished after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). The beth-din (court of judgment) in Jabneh (68-80), in Usah (80-116), in Shafran (140-63), in Sepphoris (163-93), in Tiberias (193-220), though regarded in the Talmud (compare Ro'sh ha-shanah 31a) as having been the direct continuation of the Sanhedrin, had an essentially different character; it was merely an assembly of scribes, whose decisions had only a theoretical importance (compare Sotah 9 11).

3. Constitution: The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was formed (Matthew 26:3, 17, 59; Mark 14:53; 15:1; Luke 22:66; Acts 4:5 f; Acts 5:21; 22:30) of high priests (i.e. the acting high priest, those who had been high priests, and members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken), elders (tribal and family heads of the people and priesthood), and scribes (i.e. legal assessors), Pharisees and Sadducees alike (compare Acts 4:1 ff; Acts 5:17, 34; 23:6). In Mark 15:43; Luke 23:50, Joseph of Arimathea is called bouleutes, "councillor," i.e. member of the Sanhedrin.

According to Josephus and the New Testament, the acting high priest was as such always head and president (Matthew 26:3, 17; Acts 5:17 ff; Acts 7:1; 9:1 f; Acts 22:5; 23:2; 24:1; Ant, IV, viii, Acts 17:1-34; XX, x). Caiaphas is president at the trial of our Lord, and at Paul's trial Ananias is president. On the other hand, according to the Talmud (especially Haggai 2:1-23, 1-23), the Sanhedrin is represented as a juridical tribunal of scribes, in which one scribe acted as nasi', "prince," i.e. president, and another as 'abh-beth-din, father of the judgment-chamber, i.e. vice-president. So far, it has not been found possible to reconcile these conflicting descriptions (see "Literature," below).

Sanhedrin 4 3 mentions the cophere-ha-dayanim, "notaries," one of whom registered the reasons for acquittal, and the other the reasons for condemnation. In the New Testament we read of huperetai, "constables" (Matthew 5:25) and of the "servants of the high priest" (Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; John 18:10), whom Josephus describes as "enlisted from the rudest and most restless characters" (Ant., XX, viii, 8; ix, 2). Josephus speaks of the "public whip," Matthew mentions "tormentors" (18:34), Luke speaks of "spies" (20:20).

The whole history of post-exilic Judaism circles round the high priests, and the priestly aristocracy always played the leading part in the Sanhedrin (compare Sanhedrin 4 2). But the more the Pharisees grew in importance, the more were they represented in the Sanhedrin. In the time of Salome they were so powerful that "the queen ruled only in name, but the Pharisees in reality" (Ant., XIII, xvi, 2). So in the time of Christ, the Sanhedrin was formally led by the Sadducean high priests, but practically ruled by the Pharisees (Ant., XVIII, i, 4).

4. Jurisdiction: In the time of Christ the Great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem enjoyed a very high measure of independence. It exercised not only civil jurisdiction, according to Jewish law, but also, in some degree, criminal. It had administrative authority and could order arrests by its own officers of justice (Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:43; Acts 4:3; 5:17 f; 9:2; compare Sanhedrin 1 5). It was empowered to judge cases which did not involve capital punishment, which latter required the confirmation of the Roman procurator (John 18:31; compare the Jerusalem Sanhedrin 1 1; 7 2 (p. 24); Josephus, Ant, XX, ix, 1). But, as a rule, the procurator arranged his judgment in accordance with the demands of the Sanhedrin.

For one offense the Sanhedrin could put to death, on their own authority, even a Roman citizen, namely, in the case of a Gentile passing the fence which divided the inner court of the Temple from that of the Gentiles (BJ, VI, ii, 4; Middoth 11 3; compare Acts 21:28). The only case of capital punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the New Testament is that of our Lord. The stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:54 ff) was probably the illegal act of an enraged multitude.

5. Place and Time of Meeting: The Talmudic tradition names "the hall of hewn stone," which, according to Middoth 5 4, was on the south side of the great court, as the seat of the Great Sanhedrin (Pe'-ah 2 6; `Edhuyoth 7 4, et al.). But the last sittings of the Sanhedrin were held in the city outside the Temple area (Sanhedrin 41a; Shabbath 15a; Ro'sh ha-shanah 31a; Abhodhah zarah 8c). Josephus also mentions the place where the bouleutai, "the councilors," met as the boule, outside the Temple (BJ, V, iv, 2), and most probably he refers to these last sittings.

According to the Tosephta' Sanhedrin 7 1, the Sanhedrin held its sittings from the time of the offering of the daily morning sacrifice till that of the evening sacrifice. There were no sittings on Sabbaths or feast days.

6. Procedure: The members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semicircle, so that they could see each other (Sanhedrin 4 3; Tosephta' 8 1). The two notaries stood before them, whose duty it was to record the votes (see 3, above). The prisoner had to appear in humble attitude and dressed it, mourning (Ant., XIV, ix, 4). A sentence of capital punishment could not be passed on the day of the trial. The decision of the judges had to be examined on the following day (Sanhedrin 4 1), except in the case of a person who misled the people, who could be tried and condemned the same day or in the night (Tosephta' Sanhedrin 10). Because of this, cases which involved capital punishment were not tried on a Friday or on any day before a feast. A herald preceded the condemned one as he was led to the place of execution, and cried out: "N. the son of N. has been found guilty of death, etc. If anyone knows anything to clear him, let him come forward and declare it" (Sanhedrin 6 1). Near the place of execution the condemned man was asked to confess his guilt in order that he might partake in the world to come (ibid.; compare Luke 23:41-43).

LITERATURE.

Our knowledge about the Sanhedrin is based on three sources: the New Testament, Josephus, and the Jewish tradition-literature (especially Mishna, Sanhedrin and Makkoth, best edition, Strack, with German translation, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, N. 38, Leipzig, 1910).

See the article, TALMUD.

Consult the following histories of the Jewish people: Ewald, Herzfeld, Gratz, but especially Schurer's excellent HJP, much more fully in GJV4; also G. A. Smith, Jerusalem. Special treatises on Sanhedrin: D. Hoffmann, Der oberste Gerichtsh of in der Stadt des Heiligtums, Berlin, 1878, where the author tries to defend the Jewish traditional view as to the antiquity of the Sanhedrin; J. Reifmann, Sanhedrin (in Hebrews), Berditschew, 1888; A. Kuenen, On the Composition of the Sanhedrin, in Dutch, translated into German by Budde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, etc., 49-81, Freiburg, 1894; Jelski, Die innere Einrichtung des grossen Synedrions zu Jerusalem, Breslau, 1894, who tries to reconcile the Talmudical statements about the composition of the Sanhedrin with those of Josephus and the New Testament (especially in connection with the question of president) by showing that in the Mishna (except Chaghighah 11 2) nasi' always stands for the political president, the high priest, and 'abh-beth-din for the scribal head of the Sanhedrin, and not for the vice-president; A. Buchler, Das Synedrium in Jerusalem und das grosse Beth-din in der Quaderkammer des jerusalemischen Tempels, Vienna, 1902, a very interesting but not convincing work, where the author, in order to reconcile the two different sets of sources, tries to prove that the great Sanhedrin of the Talmud is not identical with the Sanhedrin of Josephus and the New Testament, but that there were two Sanhedrins in Jerusalem, the one of the New Testament and Josephus being a political one, the other a religious one. He also thinks that Christ was seized, not by the Sanhedrin, but by the temple authorities.

See also W. Bacher's article in HDB (excellent for sifting the Talmudic sources); Dr. Lauterbach's article in the Jewish Encyclopedia (accepts fully Biichler's view); H. Strack's article in Sch-Herz (concise and exact).

Paul Levertoff

Sansannah

Sansannah - san-san'-a (cancannah; [Sansanna], or Sethennak): One of the uttermost cities in the Negeb of Judah (Joshua 15:31), identical with Hazar-susah (Joshua 19:5), one of the cities of Simeon, and almost certainly the same as Hazar-susim (1 Chronicles 4:31). It cannot be said to have been identified with any certainty, though Simsim, "a good-sized village with well and pool, surrounded by gardens and having a grove of olives to the north," has been suggested (PEF, III, 260, Sh XX).

Saph

Saph - saf (caph; Codex Vaticanus Saph; Codex Alexandrinus Sephe): A Philistine, one of the four champions of the race of Rapha ("giant") who was slain by Sibbecai, one of David's heroes (2 Samuel 21:18; 1 Chronicles 20:4). It is supposed by some that he was the son of the giant Goliath, but this is not proved. In 1 Chronicles 20:4, the same person is called "Sippai."

Saphat

Saphat - sa'-fat:

(1) A and Fritzsche, Saphat; omitted in Codex Vaticanus (and Swete); Babylonian margin Asaph: The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:9) = "Shephatiah" in Ezra 2:4; Nehemiah 7:9.

(2) Codex Alexandrinus Saphat; Codex Vaticanus, Swete, and Fritzsche, Saphag; the King James Version Sabat: One of the families of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" who returned with Zerubbabel (1 Esdras 5:34); wanting in the parallel Ezra 2:57; Nehemiah 7:59.

Saphatias

Saphatias - saf-a-ti'-as (Saphatias, Codex Vaticanus Sophotias; omitted in Codex Alexandrinus): Name of a family of returning exiles (1 Esdras 8:34) = "Shephatiah" in Ezra 8:8. If Saphatias (1 Esdras 8:34) = Saphat (1 Esdras 5:9), as would appear, then part of the family went up with Zerubbabel and part with Ezra.

Sapheth

Sapheth - sa'-feth: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) SAPHUTHI (which see).

Saphir

Saphir - sa'-fer (shaphir).

See SHAPHIR.

Saphuthi

Saphuthi - saf'-u-thi, sa-fu'-thi (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Saphuthi, Codex Vaticanus (and Swete), Saphuei; the King James Version Sapheth): Name of one of the families of "the sons of the servants of Solomon" (1 Esdras 5:33) = "Shephatiah" in Ezra 2:57; Nehemiah 7:59.

Sapphira

Sapphira - sa-fi'-ra (shappira'; Aramaic for either "beautiful" or "sapphire"; Sappheira): Wife of Ananias (Acts 5:1-10).

See ANANIAS, (1).

Sapphire

Sapphire - saf'-ir.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sarabias

Sarabias - sar-a-bi'-as (Sarabias) : One of the Levites who taught and expounded the Law for Ezra (1 Esdras 9:48) = "Sherebiah" in Nehemiah 8:7, probably identical with the "Asebebias" in 1 Esdras 8:47 (Ezra 8:18).

Sarah; Sarai

Sarah; Sarai - sa'-ra, sa'-ri:

(1) In Genesis 17:15 the woman who up to that time has been known as Sarai (Saray; Sara) receives by divine command the name Sarah (Sarah; Sarra). (This last form in Greek preserves the ancient doubling of the r, lost in the Hebrew and the English forms.)

The former name appears to be derived from the same root as Israel, if, indeed, Genesis 32:28 is intended as an etymology of Israel. "She that strives," a contentious person, is a name that might be given to a child at birth (compare Hosea 12:3-4, of Jacob), or later when the child's character developed; in Genesis 16:6 and Genesis 21:10 a contentious character appears. Yet comparison with the history of her husband's name (see ABRAHAM) warns us not to operate solely upon the basis of the Hebrew language. Sarai was the name this woman brought with her from Mesopotamia. On the other hand there can be little doubt that the name Sarah, which she received when her son was promised, means "princess," for it is the feminine form of the extremely common title sar, used by the Semites to designate a ruler of greater or lesser rank. In the verse following the one where this name is conferred, it is declared of Sarah that "kings of peoples shall be of her" (Genesis 17:16).

We are introduced to Sarai in Genesis 11:29. She is here mentioned as the wife that Abraham "took," while still in Ur of the Chaldees, that is, while among his kindred. It is immediately added that "Sarai was barren; she had no child." By this simple remark in the overture of his narrative, the writer sounds the motif that is to be developed in all the sequel. When the migration to Haran occurs, Sarai is named along with Abram and Lot as accompanying Terah. It has been held that the author (or authors) of Genesis 11:1-32 knew nothing of the relationship announced in Genesis 20:12. But there can be no proof of such ignorance, even on the assumption of diversity of authorship in the two passages.

Sarai's career as described in Genesis 11:1-32 was not dependent on her being the daughter of Terah. Terah had other descendants who did not accompany him. Her movements were determined by her being Abram's wife. It appears, however, that she was a daughter of Terah by a different mother from the mother of Abram. The language of Genesis 20:12 would indeed admit of her being Abram's niece, but the fact that there was but Genesis 10:1-32 years' difference between his age and hers (Genesis 17:17) renders this hypothesis less probable. Marriage with half-sisters seems to have been not uncommon in antiquity (even in the Old Testament compare 2 Samuel 13:13).

This double relationship suggested to Abraham the expedient that he twice used when he lacked faith in God to protect his life and in cowardice sought his own safety at the price of his wife's honor. The first of these occasions was in the earlier period of their wanderings (Genesis 12:1-20). From Canaan they went down into Egypt. Sarai, though above 60 years of age according to the chronology of the sacred historian, made the impression on the Egyptians by her beauty that Abraham had anticipated, and the result was her transfer to the royal palace. But this was in direct contravention of the purpose of God for His own kingdom. The earthly majesty of Pharaoh had to bow before the divine majesty, which plagued him and secured the stranger's exodus, thus foreshadowing those later plagues and that later exodus when Abraham's and Sarah's seed "spoiled the Egyptians."

We meet Sarah next in the narrative of the birth of Ishmael and of Isaac. Though 14 years separated the two births, they are closely associated in the story because of their logical continuity. Sarah's barrenness persisted. She was now far past middle life, even on a patriarchal scale of longevity, and there appeared no hope of her ever bearing that child who should inherit the promise of God. She therefore adopts the expedient of being "builded by" her personal slave, Hagar the Egyptian (see Genesis 16:2 margin). That is, according to contemporary law and custom as witnessed by the Code of Hammurabi (see ABRAHAM, iv, 2), a son born of this woman would be the freeborn son and heir of Abraham and Sarah.

Such was in fact the position of Ishmael later. But the insolence of the maid aroused the vindictive jealousy of the mistress and led to a painful scene of unjustified expulsion. Hagar, however, returned at God's behest, humbled herself before Sarah, and bore Ishmael in his own father's house. Here he remained the sole and rightful heir, until the miracle of Isaac's birth disappointed all human expectations and resulted in the ultimate expulsion of Hagar and her son.

The change of name from Sarai to Sarah when Isaac was promised has already been noted. Sarah's laughter of incredulity when she hears the promise is of course associated with the origin of the name of Isaac, but it serves also to emphasize the miraculous character of his birth, coming as it does after his parents are both so "well stricken in age" as to make parenthood seem an absurdity.

Before the birth of this child of promise, however, Sarah is again exposed, through the cowardice of her husband, to dishonor and ruin. Abimelech, king of Gerar, desiring to be allied by marriage with a man of Abraham's power, sends for Sarah, whom he knows only as Abraham's sister, and for the second time she takes her place in the harem of a prince. But the divine promise is not to be thwarted, even by persistent human weakness and sin. In a dream God reveals to Abimelech the true state of the case, and Sarah is restored to her husband with an indemnity. Thereupon the long-delayed son is born, the jealous mother secures the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, and her career comes to a close at the age of 127, at Hebroni long time her home. The grief and devotion of Abraham are broadly displayed in Genesis 23:1-20, in which he seeks and obtains a burying-place for his wife. She is thus the first to be interred in that cave of the field of Machpelah, which was to be the common resting-place of the fathers and mothers of the future Israel.

The character of Sarah is of mingled light and shade. On the one hand we have seen that lapse from faith which resulted in the birth of Ishmael, and that lack of self-control and charity which resulted in a quarrel with Abraham, an act of injustice to Hagar, and the disinheriting of Ishmael. Yet on the other hand we see in Sarah, as the New Testament writers point out (Hebrews 11:11; 1 Peter 3:6), one who through a long life of companionship with Abraham shared his hope in God, his faith in the promises, and his power to become God's agent for achieving what was humanly impossible. In fact, to Sarah is ascribed a sort of spiritual maternity, correlative with Abraham's position as "father of the faithful"; for all women are declared to be the (spiritual) daughters of Sarah, who like her are adorned in "the hidden man of the heart," and who are "doers of good" and "fearers of no terror" (1 Peter loc. cit., literally rendered). That in spite of her outbreak about Hagar and Ishmael she was in general "in subjection to her husband" and of "a meek and quiet spirit," appears from her husband's genuine grief at her decease, and still more clearly from her son's prolonged mourning for her (Genesis 24:67; compare Genesis 17:17 and Genesis 23:1 with Genesis 25:20). And He who maketh even the wrath of man to praise Him used even Sarah's jealous anger to accomplish His purpose that "the son of the freewoman," Isaac, "born through promise," should alone inherit that promise (Galatians 4:22-31).

Apart from the three New Testament passages already cited, Sarah is alluded to only in Isaiah 51:2 ("Sarah that bare you," as the mother of the nation), in Romans 4:19 ("the deadness of Sarah's womb"), and in Romans 9:9, where God's promise in Genesis 18:10 is quoted. Yet her existence and her history are of course presupposed wherever allusion is made to the stories of Abraham and of Isaac.

To many modern critics Sarah supplies, by her name, a welcome argument in support of the mythical view of Abraham. She has been held to be the local numen to whom the cave near Hebron was sacred; or the deity whose consort was worshipped in Arabia under the title Dusares, i.e. Husband-of-Sarah; or, the female associate of Sin the moon-god, worshipped at Haran. On these views the student will do well to consult Baethgen, Beitrage, 94, 157, and, for the most recent point of view, Gressmann's article, "Sage und Geschichte in den Patriarchenerzahlungen," ZATW, 1910, and Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche Studien, II, 13.

(2) The daughter of Raguel, and wife of Tobias (Tobit 3:7, 17, etc.).

See TOBIT, BOOK OF.

J. Oscar Boyd

Saraias

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

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

Saraph

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

Sarchedonus

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

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

Sardin(E); Sardius

Sardin(E); Sardius - sar'-din, sar'-din.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sardis

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 Rev (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 3:2-3). 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 Rev 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

Sardite - sar'-dit.

See SERED.

Sardius

Sardius - sar'-di-us.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sardonyx

Sardonyx - sar'-do-niks.

See STONES, PRECIOUS.

Sarepta

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 17:9-10). 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

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

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, 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

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

Sarothie

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

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

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

Satan

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, 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, 38; 1 John 2:13-14; 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, 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, 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; 8:44; Acts 13:10; 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, 15; 1 John 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 12:9; 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 through 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 (Matthew 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; 4, 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 Chronicles 1:6), however, Satan is among the Sons of God and his assaults upon Job are divinely permitted. In Zec (1 Chronicles 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 Gen 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, 13-14; 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

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

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, 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; 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

Satchel - sach'-el.

See BAG.

Sathrabuzanes

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, 6; 6, 13.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction - sat-is-fak'-shun: Occurs twice in the King James Version (Numbers 35:31-32) 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

Satraps - sa'-traps, sat'-raps ('achashdarpenim, Ezra 8:36; Esther 3:12; 8:9; 9:3, the King James Version "lieutenants"; Daniel 3:2-3, 27; 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."

Satyr

Satyr - sat'-er, sa'-ter (sa`ir, literally "he-goat"; sa`ir, "hairy" (Genesis 27:11, of Esau), and Arabic sha'r, "hair"; plural se`irim): For se`irim in Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15, the King James Version has "devils," the Revised Version (British and American) "he-goats," the English Revised Version margin "satyrs," the Septuagint has tois mataiois, "vain things." For se`irim in Isaiah 13:21, the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "satyrs," the English Revised Version margin "he-goats," the American Standard Revised Version "wild goats," Septuagint daimonia, "demons." For sa`ir in Isaiah 34:14, the King James Version and the English Revised Version have "satyr," the English Revised Version margin "he-goat," the American Standard Revised Version "wild goat." Septuagint has heteros pros ton heteron, "one to another," referring to daimonia, which here stands for ciyim, "wild beasts of the desert."

The text of the American Standard Revised Version in these passages is as follows: Leviticus 17:7, "And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats, after which they play the harlot"; 2 Chronicles 11:15, "And he (Jeroboam) appointed him priests for the high places, and for the he-goats, and for the calves which he had made"; Isaiah 13:21 f (of Babylon), "But wild beasts of the desert (tsiyim) shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures ('ochim); and ostriches (benoth ya`anah) shall dwell there, and wild goats (se`irim) shall dance there And wolves ('iyim) shall cry in their castles, and jackals (tannim) in the pleasant palaces"; Isaiah 34:11, 13-14, 15 (of Edom), "But the pelican (qa'ath) and the porcupine (kippodh) shall possess it; and the owl (yanshoph) and the raven (`orebh) shall dwell therein: .... and it shall be a habitation of jackals (tannim), a court for ostriches (benoth ya`anah). And the wild beasts of the desert (tsiyim) shall meet with the wolves ('iyim), and the wild goat (sa`ir) shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night monster (lilith) shall settle there ..... There shall the dart-snake (qippoz) make her nest .... there shall the kites (dayyoth) be gathered, every one with her mate."

The question is whether sa`ir and se`irim in these passages stand for real or for fabulous animals. In Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15, it is clear that they are objects of worship, but that still leaves open the question of their nature, though it may to many minds make "devils" or "demons" or "satyrs" seem preferable to "he-goats." In Isaiah 13:20 we read, "neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall shepherds make their flocks to lie down there." This may very likely have influenced the American Committee of Revisers to use "wild goat" in Isaiah 13:21 and Isaiah 34:14 instead of the "he-goat" of the other passages. In the American Standard Revised Version, no fabulous creatures (except perhaps "night-monster") are mentioned here, but the Septuagint employs daimonia, "demons" in Isaiah 13:21 for se`irim and in Isaiah 34:14 for tsiyim; onokentauroi, from "centaur," in Isaiah 13:22 and Isaiah 34:14 for 'iyim, and again in Isaiah 34:14 for lilith; seirenes, "sirens," in Isaiah 13:21 for benoth ya`anah, and in Isaiah 34:13 for tannim. We must bear in mind the uncertainty regarding the identity of tsiyim, 'iyim, 'ochim and tannim, as well as of some of the other names, and we must recall the tales that are hung about the name lilith (the King James Version "screech owl," the King James Version margin and the Revised Version (British and American) "night-monster," the Revised Version margin "Lilith"). While sa`ir is almost alone among these words in having ordinarily a well-understood meaning, i.e. "he-goat," there is good reason for considering that here it is used in an exceptional sense. The translation "satyr" has certainly much to be said for it.

See GOAT; JACKAL.

Alfred Ely Day

Saul

Saul - sol (sha'ul; Saoul):

(1) The first king of Israel.

I. EARLY HISTORY

1. Name and Meaning

2. Genealogy

3. Home and Station

4. Sources for Life

5. Election as King

6. Reasons for It

II. REIGN AND FALL

1. His First Action

2. Army Reorganized

3. Battle of Michmash

4. Defeats the Amalekites

5. Deposition Pronounced

6. David Introduced to Saul

7. Two Accounts

8. Saul's Envy of David

9. Attempts to Get Rid of David

10. David Spares Saul

11. Saul's Divided Energies

12. Consults a Necromancer

13. Battle of Gilboa

14. Double Accounts

15. Saul's Posterity

III. CHARACTER

1. Book of Chronicles

2. Saul's Failings

3. His Virtue

4. David's Elegy

I. Early History. 1. Name and Meaning: The name Saul is usually regarded as simply the passive participle of the verb "to ask," and so meaning "asked" (compare 1 Samuel 8:4 ff), but the gentilic adjective sha'uli (Numbers 26:13) would point to its having also an intensive connotation, "the one asked importunately," or perhaps, "the one asking insistently," "the beggar."

2. Genealogy: Saul was the son of Kish, a Benjamite. His genealogical tree is given in 1 Samuel 9:1 (compare Septuagint 10:21). In 1 Samuel 9:1 his grandfather is Abiel, but in 1 Chronicles 8:33; 9:39, Ner, who appears as his paternal uncle in 1 Samuel 14:50-51.

The last verse contains a very curious scribal error, a yodh having slipped out of one word in it into another. It states that both Abner and Ner were sons of Abiel. These apparent inconsistencies are to be explained by the fact that in Hebrew, as in Arabic, "son" is often used in the sense of grandson. Also, with the facility of divorce then prevalent, by "brother" and "sister" we must in most cases understand half-brother and half-sister. Moreover, Saul's mother might have been the wife at different times of Kish and of his brother Ner (compare 1 Samuel 20:30). This was quite common, and in some cases compulsory (Deuteronomy 25:5-9).

3. Home and Station: Saul's home was at GIBEAH (which see), which is also called Gibeah of Saul, i.e. Saul's Hill (1 Samuel 11:4; compare also 1 Samuel 10:5, God's Hill, or simply The Hill, 1 Samuel 10:10; Hosea 5:8, etc.), or the Hill of Benjamin or of the Benjamites (1 Samuel 13:15; 2 Samuel 23:29). It is usually identified with Tell el-Ful, but perhaps its site is marked rather by some ruins near but beneath that eminence. The tribe of Benjamin was the fighting tribe of Israel, and Kish seems to have been one of its most important members. Saul's remarks in depreciation (1 Samuel 9:21) are not to be taken literally.

4. Sources for Life: The circumstances of Saul's career are too well known to require recapitulation. It will be sufficient to refer to some of the recognized difficulties of the narrative. These difficulties arise from the fact that we appear to have two distinct biographies of Saul in the present Books of Samuel. This may well be the case as it is the practice of the Semitic historian to set down more than one tradition of each event, without attempting to work these up into one consistent account. We shall call the duplicated narratives A and B, without postulating that either is a continuous whole.

See SAMUEL, BOOKS OF.

5. Election as King: According to A, Saul was anointed king of Israel at Ramah by the prophet Samuel acting upon an inspiration from Yahweh, not only without consulting anyone, but in the strictest secrecy (1 Samuel 9:1 through 1 Samuel 10:16). According to B, the sheiks of the tribes demanded a king. Samuel in vain tried to dissuade them. They would not listen, and a king was chosen by lot at Mizpah. The lot fell upon Saul, and Samuel immediately demitted office (1 Samuel 8:1-22; 1 Samuel 10:17-27, omitting the last clause; and chapter 1 Samuel 12:1-25).

6. Reasons for It: There are three distinct reasons given in the text for the abolition of theocracy and institution of an elective or hereditary monarchy: first, the incapacity of Samuel's sons (1 Samuel 8:1 ff); second, an invasion of the Ammonites (1 Samuel 12:12); and third, the Philistines (1 Samuel 9:16). These three motives are not mutually exclusive. The Philistines formed the standing menace to the national existence, which would have necessitated the creation of a monarchy sooner or later. The other two were temporary circumstances, one of which aggravated the situation, while the other showed the hopelessness of expecting any improvement in it in the near future.

II. Reign and Fall. 1. His First Action: The election of Saul at Mizpah was conducted in the presence of the chieftains of the clans; it is not to be supposed that the whole nation was present. As soon as it was over, the electors went home, and Saul also returned to his father's farm and, like Cincinnatus, once more followed the plow. "Within about a month," however (1 Samuel 10:27 the Septuagint, for Massoretic Text "But he held his peace"), the summons came. A message from the citizens of JABESH-GILEAD (which see) was sent round the tribes appealing for help against the Ammonites under Nahash. They, of course, knew nothing about what had taken place at Mizpah, and it was only by chance that their messengers arrived at Gibeah when they did. Saul rose to the occasion, and immediately after he was acclaimed king by the whole body of the people (1 Samuel 11:1-15). This double election, first by the chiefs and then by the people, is quite a regular proceeding.

2. Army Reorganized: This first success encouraged Saul to enter upon what was to be the mission of his life, namely, the throwing off of the Philistine suzerainty. From the first he had had the boldest spirits upon his side (1 Samuel 10:26, the Septuagint, the Revised Version margin); he was now able to form a standing army of 3,000 men, under the command of himself and his son JONATHAN (which see). The Philistines, the last remnant of the Minoan race, had the advantage of the possession of iron weapons. It was, in fact, they who introduced iron into Palestine from Crete--the Israelites knowing only bronze, and having even been deprived of weapons of the softer metals. They seem to have armed themselves--with the exception of the king and his son--with mattocks and plowshares (1 Samuel 13:19 ff).

3. Battle of Michmash: The first encounter was the attack upon the Philistine post at Michmash (1 Samuel 13:1-23; 1 Samuel 14:1-52). The text of the narrative is uncertain, but the following outline is clear. On hearing that the Hebrews had revolted (1 Samuel 13:3, the Septuagint), the Philistines gathered in great force, including 3,000 chariots (1 Samuel 13:5, the Septuagint; the Massoretic Text has 1 Samuel 30:1-31, 000) at Michmash. In dismay, Saul's troops deserted (1 Samuel 13:6 f), until he was left with only 600 (1 Samuel 14:2). In spite of this, Jonathan precipitated hostilities by a reckless attack upon one of the outposts. This was so successful that the whole Philistine army was seized with panic, and the onset of Saul and the desertion of their Hebrew slaves completed their discomfiture. Saul followed up his victory by making predatory excursions on every side (1 Samuel 14:47).

4. Defeats the Amalekites: Saul's next expedition was against the Amalekites under Agag, who were likewise completely defeated. The fight was carried out with all the remorselessness common to tribal warfare. Warning was sent to the friendly Kenites to withdraw out of danger; then the hostile tribe was slaughtered to a man, their chief alone being spared for the time being. Even the women and children were not taken as slaves, but were all killed (1 Samuel 15:1-35).

5. Deposition Pronounced: It is not clear what was the precise attitude of Samuel toward Saul. As the undoubted head of theocracy he naturally objected to his powers being curtailed by the loss of the civil power (1 Samuel 8:6). Even after the elections of Saul, Samuel claimed to be the ecclesiastical head of the state. He seems to have objected to Saul's offering the sacrifice before battle (1 Samuel 13:10 ff), and to have considered him merely as his lieutenant (1 Samuel 15:3) who could be dismissed for disobedience (1 Samuel 15:14 ff). Here again there seem to be two distinct accounts in the traditional text, which we may again call A and B. In A, Saul is rejected because he does not wait long enough for Samuel at Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:8; compare 1 Samuel 10:8). "Seven days," of course, means eight, or even more, in short, until Samuel should come, whenever that might be. The expression might almost be omitted in translating. In B Saul is rejected because he did not carry out Samuel's orders (1 Samuel 15:3) to the letter. The two narratives are not mutually exclusive. The second offense was an aggravation of the first, and after it Samuel did not see Saul again (1 Samuel 15:35).

6. David Introduced to Saul: He had good reason for not doing so. He had anointed a rival head of the state in opposition to Saul, an act of treason which, if discovered, would have cost him his head (compare 2 Kings 9:6, 10). Saul did not at once accept his deposition, but he lost heart. One cannot but admire him, deserted by Samuel, and convinced that he was playing a losing game, and yet continuing in office. To drive away his melancholy, his servants introduced to him a musician who played until his spirits revived (1 Samuel 16:14 ff; compare 2 Kings 3:15).

7. Two Accounts: By a strange coincidence (compare I, 5, above) the minstrel was the very person whom Samuel had secretly anointed to supplant Saul. According to what looks like another account, however, it was his encounter with Goliath which led to the introduction of David to Saul (1 Samuel 17:1 ff; see DAVID). In spite of all that has been said to the contrary, the two narratives are not incompatible, since we are not told the order of the events nor over how many years these events were spread. The theory of duplicate narratives rests upon the assumption that all statements made by the dramatis personae in the Bible are to be taken at their face value. If 1 Samuel 16 and 17 had formed part of a play of Shakespeare, they would have been considered a fine example of his genius. Treatises would have been written to explain why Saul did not recognize David, and why Abner denied all knowledge of him. Septuagint, however, omits 1 Samuel 17:12-31, 41, 50, 55 through 1 Samuel 18:5.

8. Saul's Envy of David: Whether Saul actually discovered that David had been anointed by Samuel or not, he soon saw in him his rival and inevitable successor, and he would hardly have been human if he had not felt envious of him. His dislike of David had two motives. The first was jealousy, because the women preferred the military genius of David to his own (1 Samuel 18:7 f). His consequent attempt upon the life of David (1 Samuel 18:8-11) is omitted in the Septuagint. Not least was the love of his own daughter for David (1 Samuel 18:20; in 1 Samuel 18:28 read with Septuagint "all Israel"). The second cause was his natural objection to see his son Jonathan supplanted in his rights to the throne, an objection which was aggravated by the devotion of that son to his own rival (1 Samuel 20:30).

See also DAVID; JONATHAN.

9. Attempts to Get Rid of David: Saul could not believe that David could remain loyal to him (1 Samuel 24:9); at the first favorable opportunity he would turn upon him, hurl him from the throne, and exterminate his whole house. In these circumstances, it was his first interest to get rid of him. His first attempt to do so (omitting with Septuagint 1 Samuel 188:8b-11) was to encourage him to make raids on the Philistines in the hope that these might kill him (1 Samuel 18:21 ff); his next, assassination by one of his servants (1 Samuel 19:1), and then by his own hand (1 Samuel 19:9 f). When David was compelled to fly, the quarrel turned to civil war. The superstitious fear of hurting the chosen of Yahweh had given place to blind rage. Those who sheltered the fugitive, even priests, were slaughtered (1 Samuel 22:17 ff). From one spot to another David was hunted, as he says, like a partridge (1 Samuel 26:20).

10. David Spares Saul: It is generally maintained that here also we have duplicate accounts; for example, that there are two accounts of David taking refuge with Achish, king of Gath, and two of his sparing Saul's life. The latter are contained in 1 Samuel 24:1-22 and 1 Samuel 26:1-25, but the points of resemblance are slight. Three thousand (1 Samuel 24:2; 26:2) was the number of Saul's picked men (compare 1 Samuel 13:2). David uses the simile of "a flea" in 1 Samuel 24:14, but in 1 Samuel 26:20 for "a flea" Septuagint has "my soul," which is no doubt original. The few other expressions would occur naturally in any narrative with the same contents.

11. Saul's Divided Energies: Obviously Saul's divided energies could not hold out long; he could not put down the imaginary rebellion within, and at the same time keep at bay the foreign foe. No sooner had he got the fugitive within his grasp than he was called away by an inroad of the Philistines (1 Samuel 23:27 f); but after his life had been twice spared, he seemed to realize at last that the latter were the real enemy, and he threw his whole strength into one desperate effort for existence.

12. Consults a Necromancer: Saul himself saw that his case was desperate, and that in fact the game was up. As a forlorn hope he determined to seek occult advice. He could no longer use the official means of divination (1 Samuel 28:6), and was obliged to have recourse to a necromancer, one of a class whom he himself had taken means to suppress (1 Samuel 28:3). The result of the seance confirmed his worst fears and filled his soul with despair (1 Samuel 28:7 ff).

13. Battle of Gilboa: It says much for Saul that, hopeless as he was, he engaged in one last forlorn struggle with the enemy. The Philistines had gathered in great force at Shunem. Saul drew up his army on the opposing hill of Gilboa. Between the two forces lay a valley (compare 1 Samuel 14:4). The result was what had been foreseen. The Israelites, no doubt greatly reduced in numbers (contrast 1 Samuel 11:8), were completely defeated, and Saul and his sons slain. Their armor was placed in the temple of Ashtaroth, and their bodies hung on the wall of Bethshan, but Saul's head was set in the temple of Dagon (1 Chronicles 10:10). The citizens of Jabesh-gilead, out of ancient gratitude, rescued the bodies and, in un-Semitic wise, burned them and buried the bones.

14. Double Accounts: Once more we have, according to most present-day critics, duplicate accounts of the death of Saul. According to one, which we may name A, he fell, like Ajax whom he much resembles, upon his own sword, after being desperately wounded by the archers (1 Samuel 31:4). According to the second (2 Samuel 1:2 ff), an Amalekite, who had been by accident a witness of the battle, dispatched Saul at his own request to save him from the enemy. But B is simply the continuation of A, and tells us how David received the news of the battle. The Amalekite's story is, of course, a fabrication with a view to a reward. Similar claims for the reward of assassination are common (2 Samuel 4:9 ff).

15. Saul's Posterity: With Saul the first Israelite dynasty began and ended. The names of his sons are given in 1 Samuel 14:49 as Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua. Ishvi or Ishyo (Septuagint) is Eshbaal, called in 2 Samuel 2:8 ISH-BOSHETH (which see). 1 Chronicles 8:33 adds Abinadab. Jonathan left a long line of descendants famous, like himself, as archers (1 Chronicles 8:34 ff). The rest of Saul's posterity apparently died out. Malchishua and Abinadab were slain at Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:6; 1 Chronicles 10:2), and Ish-bosheth was assassinated shortly after (2 Samuel 4:2 ff). Saul had also two natural sons by Rizpah who were put to death by David in accordance with a superstitious custom, as also were the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab (2 Samuel 21:8, not Michal; compare 1 Samuel 18:19). Saurs other daughter Michal apparently had no children. Saul had, it seems, other wives, who were taken into the harem of David in accordance with the practice of the times (2 Samuel 12:8), but of them and their descendants we know nothing.

III. Character. 1. Book of Chronicles: Saul's life and character are disposed of in a somewhat summary fashion by the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 10:1-14, especially 1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Saul was rejected because he was disloyal to Yahweh, especially in consulting a necromancer. The major premise of this conclusion, however, is the ancient dictum, "Misfortune presupposes sin." From a wider point of view, Saul cannot be dismissed in so cavalier a manner.

2. Saul's Failings: Like everyone else, Saul had his virtues and his failings. His chief weakness seems to have been want of decision of character. He was easily swayed by events and by people. The praises of David (1 Samuel 18:7 f) at once set his jealousy on fire. His persecution of David was largely due to the instigation of mischievous courtiers (1 Samuel 24:9). Upon remonstrance his repentance was as deep as it was short-lived (1 Samuel 24:16; 26:21). His impulsiveness was such that he did not know where to stop. His interdict (1 Samuel 14:24 ff) was quite as uncalled for as his religious zeal (1 Samuel 15:9) was out of place. He was always at one extreme. His hatred of David was only equal to his affection for him at first (1 Samuel 18:2). His pusillanimity led him to commit crimes which his own judgment would have forbidden (1 Samuel 22:17). Like most beaten persons, he became suspicious of everyone (1 Samuel 22:7 f), and, like those who are easily led, he soon found his evil genius (1 Samuel 22:9, 18, 22). Saul's inability to act alone appears from the fact that he never engaged in single combat, so far as we know. Before he could act at all his fury or his pity had to be roused to boiling-point (1 Samuel 11:6). His mind was peculiarly subject to external influences, so that he was now respectable man of the world, now a prophet (1 Samuel 10:11; 19:24).

3. His Virtues: On the other hand, Saul possessed many high qualities. His dread of office (1 Samuel 10:22) was only equaled by the coolness with which he accepted it (1 Samuel 11:5). To the first call to action he responded with promptitude (1 Samuel 11:6 ff). His timely aid excited the lasting gratitude of the citizens of Jabesh-gilead (1 Samuel 31:11 ff) If we remember that Saul was openly disowned by Samuel (1 Samuel 15:30), and believed himself cast off by Yahweh, we cannot but admire the way in which he fought on to the last. Moreover, the fact that he retained not only his own sons, but a sufficient body of fighting men to engage a large army of Philistines, shows that there must have been something in him to excite confidence and loyalty.

4. David's Elegy: There is, however, no question as to the honorable and noble qualities of Saul. The chief were his prowess in war and his generosity in peace. They have been set down by the man who knew him best in what are among the most authentic verses in the Bible (2 Samuel 1:19 ff).

(2) Saul of Tarsus. See PAUL.

Thomas Hunter Weir

Savaran

Savaran - sav'-a-ran: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) AVARAN (which see).

Save

Save - sav: In the sense "except," the word came into English through the French (sauf) and is fairly common (38 times, in addition to "saving," the King James Version Ecclesiastes 5:11; Amos 9:8; Matthew 5:32; Luke 4:27; Revelation 2:17). It represents no particular Hebrew or Greek terms but is employed wherever it seems useful. It is still in good (slightly archaic) use, and the Revised Version (British and American) has few modifications (Deuteronomy 15:4 the King James Version; Psalms 188:3Ps 1:1-6b, etc.), but the English Revised Version has dropped "saving" in Luke 4:27 and Revelation 2:17 and the American Standard Revised Version also in Ecclesiastes 5:11; Amos 9:8, retaining it only in Matthew 5:32.

Savias

Savias - sa-vi'-as (Saouia): In 1 Esdras 8:2, for Uzzi, an ancestor of Ezra, in Ezra 7:4.

Saviour

Saviour - sav'-yer: (1) While that "God is the deliverer of his people" is the concept on which, virtually, the whole Old Testament is based (see SALVATION), yet the Hebrews seem never to have felt the need of a title for God that would sum up this aspect of His relation to man. Nearest to our word "Saviour" is a participial form (moshia`) from the verb yasha` (Qal not used; "save" in Hiphil), but even this participle is not frequently applied to God (some 13 times of which 7 are in Isaiah 43:1-28 through Isaiah 63:1-19). (2) In the New Testament, however, the case is different, and Soter, is used in as technical a way as is our "Saviour." But the distribution of the 24 occurrences of the word is significant, for two-thirds of them are found in the later books of the New Testament--10 in the Pastorals, 5 in 2 Peter, and one each in John, 1 John, and Jude--while the other instances are Luke 1:47; 2:11; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Ephesians 5:23; Philippians 3:20. And there are no occurrences in Matthew, Mark, or the earlier Pauline Epistles. The data are clear enough. As might be expected, the fact that the Old Testament used no technical word for Saviour meant that neither did the earliest Christianity use any such word. Doubtless for our Lord "Messiah" was felt to convey the meaning. But in Greek-speaking Christianity, "Christ," the translation of Messiah, soon became treated as a proper name, and a new word was needed. (3) Soter expressed the exact meaning and had already been set apart in the language of the day as a religious term, having become one of the most popular divine titles in use. Indeed, it was felt to be a most inappropriate word to apply to a human being. Cicero, for instance, arraigns Verres for using it: "Soter .... How much does this imply? So much that it cannot be expressed in one word in Latin" (Verr. ii.2, 63, 154). So the adoption of Soter by Christianity was most natural, the word seemed ready-made. (4) That the New Testament writers derived the word from its contemporary use is shown, besides, by its occurrence in combination with such terms as "manifestation" (epiphaneia, 2 Timothy 1:10; Titus 2:13), "love toward man" (philanthropia, Titus 3:4), "captain" (archegos, Acts 5:31; compare Hebrews 2:10), etc. These terms are found in the Greek sources many times in exactly the same combinations with Sorer. (5) In the New Testament Soter is uniformly reserved for Christ, except in Luke 1:47; Jude 1:25, and the Pastorals. In 1 Tim (1:1; 2:3; 4:10) it is applied only to the Father, in 2 Tim (1:10, only) it is applied to Christ, while in Titus there seems to be a deliberate alternation: of the Father in 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; of Christ in 1:4; 2:13; 3:6.

LITERATURE.

P. Wendland, "Soter" Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, V, 335-353, 1904; J. Weiss, "Heiland," in RGG, II, 1910; H. Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland, 1909. Much detailed information is available in various parts of Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 1910.

Burton Scott Easton

Savor

Savor - sa'-ver (reach; osme; (1) The primary meaning of the word is "taste," "flavor" (from Latin sapor, "taste"). So in Matthew 5:13; Luke 14:34, "if the salt have lost its savor" (moranthe, "become tasteless," "insipid," so as to lose its characteristic preserving virtue). (2) But generally it has the meaning of "smell," "odor": (a) once of evil odor: "Its stench shall come up, and its ill savor shall come up" (Joel 2:20); (b) elsewhere in the sense of pleasant smell. In the Old Testament, with the exception of Exodus 5:21 and the King James Version Song of Solomon 1:3 (the Revised Version (British and American) "fragrance"), it is always accompanied by the adjective "sweet." It stands for the smell of sacrifices and oblations, in agreement with the ancient anthropomorphic idea that God smells and is pleased with the fragrance of sacrifices (e.g. "Yahweh smelled the sweet savor," Genesis 8:21; "to make a sweet savor unto Yahweh," Numbers 15:3; and frequently). In the New Testament, "savor" in the sense of smell is used metaphorically: (a) once the metaphor is borrowed from the incense which attends the victor's triumphal procession; God is said to make manifest through His apostles "the savor of his knowledge in every place" as He "leadeth" them "in triumph in Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:14; see TRIUMPH. (b) Elsewhere the metaphor is borrowed from the fragrant smell of the sacrifices. The apostles "are a sweet savor of Christ unto God" (2 Corinthians 2:15), i.e. they are, as it were, a sweet odor for God to smell, an odor which is pleasing to God, even though its effect upon men varies (to some it is a "savor from death unto death," i.e. such as is emitted by death and itself causes death; to others it is "a savor from life unto life," 2 Corinthians 2:16). By the same sacrificial metaphor, Christ's offering of Himself to God is said to be "for a sweet smelling savor" (Ephesians 5:2 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "for an odor of a sweet smell"; the same phrase is used in Philippians 4:18 of acts of kindness to Paul, which were "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God"). (3) Once it is used in the figurative sense of reputation: "Ye have made our savor to be abhorred (literally, "our smell to stink") in the eyes of Pharaoh" (Exodus 5:21). Compare the English phrase, "to be in bad odor."

The verb "to savor" means: (1) intransitively, to taste or smell of, to partake of the quality of something, as in the Preface of the King James Version, "to savour more of curiosity than wisdome," or (2) transitively, to perceive by the taste or smell, to discern: "thou savourest not the things that be of God" (the King James Version Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33, the Revised Version (British and American) "mindest"; phroneis; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sapis). The adjective "savory" occurs only in Genesis 27:4, 7, 9, 14, 17, 31 ("savory food") and the Revised Version (British and American) Isaiah 30:24 (margin "salted").

D. Miall Edwards

Saw

Saw - so.

See TOOLS.

Sawing Asunder

Sawing Asunder - so'-ing a-sun'-der.

See PUNISHMENTS.

Sayest

Sayest - sa'-est: "Thou sayest" (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 22:70, "Ye say"; John 18:37), i.e. rightly; "Thou hast said" (Matthew 26:25, 64), = "Yes"; a rabbinical idiom never found in the Old Testament. Mark (Matthew 14:36) renders by "I am." All these passages WHm punctuate interrogatively (compare Kethubhoth, f. 103 b).

Sayings of Jesus

Sayings of Jesus - See LOGIA.

Sayings, Dark

Sayings, Dark - sa'-ingz.

See DARK SAYINGS.

Sayings, Faithful

Sayings, Faithful - See FAITHFUL SAYINGS.

Sayings, Unwritten

Sayings, Unwritten - un-rit'-'-n.

See AGRAPHA.

Scab, Scabbed

Scab, Scabbed - skab, skab'-ed, skabd (yallepheth, micpachath, cappachath, verb sippach; semasia, leichen): These are generic terms for any skin disease in which there are patches of hard crusts on the surface. The commonest of these are the forms now named eczema, herpes and, perhaps, psoriasis, all of which are common in Bible lands. Milder cases in which the disease was localized and in small patches (the semasia of the Septuagint) did not render the bearer unclean, and they were to be distinguished by the priest (Leviticus 13:2, 6) from the more virulent and spreading eruptions which (Leviticus 13:7) were regarded as causes of ceremonial uncleanness. These severer forms are the leichen of Septuagint mentioned in Leviticus 21:20, which disqualified any son of Aaron from serving as a priest, and when affecting an animal rendered it unfit to be offered as a burnt offering (Leviticus 22:22). Hippocrates speaks of these cases as obstinate and persistent, and Galen believed that they might degenerate into leprosy; hence, the terms in which Aeschylus speaks of it (Choephori 281). Celsus, however, recognized that leichen was a papular eruption, not a true scab. The name yallepheth seems to have been given to it on account of the firmness of attachment of the scabs, while the term micpachath refers to its tendency to spread and cover the surface. A cognate word in Ezekiel 13:18 is the name of a large Tallith or prayer veil used by the false prophetesses in Israel (translated "kerchief"). Scabs were especially disfiguring on the head, and this infliction was threatened as a punishment on the daughters of Zion for their wanton haughtiness (Isaiah 3:17). In Middle English, "scab" is used for itch or mange, and as a term of opprobrium, as in Greene, Bacon and Bungay, 35, 1591.

Alexander Macalister

Scabbard, Sheath

Scabbard, Sheath - skab'-ard, sheth.

See ARMOR,III , 5; WAR, 9.

Scaffold

Scaffold - skaf'-old (kiyyor): The English word is used once of Solomon's "brazen scaffold" on which he knelt at the dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 6:13).

Scale

Scale - skal.

See SIEGE 4, (e); WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

Scales

Scales - skalz (1) qasqeseth "fish-scales"; (2) meghinnah, maghen, "scales of the crocodile"; (3) lepis, with verb lepizo "scale away" (Tobit 3:17; 11:13)): (1) The first Hebrew word qasqeseth means the imbricated scales of fish, which together with the dorsal fin were a distinguishing mark of all fish allowed as food to the Israelite (Leviticus 11:9 ff; Deuteronomy 14:9 f). In the figurative sense the word is used of a coat of mail (1 Samuel 17:5, 38). (2) Meghinnah from maghen, literally, "a buckler" or "small shield" (2 Chronicles 23:9; Jeremiah 46:3), is used in the description of the crocodile (see LEVIATHAN) for the horny scales or scutes imbedded in the skin, not imbricated upon it (Job 41:15 (Hebrew verse 7)). (3) The Greek lepis, which in classical language has a much wider range of meaning than the above Hebrew words ("rind," "husk," "shell," "fish-scale," "scale of snake," "flake of metal and of snow," etc.), is found in the New Testament description of Paul's recovery from temporary blindness, "And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight" (Acts 9:18). There is nothing in the words of the sacred text which compels us to think of literal scales. (In Tobit, however, a literal flaking-off of foreign substance is meant.) We have here rather a description of the sensation which terminated the three days' period of blindness which the apostle suffered after his meeting with the risen Lord on the road to Damascus. The apostle himself does not use this expression in his own graphic description of the same experience: "In that very hour I looked upon him" (Acts 22:13). The phrase has, however, come into English, for we speak of "scales falling from one's eyes" when we mean a sudden illumination or remembrance or a dissipation of harassing doubt.

In Isaiah 40:12; the Revised Version (British and American) Proverbs 16:11 for peles, in the sense of "instrument for weighing."

See BALANCE.

H. L. E. Luering

Scall

Scall - skol (netheq; thrausma): This only occurs in Leviticus 13:1-59 and Leviticus 14:1-57 where it is used Leviticus 14:1-57 times to describe bald or scaly patches of eruption on the skin. Such patches are generally the result of the action of parasitic organisms. The common form known now as scalled head is produced by a microscopic plant, Achorion schoenleinii. In Old and Middle English, scall was used for scabbiness of the head (Chaucer and Spenser). See also Skeat, Concise Etymol. Dict. of English Language.

Scape-goat

Scape-goat - skap'-got.

See AZAZEL.

Scarlet

Scarlet - skar'-let.

See COLORS ;DYEING .

Scarlet (Worm)

Scarlet (Worm) - (tola`ath shani (Exodus 25:4, etc.)): Cermes vermilio, a scale insect from which a red dye is obtained.

See COLOR;DYEING ; WORM.

Scattered Abroad

Scattered Abroad - skat'-erd a-brod'.

See DISPERSION.

Scent

Scent - sent: (1) In Hosea 14:7, "The scent (margin "his memorial") thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon." "Scent" is used for zekher (so Massoretic Text, but the pointing is uncertain), properly "memorial," whence the Revised Version margin. The English translation comes through the Septuagint which took z-k-r as "offering of sweet savor," and so "sweet savor." For the "wine of Lebanon" see WINE. If this translation is not right, the alternative is "memorial" in the sense of "renown." (2) Job 14:9; Jeremiah 48:11 for reach, "odor." "Scent" of the water in Job 14:9 is poetic for "contact with." (3) Wisdom of Solomon 11:18 the King James Version has "filthy scents of scattered smoke," where "scent" is used in the obsolete sense of "disagreeable odor." The translation is, however, very loose, and "scents" is a gloss; the Revised Version (British and American) "noisome smoke."

Burton Scott Easton

Sceptre; Scepter

Sceptre; Scepter - sep'-ter (shebheT, sharbhiT, expanded form in Esther 4:11; 5:2; 8:4; rhabdos (Additions to Esther 15:11; Hebrews 1:8), skeptros): A rod or mace used by a sovereign as a symbol of royal authority. The Hebrew shebheT is the ordinary word for rod or club, and is used of an ordinary rod (compare 2 Samuel 7:14), of the shepherd's crook (Psalms 23:4), scribe's baton or marshal's staff (Judges 5:14), as well as of the symbol of royalty. Its symbolism may be connected with the use of the shebheT for protection (2 Samuel 23:21; Psalms 23:4) or for punishment (Isaiah 10:24; 30:31). It is used with reference to the royal line descended from Judah (Genesis 49:10), and figuratively of sovereignty in general and possibly of conquest (Numbers 24:17, in Israel; Isaiah 14:5, in Babylonia; Amos 1:5, 8, in Syria, among Philistines; Zechariah 10:11, in Egypt), the disappearance or cutting off of him that holdeth the scepter being tantamount to loss of national independence. The kingship of Yahweh is spoken of as a scepter (Psalms 45:6 (Hebrew verse 7) quoted in Hebrews 1:8). The manner of using the scepter by an oriental monarch is suggested in the act of Ahasuerus, who holds it out to Esther as a mark of favor. The subject touches the top of it, perhaps simply as an act of homage or possibly to indicate a desire to be heard. The scepter of Ahasuerus is spoken of as "golden" (Esther 5:2), but it is probable that scepters were ordinarily made of straight branches (maTeh) of certain kinds of vines (Ezekiel 19:11, 14).

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether the word shebheT is used in figurative passages in the sense of scepter or merely in the ordinary sense of staff (e.g. Psalms 125:3, the King James Version "rod," the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version "sceptre" (of the wicked); Psalms 2:9, "rod of iron"; Proverbs 22:8, "rod of his wrath"). Another word, mechoqeq, literally, "prescribing" (person or thing), formerly translated uniformly "lawgiver," is now generally taken, on the basis of parallelism, to mean "sceptre" in four poetic passages (Genesis 49:10, "ruler's staff" to avoid repetition; Numbers 21:18; Psalms 60:7; 108:8).

Nathan Isaacs

Sceva

Sceva - se'-va (Skeua): A Jew, a chief priest, resident in Ephesus, whose seven sons were exorcists (Acts 19:14 ff). Ewald regards the name as being Hebrew shekhabhyah. He was not an officiating priest, as there were only synagogues in Asia Minor. He may have belonged to a high-priestly family, or perhaps at one time he had been at the head of one of the 24 courses in the temple.

In the narrative the construction is loose. There were seven sons (Acts 19:14), and it would appear (Acts 19:16) that in this particular case all were present. But (Acts 19:16) the demon-possessed man over-powered "both of them." Textus Receptus of the New Testament gets over the difficulty by omitting "both," but Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Bezae, so Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, von Soden, and the best critics, retain the difficult reading. The explanation is that Acts 19:14 states the custom: "who did this" being hoi touto poiountes, "who used to do this." Acts 19:15 and Acts 16:1-40 state a particular case in which two took part, but the incident is introduced in a careless manner.

Ewald would translate amphoteron as "in both sides," but this is impossible. Baur understood "disciples" for "sons." Codex Bezae and Syriac have an interesting expansion which Blass considers original (Acts 19:14): "Among whom also the sons (Syriac `seven') of a certain Sceva, a priest, wished to do the same, (who) were in the custom of exorcising such. And entering into the demon-possessed man they began to call upon the Name, saying, `We charge you by Jesus whom Paul preaches to come out.' "

S. F. Hunter

Schism

Schism - siz'-m (schisma): Only in 1 Corinthians 12:25. The same Greek word, literally, "a split," is translated "rent" in Matthew 9:16; Mark 2:21; and "division" in John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19. It designates "a separation," not from, but within, the church, interfering with the harmonious coordination and cooperation of the members described in the preceding verses (1 Corinthians 12:18 ff). The ecclesiastical meaning is that of a break from a church organization, that may or may not be connected with a doctrinal dissent.

School

School - skool (schole).

See TYRANNUS.

Schoolmaster

Schoolmaster - skool'-mas-ter: Galatians 3:24 f the King James Version reads: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." "Schoolmaster" is a translation of paidagogos, literally, "child-leader." This paidagagos was not a teacher but a slave, to whom in wealthy families the general oversight of a boy was committed. It was his duty to accompany his charge to and from school, never to lose sight of him in public, to prevent association with objectionable companions, to inculcate moral lessons at every opportunity, etc. He was a familiar figure in the streets, and the (sour) "face of paidagogos" and "to follow one like a paidagogos" were proverbial expressions. Naturally, to the average boy the paidagogos must have represented the incorporation of everything objectionable. Hence, Paul's figure may be paraphrased: "The law was a paidagogos, necessary but irksome, to direct us until the time of Christ. Then was the time of our spiritual coming-of-age, so that the control of the paidagogos ceased." The word paidagogos was taken over into Aramaic at an early date, and Paul's language; which is hardly that of a mere adult observer, suggests that he had had personal experience with the institution. Wealthy and intensely orthodox Jewish parents living in a Gentile city may well have adopted such a precaution for the protection of their children.

No English word renders paidagogos adequately. "Schoolmaster" is quite wrong, but Revised Version's "tutor" (compare 1 Corinthians 4:15) is little better in modern English.

Burton Scott Easton

Schools of the Prophets

Schools of the Prophets - See EDUCATION;PROPHETS .

Science

Science - si'-ens: This word as found in the King James Version means simply "knowledge." "Science" occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Daniel 1:4, "children .... understanding science" (yodhe`edha`ath, "those who understand science"). The meaning of the term here is "knowledge," "wisdom." The only other occurrence of "science" is in the New Testament (1 Timothy 6:20, "avoiding .... oppositions of science falsely so called," tes pseudonumou gnoseos, "the falsely called gnosis"). "Science" is the translation of the Greek gnosis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered "knowledge." The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted. It was an incipient form of Gnosticism, and it prevailed to a considerable extent in the churches of proconsular Asia, e.g. in Colosse and Ephesus. Timothy is put on his guard against the teaching of this gnosis falsely so called, for it set itself in opposition to the gospel.

See GNOSTICISM.

"Science" in the modern sense of the word, as the discovery and orderly classification and exposition of the phenomena and of the laws of Nature, is not found either in the Old Testament or the New Testament unless the passage in Daniel be interpreted as meaning the scientific knowledge which the learned men of Babylon possessed of mathematics and astronomy, etc. See also Acts 7:22. To the Hebrew mind all natural phenomena meant the working of the hand of God in the world, directly and immediately, without the intervention of any secondary laws.

John Rutherfurd

Scimitar

Scimitar - sim'-i-tar, -ter (akindke): Formerly given as "fauchion" in the King James Version Judith 13:6; 16:9, the weapon which Judith took down from the rail of the bed at Holofernes' head, and with which she severed his head from his body.

Scoff; Scoffer

Scoff; Scoffer - skof, skof'-er: The verb indicates the manifestation of contempt by insulting words or actions; it combines bitterness with ridicule. It is much more frequent in the Revised Version (British and American) than in the King James Version, replacing "scorn" of the latter in Psalms 1:1; Proverbs 1:22, etc. "Scorn" refers rather to an inner emotion based on a sense of superiority; "scoff," to the outward expression of this emotion.

Scorn

Scorn - skorn: Fox Talbot connects this English word with the Danish skarn, "dirt," "ordure" "mud," "mire." As distinguished from such words as "mock," "deride," "scoff," all of which refer specifically to the various ways in which scorn finds outward expression, scorn itself denotes a subjective state or reaction.

Further, this state or reaction is not simple but complex. It includes a sense of superiority, resentment, and aversion. This reaction occurs when one is confronted with a person or a proposition that by challenging certain things for itself evokes a vivid sense of one's own superiority and awakens mingled resentment, repulsion and contempt by the hollowness of its claims and its intrinsic inferiority or worse. Scorn is a hotter, fiercer emotion than disdain or contempt. It is obvious that scorn may--indeed, it not uncommonly does--arise in connection with an not grounded, arrogant sense of self-esteem.

The word, outside of the phrase "laugh to scorn," is found only in the Old Testament, and then only 4 times (Esther 3:6; King James Version, Psalms 44:13; 79:4; Habakkuk 1:10), and it represents three different Hebrew words for none of which it is a suitable rendering. The two words "thought scorn" in Esther 3:6 represent but one in Hebrew, namely, bazah, for which "disdain" would be a nearer equivalent. In Habakkuk 1:10 (the King James Version) the word translated "scorn" is micchaq, "an object of laughter," "laughing-stock." In Psalms 44:13; 79:4 the Hebrew word is la`agh from a root, probably meaning "to stutter," "stammer," for which "mocking" is a better English equivalent. In the King James Version Job 34:7; Psalms 123:4, la`agh is rendered "scorning". (the rendering given in Proverbs 1:22 to latson, a word from a totally different root and one much more nearly approximating the fundamental idea of the English word "Scorn." In Proverbs 29:8 and Isaiah 28:14 latson is rendered "scornful").

As a verb the word is the translation given to la`agh, "to mock" (2 Kings 19:21 parallel Isaiah 37:22; Job 22:19; Nehemiah 2:19; Psalms 22:7, "all laugh to scorn"); qalas = "to scoff" (Ezekiel 16:31, margin "Greek: scoffeth," but text still "scorneth"); for the noun tsechoq, "laughter" (Ezekiel 23:32); sachaq = to laugh," "laugh at" (Job 39:7, 18; 2 Chronicles 30:10), with the noun sechoq, "laugh to scorn" (the Revised Version (British and American) "laughing-stock," Job 12:4); luts = "to scoff" (as used in ethical and religious connections) (Job 16:20; Proverbs 3:34; 9:12, all "scoff" in the Revised Version (British and American)); in Proverbs 19:28 the Revised Version (British and American), not happily, "mock at." the Revised Version (British and American) is warranted in substituting "scoff" for "scorn" because the context indicates some form of outward expression of the scorn.

The Revised Version (British and American) always (except Job 12:4; Sirach 6:4; 1 Maccabees 10:70) retains "laugh to scorn" (2 Kings 19:21; 2 Chronicles 30:10; Nehemiah 2:19; Job 22:19; Psalms 22:7; Isaiah 37:22; Ezekiel 16:31; 23:32; 2 Esdras 2:21; Judith 12:12; Wisdom of Solomon 4:18; Sirach 7:11; 13:7; 20:17; Matthew 9:24; Mark 5:40; Luke 8:53). The verb in Apocrypha and the New Testament is usually katagelao, but in Wisdom of Solomon 4:1 ekgelao; in Sirach 13:7 [@katamokomai; and in 2 Esdras 2:21 inrideo. In addition "scorn" is retained in Esther 3:6; Job 39:7, 18; 2 Esdras 8:56 (contemno). In Proverbs 19:28 "scorn" is changed to "mock at" but elsewhere invariably to "scoff."

Scorner is the translation of the participle of luts and once of the participle of latsats. For "scorner" the Revised Version (British and American) everywhere substitutes--properly--"scoffer." Outside of Proverbs (and Hosea 7:5) the word is to be found only in Psalms 1:2. The force of the word has been well indicated by Cheyne, who says that the "scorner (scoffer) is one who despises that which is holy and avoids the company of the noble `wise men,' but yet in his own vain way seeks for truth; his character is marked by arrogance as that of the wise is characterized by devout caution."

W. M. McPheeters

Scorpion

Scorpion - skor'-pi-un (aqrabh; compare Arabic aqrab, "scorpion"; ma`aleh `aqrabbim, "the ascent of Akrabbim"; skorpios. Note that the Greek and Hebrew may be akin; compare, omitting the vowels, `krb and skrp): In Deuteronomy 8:15, we have, "who led thee through the great and terrible wilderness, wherein were fiery serpents (nachash saraph) and scorpions (`aqrabh)." Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:11, 14; 2 Chronicles 10:11, 14) says, "My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." Ezekiel is told to prophesy to the children of Israel (2 Chronicles 2:6), and "Be not afraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions." "The ascent of Akrabbim," the north end of Wadi-ul-`Arabah, South of the Dead Sea, is mentioned as a boundary 3 times (Numbers 34:4; Joshua 15:3; Judges 1:36). Jesus says to the Seventy (Luke 10:19), "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions," and again in Luke 11:12 He says, "Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion?"

Note that we have here three doublets, the loaf and the stone, the fish and the serpent, and the egg and the scorpion, whereas in the passage in Matthew (7:9 f) we have only the loaf and stone and the fish and serpent. Encyclopedia Biblica (s.v. "Scorpion") ingeniously seeks to bring Lk into nearer agreement with Matthew by omitting from Luke the second doublet, i.e. the fish and the serpent, instancing several texts as authority for the omission, and reading opson, "fish," for oon, "egg."

In Revelation 9:2-10 there come out of the smoke of the abyss winged creatures ("locusts," akrides) like war-horses with crowns of gold, with the faces of men, hair of women, teeth of lions, breastplates of iron, and with stinging tails like scorpions. In Ecclesiasticus 26:7 it is said of an evil wife, "He that taketh hold of her is as one that graspeth a scorpion." In 1 Maccabees 6:51 we find mention of "pieces [@skorpidia, diminutive of skorpios to cast darts." In Plutarch skorpios is used in the same sense (Liddell and Scott, under the word skorpios.

In the passage cited from Deuteronomy, and probably also in the name "ascent of Akrabbim," we find references to the abundance of scorpions, especially in the warmer parts of the country. Though there is a Greek proverb, "Look for a scorpion under every stone," few would agree with the categorical statement of Tristram (NHB) that "every third stone is sure to conceal one." Nevertheless, campers and people sleeping on the ground need to exercise care in order to avoid their stings, which, though often exceedingly painful for several hours, are seldom fatal.

Scorpions are not properly insects, but belong with spiders, mites and ticks to the Arachnidae. The scorpions of Palestine are usually 2 or 3 inches long. The short cephalothorax bears a powerful pair of jaws, two long limbs terminating with pincers, which make the creature look like a small crayfish or lobster, and four pairs of legs. The rest of the body consists of the abdomen, a broad part continuous with the cephalothorax, and a slender part forming the long tail which terminates with the sting. The tail is usually carried curved over the back and is used for stinging; the prey into insensibility. Scorpions feed mostly on insects for which they lie in wait. The scorpion family is remarkable for having existed with very little change from the Silurian age to the present time.

It does not seem necessary to consider that the words of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:11, etc.) refer to a whip that was called a scorpion, but rather that as the sting of a scorpion is worse than the lash of a whip, so his treatment would be harsher than his father's.

Alfred Ely Day

Scorpions, Chastising With

Scorpions, Chastising With - skor'-pi-unz.

See PUNISHMENTS 3, (17); SCORPION.

Scourge; Scourging

Scourge; Scourging - skurj, skur'-jing (@mastix], mastigoo; in Acts 22:25 mastizo, in Mark 15:15 parallel Matthew 27:26 phragelloo): A Roman implement for severe bodily punishment. Horace calls it horribile flagellum. It consisted of a handle, to which several cords or leather thongs were affixed, which were weighted with jagged pieces of bone or metal, to make the blow more painful and effective. It is comparable, in its horrid effects, only with the Russian knout. The victim was tied to a post (Acts 22:25) and the blows were applied to the back and loins, sometimes even, in the wanton cruelty of the executioner, to the face and the bowels. In the tense position of the body, the effect can easily be imagined. So hideous was the punishment that the victim usually fainted and not rarely died under it. Eusebius draws a horribly realistic picture of the torture of scourging (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, 15). By its application secrets and confessions were wrung from the victim (Acts 22:24). It usually preceded capital punishment (Livy xxxiii.36). It was illegal to apply the flagallum to a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25), since the Porcian and Sempronian laws, 248 and 123 BC, although these laws were not rarely broken in the provinces (Tac. Hist. iv.27; Cic. Verr. v.6, 62; Josephus, BJ, II, xiv, 9). As among the Russians today, the number of blows was not usually fixed, the severity of the punishment depending entirely on the commanding officer. In the punishment of Jesus, we are reminded of the words of Psalms 129:3. Among the Jews the punishment of flagellation was well known since the Egyptian days, as the monuments abundantly testify. The word "scourge" is used in Leviticus 19:20, but the American Standard Revised Version translates "punished," the original word biqqoreth expressing the idea of investigation. Deuteronomy 25:3 fixed the mode of a Jewish flogging and limits the number of blows to 40. Apparently the flogging was administered by a rod. The Syrians reintroduced true scourging into Jewish life, when Antiochus Epiphanes forced them by means of it to eat swine's flesh (2 Maccabees 6:30; 7:1). Later it was legalized by Jewish law and became customary (Matthew 10:17; 23:34; Acts 22:19; 26:11), but the traditional limitation of the number of blows was still preserved. Says Paul in his "foolish boasting": "in stripes above measure," "of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one," distinguishing it from the "beatings with rods," thrice repeated (2 Corinthians 11:23-25).

The other Old Testament references (Job 5:21; 9:23; Isaiah 10:26; 15, 18 shot; Joshua 23:13 shotet) are figurative for "affliction." Notice the curious mixture of metaphors in the phrase "over-flowing scourge" (Isaiah 28:15-18).

Henry E. Dosker

Scrabble

Scrabble - skrab'-l: Occurs only in 1 Samuel 21:13, as the translation of tawah: "David .... feigned himself mad and scrabbled on the doors of the gate." "To scrabble" (modern English "scrawl") is here to make unmeaning marks; tawah means "to make a mark" from taw, "a mark," especially as a cross (Ezekiel 9:4), a signature (Job 31:35, see the Revised Version (British and American)), the name of the Hebrew letter taw ("t") originally made in the form of a cross; the Revised Version margin has "made marks"; but Septuagint has tumpanizo, "to beat as a drum," which the Vulgate, Ewald, Driver and others follow ("beat upon" or "drummed on the doors of the city," which seems more probable).

Screech Owl

Screech Owl - skrech.

See NIGHT-MONSTER.

Scribes

Scribes - skribz: The existence of law leads necessarily to a profession whose business is the study and knowledge of the law; at any rate, if the law is extensive and complicated. At the time of Ezra and probably for some time after, this was chiefly the business of the priests. Ezra was both priest and scholar (copher). It was chiefly in the interest of the priestly cult that the most important part of the Pentateuch was written. The priests were therefore also in the first instance the scholars and the guardians of the Law; but in the course of time this was changed. The more highly esteemed the Law became in the eyes of the people, the more its study and interpretation became a lifework by itself, and thus there developed a class of scholars who, though not priests, devoted themselves assiduously to the Law. These became known as the scribes, that is, the professional students of the Law. During the Hellenistic period, the priests, especially those of the upper class, became tainted with the Hellenism of the age and frequently turned their attention to paganistic culture, thus neglecting the Law of their fathers more or less and arousing the scribes to opposition. Thus, the scribes and not the priests were now the zealous defenders of the Law, and hence, were the true teachers of the people. At the time of Christ, this distinction was complete. The scribes formed a solid profession which held undisputed sway over the thought of the people. In the New Testament they are usually called (grammateis), i.e. "students of the Scriptures," "scholars," corresponding to the Hebrew (copherim) = homines literati, those who make a profession of literary studies, which, in this case, of course, meant chiefly the Law. Besides this general designation, we also find the specific word (nomikoi), i.e. "students of the Law," "lawyers" (Matthew 22:35; Luke 7:30; 10:25; 45, 52; 14:3); and in so far as they not only know the Law but also teach it they are called (nomodidaskaloi), "doctors of the Law" (Luke 5:17; Acts 5:34).

The extraordinary honors bestowed on these scholars on the part of the people are expressed in their honorary titles. Most common was the appellative "rabbi" = "my lord" (Matthew 23:7 and otherwise). This word of polite address gradually became a title. The word "rabboni" (Mark 10:51; John 20:16) is an extensive form, and was employed by the disciples to give expression to their veneration of Christ. In the Greek New Testament "rabbi" is translated as (kurie) (Matthew 8:2, 6, 8, 21, 25 and otherwise), or (didaskale) (Matthew 8:19 and otherwise), in Luke by (epistata) (Luke 5:5; 24, 45; 33, 19; 17:13). Besides these, we find (pater), "father," and (kathegetes), "teacher" (Matthew 23:9 f).

From their students the rabbis demanded honors even surpassing those bestowed on parents. "Let the honor of thy friend border on the honor of thy teacher, and the honor of thy teacher on the fear of God" ('Abhoth 4 12). "The honor of thy teacher must surpass the honor bestowed on thy father; for son and father are both in duty bound to honor the teacher" (Kerithoth 6 9). Everywhere the rabbis demanded the position of first rank (Matthew 23:6 f; Mark 12:38 f; Luke 11:43; 20:46). Their dress equaled that of the nobility. They wore (stolai), "tunics," and these were the mark of the upper class.

Since the scribes were lawyers (see LAWYER), much of their time was occupied in teaching and in judicial functions, and both these activities must be pursued gratuitously. Rabbi Zadok said: "Make the knowledge of the Law neither a crown in which to glory nor a spade with which to dig." Hillel used to say: "He who employs the crown (of the Law) for external purposes shall dwindle." That the judge should not receive presents or bribes was written in the Law (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19); hence, the Mishna said: "If anyone accept pay for rendering judgment, his judgment is null and void." The rabbis were therefore obliged to make their living by other means. Some undoubtedly had inherited wealth; others pursued a handicraft besides their study of the Law. Rabbi Gamaliel II emphatically advised the pursuit of a business in addition to the pursuit of the Law. It is well known that the apostle Paul kept up his handicraft even after he had become a preacher of the gospel (Acts 18:3; 20:34; 1 Corinthians 4:12; 9:6; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8), and the same is reported of many rabbis. But in every instance the pursuit of the Law is represented as the worthier, and warning is given not to overestimate the value of the ordinary avocation. It was a saying of Hillel: "He that devotes himself to trade will not become wise." The principle of gratuity was probably carried out in practice only in connection with the judicial activity of the scribes; hardly in connection with their work as teachers. Even the Gospels, in spite of the admonition that the disciples should give without pay because they had received without pay (Matthew 10:8), nevertheless also state that the workman is worthy of his hire (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7); and Paul (1 Corinthians 9:14) states it as his just due that he receive his livelihood from those to whom he preaches the gospel, even though he makes use of this right only in exceptional cases (1 Corinthians 9:3-18; 2 Corinthians 11:8-9; Galatians 6:6; Philippians 4:10, 18). Since this appears to have been the thought of the times, we are undoubtedly justified in assuming that the Jewish teachers of the Law also demanded pay for their services. Indeed, the admonitions above referred to, not to make instruction in the Law the object of self-interest, lead to the conclusion that gratuity was not the rule; and in Christ's philippics against the scribes and Pharisees He makes special mention of their greed (Mark 12:40; Luke 16:14; 20:47). Hence, even though they ostensibly gave instruction in the Law gratuitously, they must have practiced methods by which they indirectly secured their fees.

Naturally the place of chief influence for the scribes up to the year 70 AD was Judea. But not only there were they to be found. Wherever the zeal for the law of the fathers was a perceptible force, they were indispensable; hence, we find them also in Galilee (Luke 5:17) and in the Diaspora. In the Jewish epitaphs in Rome, dating from the latter days of the empire, grammateis are frequently mentioned; and the Babylonian scribes of the 5th and 6th centuries were the authors of the most monumental work of rabbinical Judaism--the Talmud.

Since the separation of the Pharisaic and the Sadducean tendencies in Judaism, the scribes generally belonged to the Pharisaic class; for this latter is none other than the party which recognized the interpretations or "traditions" which the scribes in the course of time had developed out of the body of the written Law and enforced upon the people as the binding rule of life. Since, however, "scribes" are merely "students of the Law," there must also have been scribes of the Sadducee type; for it is not to be imagined that this party, which recognized only the written Law as binding, should not have had some opposing students in the other class. Indeed, various passages of the New Testament which speak of the "scribes of the Pharisees" (Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Acts 23:9) indicate that there were also "scribes of the Sadducees."

Under the reign and leadership of the scribes, it became the ambition of every Israelite to know more or less of the Law. The aim of education in family, school and synagogue was to make the entire people a people of the Law. Even the common laborer should know what was written in the Law; and not only know it, but also do it. His entire life should be governed according to the norm of the Law, and, on the whole, this purpose was realized in a high degree. Josephus avers: "Even though we be robbed of our riches and our cities and our other goods, the Law remains our possession forever. And no Jew can be so far removed from the and of his fathers nor will he fear a hostile commander to such a degree that he would not fear his Law more than his commander." So loyal were the majority of the Jews toward their Law that they would gladly endure the tortures of the rack and even death for it. This frame of mind was due almost wholly to the systematic and persistent instruction of the scribes.

The motive underlying this enthusiasm for the Law was the belief in divine retribution in the strictest judicial sense. The prophetic idea of a covenant which God had made with His select people was interpreted purely in the judicial sense. The covenant was a contract through which both parties were mutually bound. The people are bound to observe the divine Law literally and conscientiously; and, in return for this, God is in duty bound to render the promised reward in proportion to the services rendered. This applies to the people as a whole as well as to the individual. Services and reward must always stand in mutual relation to each other. He who renders great services may expect from the justice of God that he will receive great returns as his portion, while, on the other hand, every transgression also must be followed by its corresponding punishment.

The results corresponded to the motives. Just as the motives in the main were superficial, so the results were an exceedingly shallow view of religious and moral life. Religion was reduced to legal formalism. All religious and moral life was dragged down to the level of law, and this must necessarily lead to the following results: (1) The individual is governed by a norm, the application of which could have only evil results when applied in this realm. Law has the purpose of regulating the relations of men to each other according to certain standards. Its object is not the individual, but only the body of society. In the law, the individual must find the proper rule for his conduct toward society as an organism. This is a matter of obligation and of government on the part of society. But religion is not a matter of government; where it is found, it is a matter of freedom, of choice, and of conduct. (2) By reducing the practice of religion to the form of law, all acts are placed on a paragraph with each other. The motives are no longer taken into consideration, but only the deed itself. (3) From this it follows that the highest ethical attainment was the formal satisfaction of the Law, which naturally led to finical literalism. (4) Finally, moral life must, under such circumstances, lose its unity and be split up into manifold precepts and duties. Law always affords opportunity for casuistry, and it was the development of this in the guidance of the Jewish religious life through the "precepts of the elders" which called forth Christ's repeated denunciation of the work of the scribes.

Frank E. Hirsch

Scrip

Scrip - skrip: A word connected with "scrap," and meaning a "bag," either as made from a "scrap" (of skin) or as holding "scraps" (of food, etc.). the King James Version has "scrip" in 1 Samuel 17:40 and 6 times in New Testament; the English Revised Version has "wallet" in the New Testament, but retains "script" in 1 Samuel 17:40; the American Standard Revised Version has "wallet" throughout.

See BAG.

Scripture

Scripture - skrip'-tur (he graphe, plural hai graphai): The word means "writing." In the Old Testament it occurs in the King James Version only once, "the scripture of truth," in Daniel 10:21, where it is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American), "the writing of truth." The reference is not to Holy Scripture, but to the book in which are inscribed God's purposes. In the New Testament, "scripture" and "scriptures" stand regularly for the Old Testament sacred books regarded as "inspired" (2 Timothy 3:16), "the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). Compare on this usage Matthew 21:42; 22:29; Mark 12:10; Luke 4:21; 27, 32, 45; John 5:39; 10:35; Acts 8:32; 2, 11; Romans 15:4; 16:26, etc.; in Romans 1:2, "holy scriptures." See BIBLE. The expression "holy scriptures" in 2 Timothy 3:15 the King James Version represents different words (hiera grammata) and is properly rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "sacred writings." In 2 Peter 3:16, the term "scriptures" is extended to the Eppistle of Paul. In James 4:5, the words occur: "Think ye that the scripture speaketh in vain? Doth the spirit which he made to dwell in us long unto envying?" The passage is probably rather a summary of Scripture teaching than intended as a direct quotation. Others (e.g. Westcott) think the word is used in a wide sense of a Christian hymn.

James Orr

Scriptures, Search The

Scriptures, Search The - skrip'-turz.

See SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES.

Scroll

Scroll - skrol.

See ROLL.

Scum

Scum - skum (chel'ah; Septuagint ios, "poison" or "verdigris"; compare Plato Rep. 609a): The word is only found in Ezekiel 24:6, 11-12, where the Revised Version (British and American) translates it "rust." The fact, however, that the caldron is of brass and therefore not liable to rust, and the astonishment expressed that the fire did not remove it (Ezekiel 24:12), would seem to point to the preferability of the translation "scum," the residue of dirt adhering to the caldron from previous use.

Scurvy

Scurvy - skur'-vi (garabh); psora agria (Leviticus 21:20; 22:22)): This word is used to denote an itchy, scaly disease of the scalp, probably any of the parasitic diseases which are known as tinea, porrigo or impetigo. These cases have no relation whatever to the disease now known as scorbutus or scurvy. The name was probably derived from its scaliness, and the old Greek physicians believed these diseases to be peculiarly intractable.

The name "Gareb" is used in Jeremiah 31:39 as the placename of a hill at or near the southeastern corner of Jerusalem, probably from the bare roughness of the surface of its slope at the southern end of the Wady er-Rababi. Another hill of this name is mentioned near Shiloh in the Talmud, and the name is given to one of David's warriors (2 Samuel 23:38).

Scurvy etymologically means any condition of scaliness of skin which can be scraped off, such as dandruff.

Alexander Macalister

Scythians

Scythians - sith'-i-anz (hoi Skuthai): The word does not occur in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, but Septuagint of Judges 1:27 inserts (Skuthon polis (Scythopolis), in explanation, as being the same as Beth-shean. The same occurs in Apocrypha (Judith 3:10; 1 Maccabees 12:29), and the Scythians as a people in 2 Maccabees 4:47, and the adjective in 3 Maccabees 7:5. The people are also mentioned in the New Testament (Colossians 3:11), where, as in Maccabees, the fact that they were barbarians is implied. This is clearly set forth in classical writers, and the description of them given by Herodotus in book iv of his history represents a race of savages, inhabiting a region of rather indefinite boundaries, north of the Black and Caspian seas and the Caucasus Mountains. They were nomads who neither plowed nor sowed (iv.19), moving about in wagons and carrying their dwellings with them (ibid. 46); they had the most filthy habits and never washed in water (ibid. 75); they drank the blood of the first enemy killed in battle, and made napkins of the scalps and drinking bowls of the skulls of the slain (ibid. 64-65). Their deities were many of them identified with those of the Greeks, but the most characteristic rite was the worship of the naked sword (ibid. 62), and they sacrificed every hundredth man taken in war to this deity. War was their chief business, and they were a terrible scourge to the nations of Western Asia. They broke through the barrier of the Caucasus in 632 BC and swept down like a swarm of locusts upon Media and Assyria, turning the fruitful fields into a desert; pushing across Mesopotamia, they ravaged Syria and were about to invade Egypt when Psammitichus I, who was besieging Ashdod, bought them off by rich gifts, but they remained in Western Asia for 28 years, according to Herodotus. It is supposed that a company of them settled in Beth-shean, and from this circumstance it received the name Scythopolis. Various branches of the race appeared at different times, among the most noted of which were the PARTHIANS (which see).

H. Porter

Scythopolis

Scythopolis - si-thop'-o-lis, si-thop'-o-lis.

See BETH-SHEAN.

Sea

Sea - se (yam; thalassa; in Acts 27:5 pelagos): The Mediterranean is called ha-yam ha-gadhol, "the great sea" (Numbers 34:6; Joshua 1:4; Ezekiel 47:10, etc.); ha-yam ha-'acharon, "the hinder," or "western sea" (Deuteronomy 11:24; 34:2; Joel 2:20; Zechariah 14:8); yam pelishtim, "the sea of the Philis" (Exodus 23:31); the King James Version translates yam yapho' in Ezra 3:7 by "sea of Joppa," perhaps rightly.

The Dead Sea is called yam ha-melach, "the Salt Sea" (Numbers 34:3; Deuteronomy 3:17; Joshua 3:16, etc.); ha-yam ha-qadhmoni, "the east sea" (Ezekiel 47:18; Joel 2:20; Zechariah 14:8); yam ha-`arabhah,"the sea of the Arabah" (Deuteronomy 3:17; Joshua 3:16; 12:3; 2 Kings 14:25).

The Red Sea is called yam cuph, literally, "sea of weeds" (Exodus 10:19; Numbers 14:25; Deuteronomy 1:1; Joshua 2:10; Judges 11:16; 1 Kings 9:26; Nehemiah 9:9; Psalms 106:7; Jeremiah 49:21, etc.); (eruthra thalassa), literally, "red sea" (Wisdom of Solomon 19:7; Acts 7:36; Hebrews 11:29); yam mitsrayim, "the Egyptian sea" (Isaiah 11:15).

Yam is used of the Nile in Nahum 3:8 and probably also in Isaiah 19:5, as in modern Arabic bachr, "sea," is used of the Nile and its affluents. Yam is often used for "west" or "westward," as "look from the place where thou art, .... westward" (Genesis 13:14); "western border" (Numbers 34:6). Yam is used for "sea" in general (Exodus 20:11); also for "molten sea" of the temple (1 Kings 7:23).

The Sea of Galilee is called kinnereth, "Chinnereth" (Numbers 34:11); kinaroth, "Chinneroth" (Joshua 11:2); kinneroth, "Chinneroth" (1 Kings 15:20); yam kinnereth, "the sea of Chinnereth" (Numbers 34:11; Joshua 13:27); yam kinneroth, "the sea of Chinneroth (Joshua 12:3); (he limne Gennesaret), "the lake of Gennesaret" (Luke 5:1); and (to hudor Gennesar), "the water of Gennesar" (1 Maccabees 11:67), from late Hebrew ginecar, or (genecar; he thalassa tes Galilaias), "the sea of Galilee" (Matthew 4:18; 15:29; Mark 1:16; 7:31; John 6:1); (he thalassa tes Tiberiados), "the sea of Tiberias" (John 21:1; compare John 6:1).

In Jeremiah 48:32 we have yam ya`zer, "the sea of Jazer." Jazer is a site East of the Jordan, not satisfactorily identified (Numbers 21:32; 1, 3, 15; Joshua 13:25; 21:39; 2 Samuel 24:5; 1 Chronicles 6:81; 26:31; Isaiah 16:8-9).

See SEA OF JAZER.

In midhbar yam, "the wilderness of the sea" (Isaiah 21:1), there may perhaps be a reference to the Persian Gulf.

Alfred Ely Day