exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/7600.html

114 lines
342 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[7601]='Salt, Pillar of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOT">LOT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SALT">SALT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIDDIM">SIDDIM</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SLIME">SLIME</a>`1';
isbe[7602]='Salt, Valley of`(ge\' ha-melach): The scene of battles, firstly, between David or his lieutenant Abishai and the Edomites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,13);">2Sa 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,12);">1Ch 18:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',60,1);">Ps 60, title</a>), and later between Amaziah and these same foes (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,7);">2Ki 14:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,11);">2Ch 25:11</a>). It is tempting to connect this "Valley of Salt" with es Sebkhah, the marshy, salt-impregnated plain which extends from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the foot of the cliffs, but in its present condition it is an almost impossible place for a battle of any sort. The ground is so soft and spongy that a wide detour around the edges has to be made by those wishing to get from one side to the other. It is, too, highly probable that in earlier times the whole of this low-lying area was covered by the waters of the Dead Sea. It is far more natural to identify ge\' ha-melach with the Wady el-Milch ("Valley of Salt"), one of the three valleys which unite at Beersheba to form the Wady ec-Ceba\'. These valleys, el-Milch and ec-Ceba, together make a natural frontier to Canaan.``117';
isbe[7603]='Salt-Wort`solt\'-wurt (malluach, a word connected with melach, "salt," translated halimos; the King James Version, mallows): The halimos of the Greeks is the sea orache, Atriplex halimus, a silvery whitish shrub which flourishes upon the shores of the Dead Sea alongside the rutm (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUNIPER">JUNIPER</a>). Its leaves are oval and somewhat like those of an olive. They have a sour flavor and would never be eaten when better food was obtainable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',30,4);">Job 30:4</a>). The translation "mallows" is due to the apparent similarity of the Hebrew malluach to the Greek malache, which is the Latin malva and English "mallow." Certain species of malva known in Arabic, as khubbazeh, are very commonly eaten by the poor of Palestine.``117';
isbe[7604]='Salu`sa\'-lu (calu\'; Septuagint: Codex Vaticanus Salmon; Codex Alexandrinus Salo; the King James Version has "Salom" in 1Macc 2:26): A prince and the head of a house of the tribe of Simeon and the father of Zimri who was slain by Phinehas along with the Midianite woman whom he had brought to the camp of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,14);">Nu 25:14</a>; 1Macc 2:26).``1';
isbe[7605]='Salum`sa\'-lum (Saloum):<P>(1) The head of one of the families of porters (1Esdras 5:28; omitted in Codex Vaticanus) = "Shallum" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,42);">Ezr 2:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,24);">10:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,45);">Ne 7:45</a> = "Sallumus" in 1Esdras 9:25.<P>(2) 1Esdras 8:1 King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Salem."``1';
isbe[7606]='Salutation`sal-u-ta\'-shun (aspasmos): A greeting which might be given in person, orally (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,29,41,44);">Lu 1:29,41,44</a>), or in writing, usually at the close of a letter (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',16,21);">1Co 16:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,18);">Col 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,17);">2Th 3:17</a>; compare use of chairein, "greeting," "joy" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,1);">Jas 1:1</a>). The Pharisaic Jews loved salutations in public places (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,7);">Mt 23:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,38);">Mr 12:38</a>, the King James Version "greeting," the Revised Version (British and American) "salutation"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,43);">Lu 11:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,46);">20:46</a>). Often these salutations were very elaborate, involving much time in prostrations, embracings, etc. When Jesus therefore sent out the Seventy, He forbade salutation by the way (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,4);">Lu 10:4</a>), though He ordinarily encouraged proper civilities of this sort (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,47);">Mt 5:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,12);">10:12</a>).``137';
isbe[7607]='Salvation`sal-va\'-shun:<P><b>I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. General<P class="in15">2. Individualism<P class="in15">3. Faith<P class="in15">4. Moral Law<P class="in15">5. Sacrifices<P class="in15">6. Ritual Law<P><b>II. INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE</b><P class="in15">1. General<P class="in15">2. The Law<P><b>III. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST</b><P class="in15">1. The Baptist<P class="in15">2. Kingdom of God<P class="in15">3. Present and Future<P class="in15">4. Individualism<P class="in15">5. Moral Progress<P class="in15">6. Forgiveness<P class="in15">7. Person of Christ<P class="in15">8. Notes<P><b>IV. PAUL</b><P class="in15">1. General<P class="in15">2. Moral Progress<P class="in15">3. The Spirit<P class="in15">4. Mystical Union<P class="in15">5. Forgiveness<P class="in15">6. Atonement<P class="in15">7. Summary<P class="in15">8. Notes<P><b>V. THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: SUMMARY</b><P class="in15">1. John<P class="in15">2. Hebrews<P class="in15">3. Peter<P class="in15">4. Summary<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>In English Versions of the Bible the words "salvation" "save," are not technical theological terms, but denote simply "deliverance," in almost any sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however, "salvation" denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all that would prevent his attaining to the highest good that God has prepared for him. Or, by a transferred sense, "salvation" denotes the actual enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often associated with the Greek or Hebrew words translated "save," etc., yet they are still more often used in connection with other words or represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of the original terms for "save," etc., is of value only for the student doing minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to present a general view of the Biblical doctrine of salvation.<P>I. In the Old Testament<P>1. General:<P>(1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life from the next, the Israelite thought of his highest good as long life in a prosperous Palestine, as described most typically in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-14\');">De 28:1-14</a>. But a definite religious idea was present also, for the "land of milk and honey," even under angelic protection, was worthless without access to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'1-4\');">Ex 33:1-4</a>), to know whom gives happiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,9);">Isa 11:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,14);">Hab 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,34);">Jer 31:34</a>). Such a concept is normal for most of the Old Testament, but there are several significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive God\'s characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,26);">Isa 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,3,4);">4:3,4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',32,\'1-8\');">32:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,24);">33:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,33,34);">Jer 31:33,34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25,26);">Eze 36:25,26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,\'1-\');">Zec 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',9,24);">Da 9:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,\'10-12\');">Ps 51:10-12</a>). Good was found in the extension of Israel\'s good to the surrounding nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,\'1-4\');">Mic 4:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'2-4\');">Isa 2:2-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,5,6);">45:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',2,11);">Zec 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,22,23);">8:22,23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,\'1-\');">Isa 60</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,\'19-21\');">66:19-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,16,17);">Zec 14:16,17</a>, etc.), even to the extension of the legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,\'19-22\');">Isa 19:19-22</a>). Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of God\'s gifts, and a new heaven and a new earth were to be received (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,17);">Isa 65:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,22);">66:22</a>), and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,19);">Isa 26:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',12,2);">Da 12:2</a>). And, among the people so glorified, God would dwell in person (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,19,20);">Isa 60:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',2,\'10-12\');">Zec 2:10-12</a>).<P>(2) Salvation, then, means deliverance from all that interferes with the enjoyment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms<6D>deliverance from natural plagues, from internal dissensions, from external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile, particularly). As far as enemies constitute the threatening danger, the prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',101,\'1-\');">Ps 101</a>, etc.). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word "death," which was thought to terminate all relation to God and all possibility of enjoying His blessings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,17);">Ps 115:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,18);">Isa 38:18</a>, etc.). And so "death" became established as the antinomy to "salvation," and in this sense the word has persisted, although the equation "loss of salvation = physical death" has long been transcended. But death and its attendant evils are worked by God\'s wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,26);">Jos 7:26</a>, etc.). And thus, naturally, salvation is from everything that raises that wrath, above all from sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25,26);">Eze 36:25,26</a>, etc.).<P>2. Individualism:<P>(1) At first the "unit of salvation" was the nation (less prominently the family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through the faults of others. A father could bring a curse on his children (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,\'1-14\');">2Sa 21:1-14</a>), a king on his subjects (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,1);">2Sa 24</a>), or an unknown sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,\'1-9\');">De 21:1-9</a>). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,32);">Ge 18:32</a>).) And the principle of personal responsibility was grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,16);">De 24:16</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,29,30);">Jer 31:29,30</a>), definitely in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',14,\'12-20\');">Eze 14:12-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'1-\');">18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',33,\'1-20\');">33:1-20</a>, and fairly consistently in the Psalms. But even Ezekiel still held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,16);">8:16</A>), and he had not the premises for resolving the problem<65>that temporal disasters need not mean the loss of salvation.<P>(2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his own fault, the converse did not follow. Salvation came, not by the man\'s mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly chosen by God. God had made a covenant with Israel and His fidelity insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say, <span class="noTag">Amos 3:2 to Matthew 3:9</span>). And yet even the prophets admit a real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israel\'s sins, eventual salvation is certain. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,\'1-\');">Ezekiel 20</a> states this baldly: there has been nothing good in Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophet\'s own day, but, notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,17,18);">Isa 8:17,18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,\'6-15\');">Jer 32:6-15</a>, etc.).<P>3. Faith:<P>Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted trust in God is the most important. (Belief in God is, of course, never argued in the Bible.) Inconsistent with such trust are, for instance, seeking aid from other nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,\'1-5\');">Isa 30:1-5</a>), putting reliance in human skill (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',16,12);">2Ch 16:12</a>), or forsaking Palestine through fear (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',42,\'1-\');">Jer 42</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,20);">Isa 26:20</a> entire passivity is demanded, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,19);">2Ki 13:19</a> lukewarmness in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked.<P>4. Moral Law:<P>(1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed normally in the various codes of the Law. But fulfillment of the letter of the commandment was by no means all that was required. For instance, the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,12);">De 15:12</a>), but the reckless use of the creditor\'s right is sharply condemned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',5,\'1-13\');">Ne 5:1-13</a>). The prophets are never weary of giving short formulas that will exclude such supralegalism and reduce conduct to a pure motive: "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,15);">Am 5:15</a>); "To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>). And the chief emphasis on the Law as written is found in the later books, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,\'1-\');">Ps 119</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,20);">Ps 147:20</a>).<P>(2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon, but were visited with death at once, even despite repentance and confession (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,\'1-\');">Jos 7</a>). But for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of the sin if the sin be forsaken (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'1-\');">Eze 18</a>) or, in the case of a sin that would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,\'1-\');">2Sa 12</a>). Suffering played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the conscience, the exile being the most important example (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,31);">Eze 36:31</a>). But almost always it is assumed that the possibility of keeping the Law is in man\'s own power, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,\'11-14\');">De 30:11-14</a> stating this explicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning. Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need of God\'s help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws on the heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,\'31-34\');">Jer 31:31-34</a>). So an outlook was opened to a future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in 1, above).<P>5. Sacrifices:<P>(1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating past sins was an act of God\'s mercy. And so His mercy instituted other and additional means of expiation, most notably that of the sacrifices. But a theology of sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole Old Testament, for <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,11);">Le 17:11</a> is too incidental and too obscure to be any exception. The Christian (or very late Jewish) interpretations of the ritual laws lack all solidity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of entering into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely because God had commanded the sacrifices.<P>(2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance, although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had been made. It is not quite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were appointed, for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,1);">Le 5:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,\'1-3\');">6:1-3</a>, sins are included that could not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,30,31);">Nu 15:30,31</a> must not be construed too rigorously.<P>(3) Sacrifices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezekiel, while at the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah) and the depression that followed (Malachi), they were much in the foreground, but the pre-exilic prophets have little to say about their positive value (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,22);">Jer 7:22</a> is the nadir). Indeed, in preexilic times the danger was the exaltation of sacrifice at the expense of morality, especially with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,\'21-24\');">Am 5:21-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,13);">Isa 22:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,14);">Pr 7:14</a>). Attempts were made to "strengthen" the sacrifices to Yahweh by the use of ethnic rites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,14);">Ho 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,\'1-5\');">Isa 65:1-5</a>), even with the extreme of human sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,31);">Jer 7:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,26);">Eze 20:26</a>). But insistence on the strict centralization of worship and increasing emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst of the abuses. And many of the Psalms, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',66,\'1-\');">Ps 66</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',118,\'1-\');">Ps 118</a>, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by the sacrificial rites.<P>6. Ritual Law:<P>Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legislation, but is not prominent in the prophets. Requisite to salvation was the abstention from certain acts, articles of food, etc., such abstinence seeming to lie at the background of the term "holiness." But a ritual breach was often a matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc.), and, for such breaches, ritual means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Ezekiel, with his anxious zeal against the least defilement. The highest ritual point is touched by <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,20,21);">Zec 14:20,21</a>, where all of Jerusalem is so holy that not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,\'38-40\');">Jer 31:38-40</a>). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more "positive" view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first.<P>II. Intermediate Literature.<P>1. General:<P>(1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea of God had become more transcendent. But this did not necessarily mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an intellectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying of the religious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well represented in Ecclesiastes, more acutely in Sirach, and in New Testament times it dominated the thought of the Sadducees. On the other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with the higher conception of God broke through the limitations of this life and created the new literary form of apocalyptics, represented in the Old Testament especially by <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,\'1-\');">Zechariah 9-14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,\'1-\');">Isaiah 24-27</a>, and above all by Daniel. And in the intermediate literature all shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the Old Testament. Almost anything that can be found in the Old Testament<6E>with the important exception of the note of joyousness of Deuteronomy, etc.<2E>can be found again here.<P>(2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the Epicureanism of Sirach. The highest is probably that of 2Esdras 7:91-98 Revised Version: "To behold the face of him whom in their lifetime they served" the last touch of materialism being eliminated. Indeed, real materialism is notably absent in the period, even Enoch 10:17-19 being less exuberant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias. Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,9);">Mt 3:9</a>. The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of course pervades all the literature, Sibylline Oracles 5 and Jubilees being the most exclusive books and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is sometimes found the still less edifying feature of party privilege (Ps Sol; Enoch 94-105), the most offensive case being the assertion of Enoch 90:6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of the "little lamb" Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the Messianic kingdom.<P>2. The Law:<P>(1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach a very high level, especially in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (making every allowance for Christian interpolations). "The spirit of love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the salvation of men" (Test. Gad 4:7) is hardly unworthy of Paul, and even Jubilees can say, "Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let none wish the other evil" (Jub 36:8). But the great tendency is to view God\'s law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands except those gained from a rigid construing of the letter. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,29);">Lu 10:29</a>, "Who is my neighbor?" is a real question<6F>if he is not my neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally commanded were settled by utilitarian motives, as outside the domain of religion, and the unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its appearance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,10);">Lu 17:10</a>). The writer of Wisdom can feel smugly assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (Wisd 15:4; contrast Paul\'s polemic in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,\'1-\');">Ro 2</a>). And discussions about "greatest commandments" caused character in its relation to religion to be forgotten.<P>(2) As God\'s commands were viewed as statutes the distinction between the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained enormous and familiar proportions. The beautiful story of Judith is designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the most extreme case is in Jubilees 6:34-38<33>all of Israel\'s woes come from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct (theoretical) moon (!).<P>(3) Where self-complacency ceased and a strong moral sense was present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency. The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (So of Three Children verses 3-22; Pr Man; Bar 3:1-8, etc.). "What profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?" (2Esdras 7:119 the Revised Version (British and American)). The vast majority of men are lost (2Esdras 9:16) and must be forgotten (2Esdras 8:55), and Ezra can trust for his own salvation only by a special revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,77);">7:77</A> the Revised Version (British and American)). So, evidently, Paul\'s pre-Christian experience was no unique occurrence.<P>(4) Important for the New Testament background is the extreme lack of prominence of the sacrifices. They are never given a theological interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices). Indeed, in Sirach 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past and "because of the commandment" (Sirach 35:5; yet compare <span class="noTag">38:11</span>). When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition as Jews.<P>III. The Teaching of Christ.<P>1. The Baptist:<P>The Baptist proclaimed authoritatively the near advent of the kingdom of God, preceded by a Messianic judgment that would bring fire for the wicked and the Holy Spirit for the righteous. Simple but incisive moral teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judgment securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the Baptist conceived his teaching to lead.<P>2. Kingdom of God:<P>It was in the full heat of this eschatological revival that the Baptist had fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began with the eschatological phrase, "The kingdom of God is at hand." Consequently, His teaching must have been taken at once in an eschatological sense, and it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. "The kingdom of God is at hand" had the inseparable connotation "Judgment is at hand," and in this context, "Repent ye" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,15);">Mr 1:15</a>) must mean "lest ye be judged." Hence, our Lord\'s teaching about salvation had primarily a future content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively, deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the "highest good" of Christ\'s teaching but, with His usual reserve, He has little to say about its externals. Man\'s nature is to be perfectly adapted to his spiritual environment (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RESURRECTION">RESURRECTION</a>), and man is to be with Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,30);">Lu 22:30</a>) and the patriarchs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11);">Mt 8:11</a>). But otherwise<73>and again as usual<61>the current descriptions are used without comment, even when they rest on rather materialistic imagery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,16,30);">Lu 22:16,30</a>). Whatever the kingdom is, however, its meaning is most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of material things.<P>3. Present and Future:<P>But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment, so that the practical problem is salvation from the conditions that will bring judgment; i.e. present and future salvation are inseparably connected, and any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in logomachies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the kingdom of God as present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already on this earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,11);">Mt 11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,21);">Lu 17:21</a>(?); the meaning of the latter verse is very dubious). Such men are "saved" already (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,9);">Lu 19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,50);">7:50</a>(?)), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,18);">Lu 10:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,21);">11:21</a>).<P>4. Individualism:<P>That the individual was the unit in this deliverance needs no emphasis: Still, the divine privilege of the Jews was a reality and Christ\'s normal work was limited to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,5);">Mt 10:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,26);">15:26</a>, etc.). He admitted even that the position of the Jewish religious leaders rested on a real basis (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,3);">Mt 23:3</a>). But the "good tidings" were so framed that their extension to all men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen. So salvation involved admission to a community of service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,35);">Mr 9:35</a>, etc.). And in the latter part of Christ\'s ministry, He withdrew from the bulk of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of Twelve, an act explicable only on the assumption that these were to be the leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,18);">Mt 16:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,17);">18:17</a> merely corroborate this.<P>5. Moral Progress:<P>Of the conditions for the individual, the primary (belief in God being taken for granted) was a correct moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation came from the Pharisaic casuistry which had invented limits to righteousness. <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,13);">Ex 20:13</a> had never contemplated permitting angry thoughts if actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of character, of the single eye (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,22);">Mt 6:22</a>), of the pure heart (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,8);">Mt 5:8</a>). Only so can the spiritual house be built on a rock foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it and a certain amount of progress are demanded imperatively. Only those who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,12);">Mt 6:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,35);">18:35</a>). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,\'31-46\');">Mt 25:31-46</a>), for even idle words will be taken into account (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,36);">Mt 12:36</a>), and the most precious possession that interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8,9);">Mt 18:8,9</a>, etc.). Men are known by their fruits (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,20);">Mt 7:20</a>); it is he that doeth the will of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,21);">Mt 7:21</a>), and the final ideal<61>which is likewise the goal<61>is becoming a son of the Father in moral likeness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,45);">Mt 5:45</a>). That this progress is due to God\'s aid is so intimately a part of Christ\'s teaching on the entire dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but Christ refers even His own miracles to the Father\'s power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,20);">Lu 11:20</a>).<P>6. Forgiveness:<P>Moral effort, through God\'s aid, is an indispensable condition for salvation. But complete success in the moral struggle is not at all a condition, in the sense that moral perfection is required. For Christ\'s disciples, to whom the kingdom is promised (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,32);">Lu 12:32</a>), the palsied man who receives remission of sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5);">Mr 2:5</a>), Zaccheus who is said to have received salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,9);">Lu 19:9</a>), were far from being models of sinlessness. The element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of moral perfection is becoming "as a little child" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,15);">Mr 10:15</a>). Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And it most certainly is not the pure passivity of the newly born infant, for it is gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,15);">Lu 18:15</a>, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,2);">Mt 18:2</a> (where the child comes in answer to a call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for the prodigal knowing his wretchedness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self-satisfied Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its father\'s benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father for the rest, that is the savable soul.<P>7. Person of Christ:<P>Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,9);">Lu 18:9</a>) and of the prodigal welcomed by the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,20);">Lu 15:20</a>), both without intermediary. And it is perhaps not necessary to assume that all of those finding the strait gate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,14);">Mt 7:14</a>) were explicitly among Christ\'s disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this question is to answer it in the negative (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,40);">Mr 9:40</a> is irrelevant). Real knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,21,22);">Lu 10:21,22</a>), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all blessings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',6,5,6);">Mr 6:5,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,23);">9:23</a>). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of sins (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,5);">Mr 2:5</a>), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that forgiveness has taken place (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,47);">Lu 7:47</a>). But Christ thought of Himself as Messiah and, if the term "Messiah" is not to be emptied of its meaning, this made Him judge of the world (such verses as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a> are hardly needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christ\'s consciousness an earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son of Man. But passage from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-of-Man Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christ\'s mind from the first, as is seen by <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,18,19);">Mr 2:18,19</a> (even without <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',2,20);">2:20</a>). That He could have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply inconceivable, and the ascription of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,45);">Mr 10:45</a> to Pauline influence is in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken, His power. So there is a complete justification of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,\'22-25\');">Mr 14:22-25</a>: to Christ His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of the Covenant victim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'6-8\');">Ex 24:6-8</a>, for by it an entirely new relation was established between God and man.<P>8. Notes:<P>(1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however subordinate, of Christ\'s teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,34);">Mr 1:34</a>, etc.).<P>(2) Ascetic practices as a necessary element in salvation can hardly claim Christ\'s authority.<P>It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were not Christ\'s only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty of <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,15);">Ac 1:15</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,21);">1:21</a>), nor of the five hundred of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,6);">1Co 15:6</a>, were converted after the Passion. And they all certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an extremely special case as <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,21);">Mr 10:21</a>) in no way represent Christ\'s normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to remember that it is <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a> that contains the term of reproach that His adversaries gave Him.<P>IV. Paul.<P>Instead of laying primal stress on Paul\'s peculiar contributions to soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline passages as simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the common reversal of this method that the present acute "Jesus-Paulus" controversy exists.<P>1. General:<P>That Paul expected the near advent of the kingdom of God with a judgment preceding, and that salvation meant to him primarily deliverance from this judgment, need not be argued. And, accordingly, emphasis is thrown sometimes on the future deliverance and sometimes on the present conditions for the deliverance (contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,9);">Ro 5:9</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,24);">8:24</A>), but the practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christ\'s recorded teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=KINGDOM+OF+GOD">KINGDOM OF GOD</a>), but the additional matter is without particular religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,\'1-8\');">Ro 3:1-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,11);">9-11</a>), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be eschatological only (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,26);">Ro 11:26</a>). Individual conversion is of course taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHURCH">CHURCH</a>.<P>2. Moral Progress:<P>(1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of character. Paul, indeed, is frequently obliged to give directions as to details, but the detailed directions are referred constantly to the underlying principle, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,\'1-\');">Ro 14</a> or <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,\'1-\');">1Co 8</a> being excellent examples of this, while "love is the fulfillment of the law" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,10);">Ro 13:10</a>) is the summary.<P>(2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life absolutely must bring forth fruit to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4);">Ro 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,12);">13:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,24);">Ga 5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,5);">Col 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,3);">Eph 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,17,\'22-32\');">4:17,22-32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,\'11-14\');">Tit 2:11-14</a>). Only by good conduct can one please God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,1);">1Th 4:1</a>), and the works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,13);">1Co 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,5);">4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,10);">2Co 5:10</a>) in a judgment not to be faced without the most earnest striving (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,12);">1Co 10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,12);">Php 2:12</a>), not even by Paul himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,27);">1Co 9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,\'12-14\');">Php 3:12-14</a>). And the possibility of condemnation because of a lack of moral attainment must not be permitted to leave the mind (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,17);">1Co 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,21);">Ga 5:21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,12,13);">Ro 8:12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,20);">11:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',10,12);">1Co 10:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,\'7-9\');">Ga 6:7-9</a>). Consequently, growth in actual righteousness is as vital in Paul\'s soteriology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Christians have "put off the old man with his doings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,9);">Col 3:9</a>).<P>3. The Spirit:<P>That this growth is God\'s work is, however, a point where Paul has expanded Christ\'s quiet assumption rather elaborately. In particular, what Christ had made the source of His own supernatural power<65>the Holy Spirit<69>is specified as the source of the power of the Christian\'s ordinary life, as well as of the more special endowments (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SPIRITUAL+GIFTS">SPIRITUAL GIFTS</a>). In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,14);">Ga 3:14</a>); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all virtues flow into the soul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,\'16-26\');">Ga 5:16-26</a>), if a man walks according to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19,20);">1Co 6:19,20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,8);">1Th 4:8</a>). The palmary passage is <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-\');">Romans 7</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'1-\');">8</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-\');">Romans 7</a> Paul looks back with a shudder on his pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the extreme of exegetical perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only God\'s penalty on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,13);">8:13</a>), to disregard the things of the flesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,5);">8:5</A>), and to fulfill the ordinance of the Law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,4);">8:4</a>). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14);">8:14</A>).<P>4. Mystical Union:<P>This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be carried on with increased intensity after the Passion. That this work could be thought of out of relation to Christ, or that Christ Himself could have so thought of it (see above, III, 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears as the source of moral and spiritual power (Paul speaks even more of Christ\'s resurrection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the Spirit) being very closely combined in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>. Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reigning in our mortal bodies, for our burial into Christ\'s death was to enable us to walk in newness of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'2-14\');">Ro 6:2-14</a>). The resurrection is a source of power, and through Christ\'s strength all things can be done (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,13,20);">Php 4:13,20</a>). Christ is the real center of the believer\'s personality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>); the man has become a new creature (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,20);">Col 2:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">3:3</a>); we were joined to another that we might bring forth fruit to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,4);">Ro 7:4</a>). And by contact with the glory of the Lord we are transformed into the same image (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,18);">2Co 3:18</a>), the end being conformation to the image of the Son (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,30);">Ro 8:30</a>).<P>5. Forgiveness:<P>(1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is fundamental with Paul: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>). And the acquisition of strength through union with Christ is vitally connected with the remission of sins. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-6\');">Ro 7:1-6</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,11,12);">Col 2:11,12</a>), the mystical union with Christ makes His death ours (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,3);">Col 3:3</a>) and so removes us from the Law (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,4);">Ro 10:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,56);">1Co 15:56</a>), which has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this union the strength of sin is broken (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,6);">Ro 6:6</a>).<P>(2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness possible Paul calls "faith"<22>a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in opposition to "works" (most clearly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,\'30-\');">Ro 9:30</A>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,13);">10:13</a>). The Jews\' "pursuit after righteousness"<22>the attempt to wring salvation from God as wages earned<65>was vain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,13);">Ro 10:13</a>), and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all claim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,5);">Ro 4:5</a>). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its Father, precisely the attitude of the "children" in the teaching of Christ. But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive virtue, for man must be "obedient" to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,5);">Ro 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,16);">10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,13);">1Th 2:13</a>). And for the necessary presence of love in faith compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,2);">1Co 13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,6);">Ga 5:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,17);">Eph 3:17</a>.<P>6. Atonement:<P>Because of faith<74>specifically, faith in Christ (except <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'1-\');">Ro 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,6);">Ga 3:6</a>)<29>God does not visit the penalties of sins on believers, but treats them as if they were righteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,1);">Ro 5:1</a>, etc.). But this is not because of a quality in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross, specifically, for Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Roman). Through this death God\'s mercy could be extended safely, while before this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25,26);">Ro 3:25,26</a>). And this death was a sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,25);">Ro 3:25</a>, etc.). And it is certain that Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite independently of its effect on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete sacrificial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that Paul ever constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There is none in the contemporary Jewish literature, there is none in the Old Testament, and there is none in the rest of the New Testament, not even in Hebrews. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sacrificial terminology was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without attempting to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the ease with which in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,24,25);">Ro 3:24,25</a> Paul passes from a ransom (redemption) illustration to a (quite discordant) propitation illustration. For further discussion see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT">ATONEMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUSTIFICATION">JUSTIFICATION</a>. Here it is enough make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what Paul did not do.<P>7. Summary:<P>Summing up, there is a double line of thought in Paul: the remission of penalties through the atoning death of Christ and the destruction of the power of sin through strength flowing from Christ, the human element in both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for "to have faith," "to be in Christ," and "to have the Spirit" are convertible terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought into a single theory cannot claim purely Biblical support. The "ethical" theory, which in its best form makes God\'s pardon depend on the fact that the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the fewest extraneous elements, but it says something that Paul does not say. On the other hand one may feel that considering Paul as a whole<6C>to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament<6E>the pure justification doctrine has bulked a little too large in our dogmatics. God\'s pardon for sin is an immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of holiness.<P>8. Notes:<P>(1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in Paul today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such passages as <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-7\');">Ro 6:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,27);">Ga 3:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,12);">Col 2:12</a> make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the blessings given then and those given at some other time must be doubted.<P>(2) Salvation from the flesh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,24);">Ro 7:24</a>) involves no metaphysical dualism, as "flesh" is the whole of the lower nature from which the power to holiness saves a man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,13);">Ro 8:13</a>). Indeed, the body itself is an object of salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,11);">Ro 8:11</a>; and see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RESURRECTION">RESURRECTION</a>).<P>(3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from physical evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,10);">2Co 1:10</a>, etc.). Such evils are real evils (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,30);">1Co 11:30</a>), but in God\'s hands they may become pure blessings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,3);">Ro 5:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,7);">2Co 12:7</a>).<P>(4) Salvation from sin after conversion is due to God\'s judging the man in terms of the acquired supernatural nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14);">Ro 8:14</a>, etc.). Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,17);">1Co 3:17</a>, etc.), while others bring God\'s chastening judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,\'30-32\');">1Co 11:30-32</a>). Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by Paul himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,\'1-5\');">1Co 5:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,20);">1Ti 1:20</a>) or by the congregation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,1);">Ga 6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',3,\'10-15\');">2Th 3:10-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,6);">2Co 2:6</a>).<P>V. Rest of New Testament: Summary.<P>1. John:<P>(1) John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as unfamiliar with the technical meaning of such phrases as "kingdom of God" or "Son of Man" as is the world today, and to Gentiles who had instead a series of concepts unknown in Palestine. So a "translation of spiritual values" became necessary if the gospel were to make an immediate appeal, a translation accomplished so successfully that the Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists, especially the extremely literal Mark, imperatively demand a historical commentary, while John has successfully avoided this necessity.<P>(2) The "kingdom of God," as a phrase (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3,5);">3:3,5</A>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,36);">18:36</a>), is replaced by "eternal life." This life is given in this world to the one who accepts Christ\'s teaching (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24);">5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,47);">6:47</A>), but its full realization will be in the "many mansions" of the Father\'s house (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,2);">14:2</a>), where the believer will be with Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,24);">17:24</a>). A judgment of all men will precede the establishment of this glorified state (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,28,29);">5:28,29</a>), but the believer may face the judgment with equanimity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24);">5:24</A>). So the believer is delivered from a state of things so bad as expressible as a world under Satan\'s rule (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,31);">12:31</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,30);">14:30</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,11);">16:11</A>), a world in darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,19);">3:19</A>), in ignorance of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,25);">17:25</a>), and in sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,21);">8:21</a>), all expressible in the one word "death" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24);">5:24</A>).<P>(3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christ\'s message (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,11);">1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,22);">4:22</a>, etc.), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was inevitable (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,23,32);">12:23,32</a>, etc.). Belief in Christ is wholly a personal matter, but the believers enter a community of service (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,14);">13:14</a>), with the unity of the Father and Son as their ideal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,21);">17:21</A>).<P>(4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word "love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,34);">13:34</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,12);">15:12</A>), is assumed as known and identified with "Christ\'s words" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24);">5:24</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,63);">6:63</A>, etc.), and the necessity of progress toward it as sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,34);">8:34</A>), a total change of character is needed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,6);">3:6</A>), and the blessing is only on him who does Christ\'s commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,17);">13:17</A>). This "doing" is the proof of love toward Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,15,21);">14:15,21</a>); only by bearing fruit and more fruit can discipleship be maintained (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,\'1-6\');">15:1-6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,24);">14:24</A>), and, indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christ\'s disciples (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,8);">15:8</a>, Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,13);">17:3</a>) comes only through moral effort (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,17);">7:17</a>). In John the contrasts are colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of sanctity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,38);">13:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,32);">16:32</a>), and self-righteousness is condemned without compromise; the crowning sin is to say, "We see" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,41);">9:41</a>). It is the Son who frees from sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,36);">8:36</a>), delivers from darkness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,12);">8:12</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,46);">12:46</a>), and gives eternal life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,25,26);">11:25,26</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">3:16</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,24);">5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,47);">6:47</A>). This emphasis on the divine side of the process is probably the reason for the omission of the terms "repent," "repentance," from the Gospel in favor of "faith" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,29);">6:29</a>, especially), but this "faith" involves in turn human effort, for, without "abiding," faith is useless (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,30,31);">8:30,31</a>).<P>(5) An advance on the Synoptists is found in the number of times Christ speaks of His death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,14,15);">3:14,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,11,15);">10:11,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,24,32);">12:24,32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">17:19</a>) and in the greater emphasis laid on it, but no more than in the Synoptists is there any explanation of how the Atonement became effectual. A real advance consists in the prospect of Christ\'s work after His death, when, through the Paraclete (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,38,39);">7:38,39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,16);">14:16</a>ff), a hitherto unknown spiritual power would become available for the world. And spiritual power is due not only to a union of will with Christ but to mystical union with Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,\'1-9\');">15:1-9</a>). See above, III,7,for the relation of these thoughts to the synoptic teaching.<P>2. Hebrews:<P>(1) The emphasis of Hebrews is of course on the sacrificial work of Christ, but the Epistle makes practically no contribution to theology of sacrifice. The argument is this: The Old Testament sacrifices certainly had an efficacy; Christ\'s sacrifice fulfilled their types perfectly, therefore it had a perfect efficacy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,13,14);">Heb 9:13,14</a>). This must have been a tremendously potent argument for He\'s own purpose, but it is of very little help to the modern theologian. (2) More than in Paul is emphasized the human training of Christ for His high-priestly work. Since He laid hold of the seed of Abraham (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,16);">Heb 2:16</a>), He learned by experience all that man had to suffer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,17);">Heb 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,8);">5:8</a>, etc.). In He the essence of the sacrifice lies not in the death but in what we call the ascension<6F>the presentation of the blood in the heavenly tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,\'11-14\');">Heb 9:11-14</a>; see the commentaries). That the death was specifically on the cross (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,2);">Heb 12:2</a> only) belonged to the stage of training and had no special significance in the sacrificial scheme. Christ\'s intercession for us in heaven receives more emphasis than in the rest of the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,25);">Heb 7:25</a>).<P>3. Peter:<P>The one other distinct contribution to New Testament soteriology is made in 1 Peter\'s evaluation of the vicarious suffering of the "Servant" of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',53,\'1-\');">Isa 53</a>. What Christ did through His sufferings we may do in some degree through our sufferings; as His pains helped not only living mankind, but even departed sinners, so we may face persecution more happily with the thought that our pains are benefiting other men (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,\'16-20\');">1Pe 3:16-20</a>). It is hardly possible that Peter thought of this comparison as conveying an exhaustive description of the Atonement (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,19);">1Pe 1:19</a>), but that the comparison should be made at all is significant.<P>4. Summary:<P>(1) Salvation is both a present and a future matter for us. The full realization of all that God has in store will not be ours until the end of human history (if, indeed, there will not be opened infinite possibilities of eternal growth), but the enjoyment of these blessings depends on conditions fulfilled in us and by us now. But a foretaste of the blessings of forgiveness of sins and growth in holiness is given on this earth. The pardon depends on the fact of God\'s mercy through the death of Christ<73>a fact for religious experience but probably incapable of expression as a complete philosophical dogma. But strength comes from God through the glorified Christ (or through the Spirit), this vital union with God being a Christian fundamental. These two lines are in large degree independent, and the selection of the proportions profitable to a given soul is the task of the pastor.<P>(2) That human effort is an essential in salvation is not to be denied in the face of all the New Testament evidence, especially Paul taken as a whole. And yet no one with the faintest conception of what religion means would think of coming before God to claim merit. Here the purely intellectual discussions of the subiect and its psychological course in the soul run in different channels, and "anti-synergistic" arguments are really based on attempts to petrify psychology experience into terms of pure dogma.<P>(3) Still more true is this of attempts to describe mathematically the steps in salvation<6F>the ordo salutis of the older dogmatics<63>for this differs with different souls. In particular, New Testament data are lacking for the development of the individual born of Christian parents in a Christian country.<P>(4) Further, the social side of salvation is an essentially Christian doctrine and cannot be detached from the corporate life of the Christian church. Salvation from temporal evils is equally, if secondarily, Christian. Nationalism in salvation is at present much in the background. But it is as true today as it was in ancient Israel that the sins of a nation tend to harm the souls of even those who have not participated actively in those sins.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The literature of salvation is virtually the literature of theology (see under separate articles, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ATONEMENT">ATONEMENT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUSTIFICATION">JUSTIFICATION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SANCTIFICATION">SANCTIFICATION</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSON+OF+CHRIST">PERSON OF CHRIST</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHANNINE+THEOLOGY">JOHANNINE THEOLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAULINE+THEOLOGY">PAULINE THEOLOGY</a>, etc.), but a few recent works may be mentioned. Indispensable are the works of Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation and The Pauline Theology. Garvie\'s Romans in the "New Century" series should be used as a supplement to any other commentary on Romans. The juridical theory has as its best defense in English Denney\'s The Death of Christ. The ethical theory is best presented in the works of DuBose, The Gospel in the Gospels, The Gospel according to Paul, and High-Priesthood and Sacrifice (Sanday\'s The Expositor reviews of the two former, reprinted in The Life of Christ in Recent Research, should be read in any case).``48';
isbe[7608]='Samael`sam\'-a-el: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SALAMIEL">SALAMIEL</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7609]='Samaias`sa-ma\'-yas (Samaias):<P>(1) One of the "captains over thousands" prominent at the Passover of Josiah (1Esdras 1:9) = "Shemaiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,9);">2Ch 35:9</a>.<P>(2) One of the heads of families of the sons of Adonikam who returned with Ezra (1Esdras 8:39) = "Shemaiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,13);">Ezr 8:13</a>.<P>(3) One of the "men of understanding" whom Ezra commissioned to obtain from Loddeus, the captain, men to execute the priest\'s office (1Esdras 8:44) = "Shemaiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,16);">Ezr 8:16</a> (the King James Version Mamaias).<P>(4) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Shemaiah the great," a kinsman of Tobit and father of Ananias and Jonathan (Tobit 5:13).``5';
isbe[7610]='Samaria, City of`sa-ma\'-ri-a, (shomeron; Samareia, Semeron, and other forms):<P>(1) Shechem was the first capital of the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,25);">1Ki 12:25</a>). Jeroboam seems later to have removed the royal residence to Tirzah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,17);">1Ki 14:17</a>). After the brief reigns of Elah and Zimri came that of Omri, who reigned 6 years in Tirzah, then he purchased the hill of Samaria and built a city there, which was thenceforward the metropolis of the kingdom of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,24);">1Ki 16:24</a>). Here the hill and the city are said to have been named after Shemer, the original owner of the land. There is nothing intrinsically improbable in this. It might naturally be derived from shamar, and the name in the sense of "outlook" would fitly apply to a city in such a commanding position. The residence, it was also the burying-place, of the kings of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,28);">1Ki 16:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,37);">22:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,35);">2Ki 10:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',13,9,13);">13:9,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,16);">14:16</a>).<P>Toward the western edge of the Ephraimite uplands there is a broad fertile hollow called Wady esh-Sha\'ir, "valley of barley." From the midst of it rises an oblong hill to a height of over 300 ft., with a level top. The sides are steep, especially to the Samaria. The greatest length is from east to west. The surrounding mountains on three sides are much higher, and are well clad with olives and vineyards. To the west the hills are lower, and from the crest a wide view is obtained over the Plain of Sharon, with the yellow ribbon of sand that marks the coast line, and the white foam on the tumbling billows; while away beyond stretch the blue waters of the Mediterranean. On the eastern end of the hill, surrounded by olive and cactus, is the modern village of Sebastiyeh, under which a low neck of land connects the hill with the eastern slopes. The position is one of great charm and beauty; and in days of ancient warfare it was one of remarkable strength. While it was overlooked from three sides, the battlements crowning the steep slopes were too far off to be reached by missiles from the only artillery known in those times<65>the sling and the catapult. For besiegers to attempt an assault at arms was only to court disaster. The methods adopted by her enemies show that they relied on famine to do their work for them (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,24);">2Ki 6:24</a>f; etc.). Omri displayed excellent taste and good judgment in the choice he made.<P>The city wall can be traced in almost its entire length. Recent excavations conducted by American archaeologists have uncovered the foundations of Omri\'s palace, with remains of the work of Ahab and of Herod (probably here was Ahab\'s ivory palace), on the western end of the hill, while on the western slope the gigantic gateway, flanked by massive towers, has been exposed to view.<P>Under the influence of Jezebel, Samaria naturally became a center of idolatrous worship. Ahab "reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made the Asherah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,32);">1Ki 16:32</a>f). Jehoram his son put away the pillar of Baal (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,2);">2Ki 3:2</a>), and within the temple Jehu made an end at once of the instruments of idolatry and of the priests (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,19);">2Ki 10:19</a>f). There are many prophetic references to the enormities practiced here, and to their inevitable consequences (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,4);">Isa 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,9);">9:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,9);">10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',28,1);">28:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,19);">36:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,13);">Jer 23:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,4);">Eze 23:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,1);">Ho 7:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,16);">13:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,12);">Am 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',1,6);">Mic 1:6</a>, etc.).<P>Under pressure of Damascus Omri conceded to the Syrians the right to "make streets in Samaria" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,34);">1Ki 20:34</a>).<P>Ben-hadad II besieged the city, but suffered ignominious defeat (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,\'1-21\');">1Ki 20:1-21</a>; Josephus, Ant, VIII, xiv, 1f). Persistent attempts by the Syrians to reach the city in the time of Jehoram were frustrated by Elisha (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,8);">2Ki 6:8</a>; Josephus, Ant, IX, iv, 3). At length, however, Ben-hadad again invested the city, and the besieged were reduced to dire straits, in which, urged by famine, scenes of awful horror were enacted (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',6,24);">2Ki 6:24</a>). A mysterious panic seized the Syrians. Their deserted camp was discovered by despairing lepers who carried the good news to the famished citizens of the plenty to be found there. Probably in the throat of the great western gateway occurred the crush in which the incredulous captain was trampled to death (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,\'1-\');">1 Kings 7</a>; Josephus, Ant, IX, iv, 5).<P>Here the 70 sons of Ahab were slain by Jehu in the general destruction of the house of Ahab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,1);">2Ki 10:1</a>). In Samaria, the Chronicler tells us, Ahaziah in vain hid from Jehu (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',22,9);">2Ch 22:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,27);">2Ki 9:27</a>). Pekah brought hither much spoil from Jerusalem and many captives, whom, at the instance of the prophet Oded, he released (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,\'1-\');">2Ch 28</a>). The siege of Samaria was begun by Shalmaneser in the 7th year of Hoshea, and the city was finally taken by Sargon II at the end of 3 years, 722 BC (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,5);">2Ki 17:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,9);">18:9</a>f; Ant, IX, xiv, 1). This marked the downfall of the Northern Kingdom, the people being transported by the conqueror. That this was not done in a thoroughgoing way is evident from the fact recorded in the inscriptions that two years later the country had to be subdued again. Colonists were brought from other parts to take the places of the exiles (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,10);">Ezr 4:10</a>). Alexander the Great took the city in 331 BC, killed many of the inhabitants, and settled others in Shechem, replacing them with a colony of Syro-Macedonians. He gave the adjoining country to the Jews (Apion, II, 4). The city suffered at the hands of Ptolemy Lagi and Demetrius Poliorcetes, but it was still a place of strength (Josephus, Ant, XIII, x, 2) when John Hyrcanus came against it in 120 BC. It was taken after a year\'s siege, and the victor tried to destroy the city utterly. His turning of the water into trenches to undermine the foundations could only refer to the suburbs under the hill. From the only two sources, \'Ain Harun and \'Ain Kefr Rima, to the east of the town, the water could not rise to the hill. The "many fountains of water" which Benjamin of Tudela says he saw on the top, from which water enough could be got to fill the trenches, are certainly not to be seen today; and they have left no trace behind them. The city was rebuilt by Pompey and, having again fallen under misfortune, was restored by Gabinius (Josephus, Ant, XIV, iv, 4; v, 3; BJ, I, vii, 7; viii, 4). To Herod it owed the chief splendor of its later days. He extended, strengthened and adorned it on a scale of great magnificence, calling it Sebaste (= Augusta) in honor of the emperor, a name which survives in the modern Sebastiyeh. A temple also was dedicated to Caesar. Its site is probably marked by the impressive flight of steps, with the pedestal on which stood the gigantic statue of Augustus, which recent excavations have revealed. The statue, somewhat mutilated, is also to be seen. Another of Herod\'s temples west of the present village was cleared out by the same explorers. The remains of the great double-columned street, which ran round the upper terrace of the hill, bear further testimony to the splendor of this great builder\'s work (Josephus, Ant, XV, vii, 3; viii, 5; BJ, I, xxi, 2). It was here that Herod killed perhaps the only human being whom he ever really loved, his wife Mariamne. Here also his sons perished by his hand (Josephus, Ant, XV, vii, 5-7; XVI, iii, 1-3; xi, 7).<P>It is commonly thought that this city was the scene of Philip\'s preaching and the events that followed recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,\'1-\');">Ac 8</a>, but the absence of the definite article in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,5);">8:5</a> makes this doubtful. A Roman colony was settled here by Septimius Severus. From that time little is known of the history of the city; nor do we know to what the final castastrophe was due. It became the seat of a bishopric and was represented in the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. Its bishop attended the Synod of Jerusalem in 536 AD.<P>The Church of John, a Crusading structure beside the modern village, is now a Moslem mosque. It is the traditional burying-place of John the Baptist\'s body.<P>(2) he Samareia: A town mentioned in 1Macc 5:66 as on the route followed by Judas from the district of Hebron to the land of the Philistines. The name is probably a clerical error. The margin reads Marisa, and probably the place intended is Mareshah, the site of which is at Tell Sandachannah, about a mile south of Belt Jibrin.``54';
isbe[7611]='Samaria, Country of`(shomeron; he Samareitis chora): The name of the city was transferred to the country of which it was the capital, so that Samaria became synonymous with the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',13,32);">1Ki 13:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,5);">Jer 31:5</a>, etc.). The extent of territory covered by this appellation varied greatly at different periods. At first it included the land held by Israel east of the Jordan, Galilee and Mt. Ephraim, with the northern part of Benjamin. It was shorn of the eastern portion by the conquest of Tiglath-pileser (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,26);">1Ch 5:26</a>). Judah probably soon absorbed the territory of Dan in the Samaria. In New Testament times Samaria had shrunk to still smaller dimensions. Then the country west of the Jordan was divided into three portions: Judea in the south, Galilee in the north, and Samaria in the middle. The boundaries are given in general terms by Josephus (BJ, III, iii,1,4, 5). The southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon and the lands of Scythopolis, the city of the Decapolis west of the Jordan, formed the northern boundary. It reached south as far as the toparchy of Acrabatta (modern \'Aqrabeh), while on the border between Samaria and Judea lay the villages of Annath and Borceos, the modern Khirbet \'Aina and Berqit, about 15 miles south of Nablus. The Jordan of course formed the eastern boundary. On the west the coast plain as far as Acre belonged to Judea. The country thus indicated was much more open to approach than the high plateau of Judah with its steep rocky edges and difficult passes. The road from the north indeed was comparatively easy of defense, following pretty closely the line of the watershed. But the gradual descent of the land to the west with long, wide valleys, offered inviting avenues from the plain. The great trade routes, that to the fords of Jordan and the east, passing through the cleft in the mountains at Shechem, and those connecting Egypt with the north and the northeast, traversed Samarian territory, and brought her into constant intercourse with surrounding peoples. The influence of the heathen religions to which she was thus exposed made a swift impression upon her, leading to the corruptions of faith and life that heralded her doom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,13);">Jer 23:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',7,1);">Ho 7:1</a>, etc.). The Assyrians came as the scourge of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,\'5-23\');">2Ki 17:5-23</a>). Their attack centered on the capital. Shalmaneser began the siege, and after three years the city fell to Sargon II, his successor. With the fall of Samaria the kingdom came to an end. Following the usual Assyrian policy, great numbers of the inhabitants were deported from the conquered country, and their places taken by men brought from "Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim," cities which had already bowed to the Assyrian power (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a>).<P>It appears from the Assyrian inscriptions that the number carried away was 27,290. The number afterward deported from Judah was 200,000, and then the poorest of the land were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,12);">2Ki 25:12</a>). It is evident that a similar policy must have been followed in Samaria, as 27,290 could certainly not include the whole population of the cities and the country. But it would include the higher classes, and especially the priests from whom the victors would have most to fear. The population therefore after the conquest contained a large proportion of Israelites. It was no doubt among these that Josiah exercised his reforming energy (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,19);">2Ki 23:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,6);">2Ch 34:6</a>f). Here also must have been that "remnant of Israel," Manasseh and Ephraim, who contributed for the repair of the house of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,9);">2Ch 34:9</a>). These people, left without their religious guides, mingling with the heathen who had brought their gods and, presumably, their priests with them, were apt to be turned from the purity of their faith. A further importation of pagan settlers took place under Esar-haddon and Osnappar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,9,10);">Ezr 4:9,10</a>). The latter is to be identified with Assur-bani-pal. What the proportions of the different elements in the population were, there is now no means of knowing. That there was some intermarriage is probable; but having regard to racial exclusiveness, we may suppose that it was not common. When the Jews deny to them any relation to Israel, and call them Cuthaeans, as if they were the descendants purely of the heathen settlers, the facts just mentioned should be borne in mind.<P>After the Assyrian conquest we are told that the people suffered from lions (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,25);">2Ki 17:25</a>). Josephus (Ant., IX, xiv, 3) says "a plague seized upon them." In accordance with the ideas of the time, the strangers thought this due to the anger of the tutelary deity of the land, because they worshipped other gods in his territory, while neglecting him. Ignorant of his special ritual ("manner"), they petitioned the Assyrian king, who sent one (Josephus says "some") of the priests who had been carried away to teach them "how they should fear the Lord." How much is implied in this "fearing of the Lord" is not clear. They continued at the same time to serve their own gods. There is nothing to show that the Israelites among them fell into their idolatries. The interest of these in the temple at Jerusalem, the use of which they may now have shared with the Jews, is proved by <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,9);">2Ch 34:9</a>. In another place we are told that four score men "from Shechem, from Shiloh, and from Samaria," evidently Israelites, were going up with their offerings to the house of the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',41,5);">Jer 41:5</a>). Once the people of the country are called Samaritans (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,29);">2Ki 17:29</a>). Elsewhere this name has a purely religious significance.<P>Of the history of Samaria under Assyrian and Babylonian rulers we know nothing. It reappears at the return of the Jews under Persian auspices. The Jews refused the proffered assistance of the Samaritans in rebuilding the temple and the walls of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,1,3);">Ezr 4:1,3</a>). Highly offended, the latter sought to frustrate the purpose of the Jews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,4);">Ezr 4:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,7);">Ne 4:7</a>; 1Esd 2:16). That the Samaritans were accustomed to worship in Jerusalem is perhaps implied by one phrase in the letter sent to the Persian king: "The Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerus" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,12);">Ezr 4:12</a>). Perhaps also they may be referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,21);">Ezr 6:21</a>. Idolatry is not alleged against the "adversaries." We can hardly err if we ascribe the refusal in some degree to the old antagonism between the north and the south, between Ephraim and Judah. Whatever the cause, it led to a wider estrangement and a deeper bitterness. For the history of the people and their temple on Gerizim, see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARITANS">SAMARITANS</a>.<P>Samaria, with Palestine, fell to Alexander after the battle of Issus. Antiochus the Great gave it to Ptolemy Epiphanes, as the dowry of his daughter Cleopatra (Josephus, Ant, XII, iv, 1). John Hyrcanus reduced and desolated the country (Josephus, BJ, I, ii, 6f). After varying fortunes Samaria became part of the kingdom of Herod, at whose death it was given to Archelaus (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xi, 4; BJ, II, vi, 3). When Archelaus was banished it was joined to the Roman province of Syria (Josephus, Ant, XVII, xiii, 5; BJ, II, viii, 1).<P>Samaria is a country beautifully diversified with mountain and hill, valley and plain. The olive grows plentifully, and other fruit trees abound. There is much excellent soil, and fine crops of barley and wheat are reaped annually. The vine also is largely cultivated on the hill slopes. Remains of ancient forests are found in parts. As Josephus said, it is not naturally watered by many rivers, but derives its chief moisture from rain water, of which there is no lack (BJ, III, iii, 4). He speaks also of the excellent grass, by reason of which the cows yield more milk than those in any other place.<P>There is a good road connecting Nablus with Jaffa; and by a road not quite so good, it is now possible to drive a carriage from Jerusalem to Nazareth, passing through Samaria.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARITANS">SAMARITANS</a>`54';
isbe[7612]='Samaritan Pentateuch`sa-mar\'-i-tan.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH,+THE+SAMARITAN">PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN</a>`1';
isbe[7613]='Samaritans`sa-mar\'-i-tanz (shomeronim; Samareitai, New Testament; (singular), Samarites): The name "Samaritans" in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,29);">2Ki 17:29</a> clearly applies to the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom. In subsequent history it denotes a people of mixed origin, composed of the peoples brought by the conqueror from Babylon and elsewhere to take the places of the expatriated Israelites and those who were left in the land (722 BC). Sargon claims to have carried away only 27,290 of the inhabitants (KIB, II, 55). Doubtless these were, as in the case of Judah, the chief men, men of wealth and influence, including all the priests, the humbler classes being left to till the land, tend the vineyards, etc. Hezekiah, who came to the throne of Judah probably in 715 BC, could still appeal to the tribes Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, Asher and Zebulun (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,5,10,11,18);">2Ch 30:5,10,11,18</a>); and the presence of these tribesmen is implied in the narrative of Josiah\'s reformation (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,6);">2Ch 34:6</a>f). Although the number of the colonists was increased by Esar-haddon and Osnappar (Assur-bani-pal, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,2,9);">Ezr 4:2,9</a>f), the population, it is reasonable to suppose, continued prevailingly Israelite; otherwise their religion would not so easily have won the leading place. The colonists thought it necessary for their own safety to acknowledge Yahweh, in whose land they dwelt, as one among the gods to be feared (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,24);">2Ki 17:24</a>). In the intermixture that followed "their own gods" seem to have fallen on evil days; and when the Samaritans asked permission to share in building the temple under Zerubbabel, they claimed, apparently with a good conscience, to serve God and to sacrifice to Him as the Jews did (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,1);">Ezr 4:1</a>f). Whatever justification there was for this claim, their proffered friendship was turned to deadly hostility by the blunt refusal of their request. The old enmity between north and south no doubt intensified the quarrel, and the antagonism of Jew and Samaritan, in its bitterness, was destined to pass into a proverb. The Samaritans set themselves, with great temporary success, to frustrate the work in which they were not permitted to share (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,4);">Ezr 4:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,7);">Ne 4:7</a>; etc.).<P>From the strict administration of the Law in Jerusalem malcontents found their way to the freer atmosphere of Samaria. Among these renegades was Manasseh, brother of the high priest, who had married a daughter of Sanballat, the Persian governor of Samaria. According to Josephus, Sanballat, with the sanction of Alexander the Great, built a temple for the Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, of which Manasseh became high priest (Ant., XI, vii, 2; viii, 2ff). Josephus, however, places Manasseh a century too late. He was a contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">Ne 13:28</a>).<P>When it suited their purpose the Samaritans claimed relationship with the Jews, asserting that their roll of the Pentateuch was the only authentic copy (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH,+THE SAMARITAN">PENTATEUCH, THE SAMARITAN</a>); they were equally ready to deny all connection in times of stress, and even to dedicate their temple to a heathen deity (Josephus, Ant, XII, v, 5). In 128 BC, John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple (XIII, ix, 1). In the time of Christ the Samaritans were ruled by procurators under the Roman governor of Syria. Lapse of years brought no lessening of the hatred between Jews and Samaritans (Ant., XX, vi, 1). To avoid insult and injury at the hands of the latter, Jews from Galilee were accustomed to reach the feasts at Jerusalem by way of Peraea. "Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon" was an expression of opprobrium (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,48);">Joh 8:48</a>). Although Jesus forbade the Twelve to go into any city of the Samaritans (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,5);">Mt 10:5</a>), the parable of the Good Samaritan shows that His love overleaped the boundaries of national hatred (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,30);">Lu 10:30</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,16);">Lu 17:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,9);">Joh 4:9</a>).<P>During the Jewish war Cerealis treated the Samaritans with great severity. On one occasion (67 AD) he slaughtered 11,600 on Mt. Gerizim. For some centuries they were found in considerable numbers throughout the empire, east and west, with their synagogues. They were noted as "bankers" money-changers, For their anti-Christian attitude and conduct Justinian inflicted terrible vengeance on them. From this the race seems never to have recovered. Gradually-dwindling, they now form a small community in Nablus of not more than 200 souls. Their great treasure is their ancient copy of the Law.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The best account of the Samaritans is Mills, Nablus and the Modern Samaritans (Murray, London); compare Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907). A good recent description by J. E. H. Thomson, D. D., of the Passover celebrated annually on Mt. Gerizim will be found in PEFS,1902,82ff.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMARIA">SAMARIA</a>`54';
isbe[7614]='Samatus`sam\'-a-tus (Samatos): One of the sons of Ezora who put away their "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:34). It is difficult to say which, if any, name it represents in parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,34);">Ezr 10:34</a>ff, where no "sons of Ezora" are inserted between "sons of Bani" and "sons of Nebo": probably Shallurn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,42);">10:42</a>), but possibly Shemariah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,41);">10:41</a>).``1';
isbe[7615]='Samech`sam\'-ek (camekh): The 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "c". It came to be used for the number 60.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
isbe[7616]='Sameius`sa-me\'-yus: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMEUS">SAMEUS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7617]='Samellius`sa-mel\'-i-us (Codex Vaticanus Samellios; Codex Alexandrinus Sebellios, al Semellios; the King James Version Semellius): "Samellius the scribe," one of those who wrote a letter of protest to Artaxerxes against the building of Jerusalem by the returned exiles (1Esdras 2:16,17,25,30) = "Shimshai" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,8);">Ezr 4:8</a>.``1';
isbe[7618]='Sameus`sa-me\'-us (Codex Alexandrinus and Fritzsche, Samaios; Codex Vaticanus Thamaios; the King James Version Sameius): One of the sons of Emmer who put away their "strange wives" (1Esdras 9:21) = "Shemaiah" (the Revised Version margin "Maaseiah") of the sons of Harim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',10,21);">Ezr 10:21</a>.``1';
isbe[7619]='Samgar-Nebo`sam-gar-ne\'-bo (camgar nebho, a Babylonian name): An officer of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who, according to the Massoretic Text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,3);">Jer 39:3</a>, took his seat with other nobles in the middle gate of Jerusalem after the Chaldean army had taken the city. Schrader (COT, ii, 109) holds that the name is a Hebraized form of the Assyrian Sumgirnabu ("be gracious, Nebo"), but Giesebrecht (Comm., 211) conjectures for Samgar a corruption of Sar-mag (Sar-magh), equivalent to Rab-mag (rab-magh), which implies virtual dittography. The number of variant readings exhibited by the Septuagint seems to confirm the belief that the text is corrupt. Nebo (nabu) is there joined with the following Sarsechim to agree with Nebushazban of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,13);">Jer 39:13</a>. If the name Samgar-nebo is correct, the first Nergal-sharezer "should perhaps be dropped; we would then read: "Samgar-nebo the Sarsechim, Nebushazban the Rab-saris (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,13);">39:13</a>) and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag" (Sayce).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAB-MAG">RAB-MAG</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=RAB+SARIS">RAB-SARIS</a>`197';
isbe[7620]='Sami`sa\'-mi: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SABI">SABI</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7621]='Samis`sa\'-mis: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SOMEIS">SOMEIS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7622]='Samlah`sam\'-la (samlah; Salama): One of the kings of Edom, of the city of Masrekah. He reigned before the Israelites had kings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',36,36,37);">Ge 36:36,37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,47,48);">1Ch 1:47,48</a>). The fact that the city is mentioned in connection with the name of the king suggests that Edom was a confederacy at this time and the chief city was the metropolis of the whole country.``1';
isbe[7623]='Sammus`sam\'-us (Codex Alexandrinus Sammous; Codex Vaticanus Sammou): One of those who stood on Ezra\'s right hand as he expounded the Law (1Esdras 9:43) = "Shema" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,4);">Ne 8:4</a>.``1';
isbe[7624]='Samos`sa\'-mos (Samos, "height," "mountain" (see Strabo 346, 457)): One of the most famous of the Ionian islands, third in size among the group which includes Lesbos, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIOS">CHIOS</A> (which see) and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COS">Cos</a> (which see). It is situated at the mouth of the Bay of Ephesus, between the cities of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=EPHESUS">EPHESUS</a> and <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MILETUS">MILETUS</a> (which see), and separated from the mainland of Ionia by the narrow strait where the Greeks met and conquered the Persian fleet in the battle of Mycale, 479 BC (Herodotus ix.100ff). The surface of the island is very rugged and mountainous, Mt. Kerki (modern name) rising to a height of 4,700 ft., and it was due to this that the island received its name (see above).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMOTHRACE">SAMOTHRACE</a>.<P>Samos was renowned in antiquity as one of the noted centers of Ionjan luxury, and reached its zenith of prosperity under the rule of the famous tyrant Polycrates (533-522 BC), who made himself master of the Aegean Sea. He carried on trade with Egypt, and his intercourse with that country, his friendship with Amasis, the famous "ring" story and the revolting manner of the death of Polycrates arere all told in one of the most interesting stories of Herodotus (Herod. iii.39ff).<P>In 84 BC, the island was joined to the province of Asia, and in 17 BC it became a civitas libera, through the favor of Augustus (Dio Cass. liv.9; Pliny, NH, v.37). Both Marcus Agrippa and Herod visited the island; and according to Josephus (Ant., XVI, ii, 2; BJ, I, xxi, 11) "bestowed a great many benefits" on it. In the Apocrypha, Samos is mentioned among the places to which Lucius, consul of the Romans, wrote, asking their good will toward the Jews (1Macc 15:23).<P>In the New Testament, Paul touched here, after passing <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHIOS">CHIOS</a> (which see), on his return from his third missionary journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,15);">Ac 20:15</a>). In Textus Receptus of the New Testament, we find in this passage kai meinantes en Trogullio ("and having remained in Trogyllium"). This reading is wanting in the oldest manuscripts, and may be a sort of gloss, or explanation; due to the technical use of paraballein, "to touch land" (compare Josephus, Ant, XVIII, vi, 4), and not necessarily "to make a landing." Trogyllium lay on the mainland opposite Samos, at the end of the ridge of Mycale. Still there is no particular reason why this reading should be supported, especially as it is not found in the earliest of authorities. Soden\'s 1913 text, however, retains the reading in brackets.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Tozer, Islands of the Aegean (1890). Herodotus and Pausanias have rather full accounts of Samos, and Encyclopedia Brit (11th edition) gives a good bibliography of works both ancient and modern.``89';
isbe[7625]='Samothrace`sam\'-o-thras (Samothrake, "the Thracian Samos"; the King James Version Samothracia, sam-o-thra\'sha; the island was formerly Dardania; for change of name see Pausanias vii.4,3; Strabo x.457, and for a full discussion Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, Neue Untersuchungen auf South, 1880): An island in the Aegean Sea, south of Thrace opposite the mouth of the Hebrus River, and northwest of Troas. The island is mountainous, as the name indicates (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMOS">SAMOS</a>), and towers above Imbros when viewed from the Trojan coast. The summit is about a mile high. It is mentioned in the Iliad (xiii.12) as the seat of Poseidon and referred to by Virgil Aeneid vii.208.<P>The island was always famous for sanctity, and the seat of a cult of the Cabeiri, which Herodotus (ii.51) says was derived from the Pelasgian inhabitants (see also Aristophanes, Pax 277). The mysteries connected with the worship of these gods later rivaled the famous mysteries of Eleusis, and both Philip of Macedon and Olympias his wife were initiated here (Plut. Alex. 3).<P>Probably because of its sacred character the island did not figure to any extent in history, but in the expedition of Xerxes in 480 BC, one ship at least of the Samothracian contingent is mentioned as conspicuous in the battle of Salamis.<P>The famous "Victory of Samothrace" (now in the Louvre) was set up here by Demetrius Poliorcetes circa 300 BC, and was discovered in 1863. Since that time (1873-75), the Austrian government carried on extensive excavations (see Conze, Hauser and Benndorf, op. cit.).<P>In the New Testament the island is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,11);">Ac 16:11</a>. From Troas, Paul made a straight run to Samothrace, and the next day sailed to <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=NEAPOLIS">NEAPOLIS</a> (which see) on the Thracian coast, the port of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PHILIPPI">PHILIPPI</a> (which see). At the northern end of Samothrace was a town where the ship could anchor for the night, and on the return journey (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,6);">Ac 20:6</a>) a landing may have been made, but no details are given. Pliny characterizes the island as being most difficult for anchorage, but because of the hazards of sailing by night, the ancient navigators always anchored somewhere if possible.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMOS">SAMOS</a>`89';
isbe[7626]='Sampsames`samp\'-sa-mez (Sampsames): A place mentioned in 1Macc 15:23, usually identified with Samsun, on the coast of the Black Sea. The Vulgate, with the Revised Version margin, has "Lampsacus."``1';
isbe[7627]='Samson`sam\'-sun (shimshon.<P>1. Name:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,8,9,17,23);">Ezr 4:8,9,17,23</a>).<P>2. Character:<P>Samson was a judge, perhaps the last before Samuel. He was a Nazirite of the tribe of Dan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,5);">Jud 13:5</a>); a man of prodigious strength, a giant and a gymnast<73>the Hebrew Hercules, a strange champion for Yahweh! He intensely hated the Philistines who had oppressed Israel some 40 years (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,1);">Jud 13:1</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,32);">Heb 11:32</a>), 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).<P>3. Story of His Life:<P>The story of Samson\'s life is unique among the biographies of the Old Testament. It is related in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,\'1-\');">Judges 13-16</a>. Like Isaac, Samuel and John the Baptist, he was a child of prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,8,12);">13:8,12</a>). To Manoah\'s wife the angel of Yahweh appeared twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,3,9);">13:3,9</a>), 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,5,7,14);">13:5,7,14</a>). The spirit of Yahweh first began to move him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,25);">13:25</a>). On his arriving at manhood, five remarkable circumstances are recorded of him.<P>(1) His marriage with a Philistine woman of Timnah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,\'1-\');">Judges 14</a>). His parents objected to the alliance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,3);">Jud 14:3</a>), 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:<P class="in15">\'Out of the eater came something to eat,<br>And out of the strong came something sweet\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,14);">Jud 14:14</a>).<P>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):<P class="in15">\'If with my heifer ye did not plow,<br>Ye had not found out my riddle, I trow\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,18);">Jud 14:18</a>).<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,20);">Jud 14:20</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,19);">Jud 14:19</a>), and especially in view of his parents\' objection to his marrying outside of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,3);">Jud 14:3</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,\'1-8\');">Jud 15:1-8</a>).<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,\'9-13\');">Jud 15:9-13</a>). 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\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,16);">Jud 15:16</a>). At the same time, Samson reverently gave Yahweh the glory of his victory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,18);">Jud 15:18</a>). Samson being thirsty, Yahweh provided water for him at a place called En-hakkore, or "Partridge Spring," or "the Spring of the Caller"<22>another name for partridge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,\'17-19\');">Jud 15:17-19</a>).<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,\'1-3\');">Jud 16:1-3</a>).<P>(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, 390ff) 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,\'4-20\');">Jud 16:4-20</a>). 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,<P class="in15">"Eyeless in Gaza, at the mill with slaves."<P>Howbeit, the hair of his head began to grow again; but his eyes did not! (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,21,22);">Jud 16:21,22</a>).<P>(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:<P class="in15">\'Our god has given us into our hand<br>The foe of our land,<br>Whom even our most powerful band<br>Was never able to withstand\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,24);">Jud 16:24</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,28);">Jud 16:28</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,29,30);">Jud 16:29,30</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,31);">Jud 16:31</a>).<P>4. Historical Value:<P>The story of Samson is a faithful mirror of his times: "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,6);">Jud 17:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,25);">21:25</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,4);">Jud 14:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,11);">15:11</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,\'1-\');">Judges 13-16</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,6);">14:6</a>) is not without a parallel; David and Benaiah did the same (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'34-36\');">1Sa 17:34-36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,20);">2Sa 23:20</a>). God always inspires a man in the line of his natural endowments. That God miraculously supplied his thirst (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,19);">Jud 15:19</a>) is no more marvelous than what God did for Hagar in the wilderness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,19);">Ge 21:19</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,2);">1Ki 7:2</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,30);">Jud 16:30</a>). 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).<P>5. Religious Value:<P>Not a few important and suggestive lessons are deducible from the hero\'s life:<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,8);">Jud 13:8</a>). Whatever our estimate of his personality is, Samson was closely linked to the covenant.<P>(2) He was endowed with the Spirit of Yahweh<65>the spirit of personal patriotism, the spirit of vengeance upon a foe of 40 years\' standing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,1,25);">Jud 13:1,25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',14,6);">14:6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',15,14);">15:14</a>).<P>(3) He also prayed, and Yahweh answered him, though in judgment (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,30);">Jud 16:30</a>). 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.<P>(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.<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,32);">Heb 11:32</a>). 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<65>not to save his enemies, however, but to kill them. (Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,43);">Mt 5:43</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>.)<P>LITERATURE.<P>(1) Comma. on Judges, 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.``152';
isbe[7628]='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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,20);">1Sa 1:20</a> is not intended of course to be an explanation of its meaning, but is similar to the play upon the name Moses in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,10);">Ex 2:10</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,1);">Jer 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,6);">Ps 99:6</a> 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.<P>1. Sources and Character of the History:<P>The narrative of the events of the life of Samuel appears to be derived from more than one source (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMUEL,+BOOKS+OF">SAMUEL, BOOKS OF</A>). 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.<P>2. Life:<P>In the portion of the general history of Israel contained in 1 Samuel are narrated the circumstances of the future prophet\'s birth (chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'1-\');">1</a>); of his childhood and of the custom of his parents to make annual visits to the sanctuary at Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,11,\'18-21\',26);">2:11,18-21,26</a>); of his vision, and the universal recognition of him as a prophet enjoying the special favor of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,\'1-\');">3</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,1);">4:1</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'5-14\');">7:5-14</a>). The narrator adds that the Philistines came no more within the border of Israel all the days of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,13);">7:13</a>); 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'17-17\');">7:15-17</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'1-3\');">1Sa 8:1-3</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'4-22\');">1Sa 8:4-22</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'1-5\');">1Sa 9:1-5</a>); 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,1);">1Sa 1:1</a>), a meeting of which Samuel had received divine pre-intimation (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,15);">1Sa 9:15</a>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'6-\');">1Sa 9:6</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'1-16\');">10:16</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'6-8\');">1Sa 9:6-8</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,9,11,19);">1Sa 9:9,11,19</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,\'8-15\');">13:8-15a</a>.<P>The course of the narrative is resumed at <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,17);">1Sa 10:17</a>ff, where, in a second national assembly at Mizpah, Saul is selected by lot and accepted by the people as king (10:17-24); after which the people dispersed, and Saul returned to his home at Gibeah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,25,26,27);">10:25-27</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'14-\');">11:14</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,\'1-25\');">12:25</a>). Later the rejection of Saul for disobedience and presumption is announced by Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,\'8-15\');">13:8-15a</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 15</a>). Finally the death and burial of Samuel at Ramah, together with the lamentation of the people for him, are briefly recorded in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,\'1-\');">1Sa 25:1</a>, and referred to again in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,3);">28:3</a>.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 15</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,\'1-13\');">16:1-13</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,\'18-24\');">19:18-24</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,24);">19:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,11,12);">10:11,12</A>), and is apparently regarded as taking its origin from this event.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,\'18-24\');">1Sa 19:18-24</a>, 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.<P>Yet later in the history Samuel is represented as appearing to Saul in a vision at Endor on the eve of his death (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,\'11-20\');">1Sa 28:11-20</a>). The witch also sees the prophet and is stricken with fear. He is described as in appearance an old man "covered with a robe" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,14);">1Sa 28:14</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,19);">1Sa 28:19</a>), and the whole nation will be involved in the penalty and suffering, as they all had a part in the sin.<P>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.<P>3. Character and Influence of Samuel:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,6);">Ps 99:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,1);">Jer 15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,28);">1Ch 6:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,22);">9:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,3);">11:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',26,28);">26:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,29);">29:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,18);">2Ch 35:18</a>) show how high was the estimation in which his name and memory were held by his fellow-countrymen in subsequent ages.<P>LITERATURE.<P>The literature is given in the article, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMUEL,+BOOKS+OF">SAMUEL, BOOKS OF</a> (which see).``65';
isbe[7629]='Samuel, Books of`<b>I. PLACE OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL IN THE HEBREW CANON</b><P><b>II. CONTENTS OF THE BOOKS AND PERIOD OF TIME COVERED BY THE HISTORY</b><P><b>III. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS</b><P class="in15">1. Life of Samuel (1 Samuel 1-15)<P class="in15">2. Reign and Death of Saul (1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 1)<P class="in15">3. Reign of David (2 Samuel 2-20)<P class="in30">(1) David\'s Seven and a Half Years\' Reign over Judah in Hebron (2 Samuel 2:1-5:3).<P class="in30">(2) Reign of David in Jerusalem over United Israel (2 Samuel 5:4-20:26).<P class="in15">4. Appendix (2 Samuel 21-24)<P><b>IV. SOURCES OF THE HISTORY</b><p class="in15">Two Main and Independent Sources<P><b>V. CHARACTER AND DATE OF THE SOURCES</b><P><b>VI. GREEK VERSIONS OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL</b><P><b>VII. ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS TEACHING</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Place of the Books of Samuel in the Hebrew Canon.<P>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.<P>II. Contents of the Books and Period of Time Covered by the History.<P>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:<P>A. The life and rule of Samuel (<span class="noTag">1Sa 1-15) (death <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,1);">1Sa 25:1</A>).<P>B. The life, reign and death of Saul (1Sa 16-2Sa 1).<P>C. The reign and acts of David to the suppression of the two rebellions of Absalom and Sheba (2Sa 2-20).<P>D. Appendix; other incidents in the reign of David, the names of his chief warriors and his Songs or Psalm of Praise (2Sa 21-24).<P>III. Summary and Analysis.</span><P>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.<P>1. Life of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 1-15</a>):<P>(1) Visit of Hannah to Shiloh, and promise of the birth of a son (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'1-19\');">1Sa 1:1-19</a>); birth and weaning of Samuel, and presentation to Eli at Shiloh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',1,\'19-28\');">1Sa 1:19-28</a>). (2) Hannah\'s song or prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,\'1-10\');">1Sa 2:1-10</a>); ministry of Samuel to Eli the priest (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,11,\'18-21\',26);">1Sa 2:11,18-21,26</a>); the evil practices of the sons of Eli and warning to Eli of the consequences to his house (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,\'12-17\',\'22-25\',\'27-36\');">1Sa 2:12-17,22-25,27-36</a>).<P>(3) Samuel\'s vision at the sanctuary and his induction to the prophetic office (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',3,\'1-\');">1Sa 3:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,1);">4:1</a>).<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,\'1-\');">1Sa 4</a>).<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',5,\'1-\');">1Sa 5:1-7:4</a>).<P>(6) Assembly of Israel under Samuel at Mizpah, and victory over the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'5-14\');">1Sa 7:5-14</a>); Samuel established as judge over all Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,\'15-17\');">1Sa 7:15-17</a>).<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'1-\');">1Sa 8</a>).<P>(8) Saul\'s search for, the lost asses of his father and meeting with Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'1-\');">1Sa 9</a>).<P>(9) Saul is anointed by Samuel to be ruler over the people of Israel, and receives the gift of prophecy (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'1-16\');">1Sa 10:1-16</a>); second assembly of the people under Samuel at Mizpah, and election of Saul to be king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'17-27\');">1Sa 10:17-27</a>).<P>(10) Victory of Saul over the Ammonites and deliverance of Jabesh-gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'1-13\');">1Sa 11:1-13</a>); Saul made king in Gilgal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,14,15);">1Sa 11:14,15</a>).<P>(11) Samuel\'s address to the people in Gilgal, defending his own life and action, and exhorting them to fear and serve the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,\'1-\');">1Sa 12</a>).<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,\'1-\');">1Sa 13</a>).<P>(13) Jonathan\'s surprise of the Philistine army, and their sudden panic (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'1-23\');">1Sa 14:1-23</a>); Saul\'s vow, unwittingly broken by Jonathan, whom the people deliver from the fatal consequences (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'24-45\');">1Sa 14:24-45</a>); victories of Saul over his enemies on every side (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'46-52\');">1Sa 14:46-52</a>).<P>(14) War against Amalek, and Saul\'s disobedience to the divine command to exterminate the Amaleldtes (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,\'1-\');">1Sa 15</a>).<P>2. Reign and Death of Saul (<span class="noTag">1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 1</span>):<P>(1) Anointing of David as Saul\'s successor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,\'1-13\');">1Sa 16:1-13</a>); his summons to the court of Saul to act as minstrel before the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,\'14-23\');">1Sa 16:14-23</a>).<P>(2) David and Goliath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'1-\');">1Sa 17</a>).<P>(3) The love of David and Jonathan (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'1-4\');">1Sa 18:1-4</a>); the former\'s advancement and fame, the jealousy of Saul, and his attempt to kill David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'5-16\',29,30);">1Sa 18:5-16,29,30</a>); David\'s marriage to the daughter of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'17-28\');">1Sa 18:17-28</a>).<P>(4) Saul\'s renewed jealousy of David and second attempt to kill him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,\'1-17\');">1Sa 19:1-17</a>); David\'s escape to Ramah, whither the king followed (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,\'18-24\');">1Sa 19:18-24</a>).<P>(5) Jonathan\'s warning to David of his father\'s resolve and their parting (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,\'1-\');">1Sa 20</a>).<P>(6) David at Nob (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,\'1-9\');">1Sa 21:1-9</a>); and with Achish of Gath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,\'10-15\');">1Sa 21:10-15</a>).<P>(7) David\'s band of outlaws at Adullam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,1,2);">1Sa 22:1,2</a>); his provision for the safety of his father and mother in Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,\'3-5\');">1Sa 22:3-5</a>); vengeance of Saul on those who had helped David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,\'6-23\');">1Sa 22:6-23</a>).<P>(8) Repeated attempts of Saul to take David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,\'1-\');">1Sa 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,\'1-\');">24</a>).<P>(9) Death of Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,1);">1Sa 25:1</a>); Abigail becomes David\'s wife, after the death of her husband Nabal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,\'2-44\');">1Sa 25:2-44</a>).<P>(10) Saul\'s further pursuit of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,\'1-\');">1Sa 26</a>).<P>(11) David\'s sojourn with Achish of Gath (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,\'1-\');">1Sa 27:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,1,2);">28:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,\'1-\');">29</a>); Saul and the witch of Endor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,\'3-25\');">1Sa 28:3-25</a>).<P>(12) David\'s pursuit of the Amalekites who had raided Ziklag, and victory (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,\'1-\');">1Sa 30</a>).<P>(13) Battle between the Philistines and Israel in Mt. Gilboa and death of Saul (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,\'1-\');">1Sa 31</a>).<P>(14) News of Saul\'s death brought to David at Ziklag (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,\'1-16\');">2Sa 1:1-16</a>); David\'s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,\'17-27\');">2Sa 1:17-27</a>).<P>3. Reign of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'1-\');">2 Samuel 2-20</a>):<P>(1) David\'s Seven and a Half Years\' Reign over Judah in Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'1-\');">2 Samuel 2:1-5:3</a>).<P>(a) Consecration of David as king in Hebron (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'1-4\');">2Sa 2:1-4</a> a); message to the men of Jabesh-gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'4-7\');">2Sa 2:4-7</a>); Ish-bosheth made king over Northern Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'8-11\');">2Sa 2:8-11</a>); defeat of Abner and death of Asahel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'12-32\');">2Sa 2:12-32</a>).<P>(b) Increase of the fame and prosperity of David, and the names of his sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,\'1-5\');">2Sa 3:1-5</a>); Abner\'s submission to David, and treacherous murder of the former by Joab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',3,\'6-39\');">2Sa 3:6-39</a>).<P>(c) Murder of Ish-bosheth and David\'s vengeance upon his murderers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,\'1-3\',\'5-12\');">2Sa 4:1-3,5-12</a>); notice of the escape of Mephibosheth, when Saul and Jonathan were slain at Jezreel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,4);">2Sa 4:4</a>).<P>(d) David accepted as king over all Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,\'1-3\');">2Sa 5:1-3</a>).<P>(2) Reign of David in Jerusalem over United Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,4);">2 Samuel 5:4-20:26</a>).<P>(a) Taking of Jerusalem and victories over the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,\'4-25\');">2Sa 5:4-25</a>).<P>(b) Return of the ark to the city of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,1);">2Sa 6</a>).<P>(c) David\'s purpose to build a temple for the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'1-3\');">2Sa 7:1-3</a>); the divine answer by the prophet Nathan, and the king\'s prayer (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,\'4-29\');">2Sa 7:4-29</a>).<P>(d) Victories over the Philistines, Syrians, and other peoples (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,\'1-\');">2Sa 8</a>).<P>(e) David\'s reception of Mephibosheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,1);">2Sa 9</a>).<P>(f) Defeat of the Ammonites and Syrians by the men of Israel under the command of Joab (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',10,\'1-\');">2Sa 10:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,1);">11:1</a>).<P>(g) David and Uriah, the latter\'s death in battle, and David\'s marriage with Bath-sheba (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,\'2-27\');">2Sa 11:2-27</a>).<P>(h) Nathan\'s parable and David\'s conviction of sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,\'1-15\');">2Sa 12:1-15</a>); the king\'s grief and intercession for his sick son (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,\'15-25\');">2Sa 12:15-25</a>); siege and capture of Rabbah, the Ammonite capital (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,\'26-31\');">2Sa 12:26-31</a>).<P>(i) Amnon and Tamar (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,\'1-22\');">2Sa 13:1-22</a>); Absalom\'s revenge and murder of Amnon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,\'23-36\');">2Sa 13:23-36</a>); flight of Absalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,\'37-39\');">2Sa 13:37-39</a>).<P>(j) Return of Absalom to Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,\'1-24\');">2Sa 14:1-24</a>); his beauty, and reconciliation with the king (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,\'25-33\');">2Sa 14:25-33</a>).<P>(k) Absalom\'s method of ingratiating himself with the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,\'1-6\');">2Sa 15:1-6</a>); his revolt and the flight of the king from Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,\'7-31\');">2Sa 15:7-31</a>); meeting with Hushai (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,\'32-37\');">2Sa 15:32-37</a>); Absalom in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,37);">2Sa 15:37</a>).<P>(l) David\'s\' meeting with Ziba (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,\'1-4\');">2Sa 16:1-4</a>), and Shimei (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,\'5-14\');">2Sa 16:5-14</a>); counsel of Ahitophel and Hushai (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',16,15);">2Sa 16:15-17:14</a>); the news carried to David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,\'15-22\');">2Sa 17:15-22</a>); death of Ahitophel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,23);">2Sa 17:23</a>).<P>(m) David at Mahanaim (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,\'24-29\');">2Sa 17:24-29</a>).<P>(n) The revolt subdued, death of Absalom, and reception by David of the tidings (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,\'1-\');">2Sa 18:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,\'1-8\');">19:8</a>).<P>(o) Return of the king to Jerusalem, and meetings with Shimei, Mephibosheth, and Barzillai the Gileadite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,\'8-43\');">2Sa 19:8-43</a>).<P>(p) Revolt of Sheba the Benjamite, and its suppression by Joab with the death of Amasa (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,1);">2Sa 20:1,2</a>,<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,\'4-22\');">4-22</a>); the king\'s treatment of the concubines left at Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,3);">2Sa 20:3</a>); the names of his officers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',20,\'23-26\');">2Sa 20:23-26</a>).<P>4. Appendix (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,\'1-\');">2 Samuel 21-24</a>):<P>(1) Seven male descendants of Saul put to death at the instance of the Gibeonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,\'1-14\');">2Sa 21:1-14</a>); incidents of wars with the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,\'15-22\');">2Sa 21:15-22</a>).<P>(2) David\'s song of thanksgiving and praise (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,\'1-\');">2Sa 22</a>).<P>(3) The "last words" of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'1-7\');">2Sa 23:1-7</a>); names and exploits of David\'s "mighty men" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,\'8-39\');">2Sa 23:8-39</a>).<P>(4) The king\'s numbering of the people, the resulting plague, and the dedication of the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,\'1-\');">2Sa 24</a>).<P>IV. Sources of the History.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,\'14-23\');">1Sa 16:14-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,31,55);">17:31ff, 55</a>); 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.<P>Two Main and Independent Sources:<P>Apart from the appendix and minor additions, of which Hannah\'s song or psalm in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,1);">1 Samuel 2</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 10-12:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'1-\');">17-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,\'1-\');">21-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,\'1-\');">28</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,\'1-\');">2Sa 1-7</a>. The earlier source has contributed <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'1-\');">1Sa 9</a> with parts of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,\'1-\');">13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,\'1-\');">16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,\'1-\');">20</a> and considerable portions of <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,\'1-\');">23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,\'1-\');">26-27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,\'1-\');">29-31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,\'1-\');">2Sa 1</a> (in part); <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,\'1-\');">2-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',9,\'1-\');">9-20</a>. 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.<P>V. Character and Date of the Sources.<P>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 Samuel 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.<P>VI. Greek Versions of the Books of Samuel.<P>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.<P>VII. Ethical and Religious Teaching.<P>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<72>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.<P>LITERATURE.<P>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" in HDB, Encyclopedia Biblica and Jewish Encyclopedia.``65';
isbe[7630]='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 (1Esdras 5:23) = "Senaah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,35);">Ezr 2:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,38);">Ne 7:38</a>. The numbers vary in each case (Esdras, 3,330 or 3,301; Ezra, 3,630; Nehemiah, 3,930).``1';
isbe[7631]='Sanabassar; Sanabassarus`san-a-bas\'-ar, san-a-bas\'-a-rus (in 1Esdras 2:12,15), (in 1Esdras 6:18,10; a name appearing in many variations, Codex Alexandrinus always reading Sanabassaros; Codex Vaticanus Sanamassaro, in 1Esdras 2:12(11) (the Revised Version margin, Samanassar), Samanassarou, in 1Esdras 2:15(14), but Sabanassaro, in 1Esdras 6:18 (17) (Revised Version margin) and Sanabassaros, in 1Esdras 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 (1Esdras 2:12,15; 6:18-20) = "<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHESHBAZZAR">SHESHBAZZAR</a> (which see) the prince of Judah" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,8);">Ezr 1:8</a>).<P>Some identify him with Zerubbabel as the King James Version margin in 1Esdras 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 1Esdras 6:27-29. <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',3,10);">Ezr 3:10</a> speaks of the foundation of the temple under Zerubbabel and <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,16);">5:16</a> as under Sheshbazzar. There is further the analogy of 1Esdras 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,14);">Hag 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,2,21);">2:2,21</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,14);">Ezr 5:14</a>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<65>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',3,18);">1Ch 3:18</a>. But either of these identifications must remain doubtful.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHENAZZAR">SHENAZZAR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZERUBBABEL">ZERUBBABEL</a>`5';
isbe[7632]='Sanasib`san\'-a-sib (Fritzsche, Sanasib, but Codex Vaticanus and Swete, Sanabeis; Codex Alexandrinus Anaseib): Found only in 1Esdras 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,36);">Ezr 2:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,39);">Ne 7:39</a>, and is perhaps preserved in the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) "Eliasib."``1';
isbe[7633]='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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,5);">Isa 15:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',48,2,5,34);">Jer 48:2,5,34</a>; Josephus, Ant, XIII, xxiii; XIV, ii. He is named along with Tobiah, the Ammonite slave (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,1);">Ne 4:1</a>), and Geshem the Arabian (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,1);">Ne 6:1</a>) as the leading opponent of the Jews at the time when Nehemiah undertook to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,10);">Ne 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',4,1);">4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',6,1);">6:1</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,28);">Ne 13:28</a>).<P>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, <span class="noTag">Number 32</span>, 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.<P>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.<P>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.)``196';
isbe[7634]='Sanctification`sank-ti-fi-ka\'-shun:<P>Etymology<P><b>I. THE FORMAL SENSE</b><P class="in15">1. In the Old Testament<P class="in15">2. In the New Testament<P><b>II. THE ETHICAL SENSE</b><P class="in15">1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea<P class="in15">2. Our Relation to God as Personal: New Testament Idea<P class="in15">3. Sanctification as God\'s Gift<P class="in15">4. Questions of Time and Method<P class="in15">5. An Element in All Christian Life<P class="in15">6. Follows from Fellowship with God<P class="in15">7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire?<P class="in15">8. Sanctification as Man\'s Task<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Etymology:<P>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.<P>I. The Formal Sense.<P>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.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,2);">Ex 13:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,13);">Nu 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',8,17);">8:17</a>). It applies thus to all that is connected with worship, to the Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',3,12);">Nu 3:12</a>), the priests and the tent of meeting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,44);">Ex 29:44</a>), the altar and all that touches it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,36);">Ex 29:36</a>f), and the offering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,27);">Ex 29:27</a>; compare 2Ma 2:18; Ecclesiasticus 7:31). The feast and holy days are to be sanctified, that is, set apart from ordinary business as belonging to Yahweh (the Sabbath, <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',13,\'19-22\');">Ne 13:19-22</a>; a fast, <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,14);">Joe 1:14</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,5,6);">Ex 19:5,6</a>). A man may thus sanctify his house or his field (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,14,16);">Le 27:14,16</a>), but not the firstling of the flock, for this is already Yahweh\'s (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',27,26);">Le 27:26</a>).<P>It is this formal usage without moral implication that explains such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,21);">Ge 38:21</a>. 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,18);">De 23:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,24);">1Ki 14:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,14);">Ho 4:14</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,17);">De 23:17</a>f), but the use of the term illustrates clearly the absence of anything essentially ethical in its primary meaning (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,20);">2Ki 10:20</a>, "And Jehu said, Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal. And they proclaimed it"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',1,14);">Joe 1:14</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'11-18\');">Ex 15:11-18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,20);">1Sa 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,35);">Ps 68:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,7);">89:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,2,3);">99:2,3</a>). Significant is the way in which "jealous" and "holy" are almost identified (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,19);">Jos 24:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,23);">Eze 38:23</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,25,26,33);">Eze 36:25,26,33</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,41);">Eze 20:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,25);">28:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',36,23);">36:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,16);">38:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,27);">39:27</a>). 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.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,12,13);">Nu 20:12,13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',27,14);">27:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,51);">De 32:51</a>). The story of Nadab and Abihu points the same way. Here "I will be sanctified" is the same as "I will be glorified" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,\'1-3\');">Le 10:1-3</a>). Not essentially different is the usage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,16);">Isa 5:16</a>: "Yahweh of hosts is exalted in justice, and God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness." Holiness again is the exaltedness of God, His supremacy, which is seen here in the judgment (justice, righteousness) meted out to the disobedient people (compare the recurrent refrain of <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,25);">Isa 5:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,12,17,21);">9:12,17,21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,4);">10:4</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JUSTICE">JUSTICE</A>). <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,13);">Isa 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,23);">29:23</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,15);">1Pe 3:15</a>): "Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," that is, exalt Him as supreme.<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,17,19);">Mt 23:17,19</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,13);">Heb 9:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,5);">1Ti 4:5</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,36);">Joh 10:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">17:19</a>, 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.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,\'1-3\');">3:1-3</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,32);">Ac 20:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,18);">26:18</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,11);">6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,18);">Eph 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,12);">Col 1:12</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,10);">10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,12);">13:12</A>). The formal meaning appears again in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',7,\'12-14\');">1Co 7:12-14</a>, 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,16);">Ro 15:16</a>, "being sanctified by the Holy Spirit"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>, to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1Pe 1:2</a>, "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.<P>II. The Ethical Sense.<P>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.<P>1. Transformation of Formal to Ethical Idea:<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,11,16,17);">Isa 1:11,16,17</a>). "When Israel was a child, then I loved him....I desire goodness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than bunt-offerings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,1);">Ho 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,6);">6:6</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'43-48\');">Mt 5:43-48</a>). Brother and sister for Jesus are those who do God\'s will (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,35);">Mr 3:35</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>). The significant latter phrase is the same as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,1);">Ro 1:1</a>, "Paul...called to be an apostle." In this light we read <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,1);">Eph 4:1</a>, "Walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called." Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,12);">1Th 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,27);">Php 1:27</a>. And the end of this calling is that we are "foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,29);">Ro 8:29</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,\'1-4\');">Col 3:1-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,10);">1Th 5:10</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,13,20,23,24,32);">Eph 4:13,20,23,24,32</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,1);">Ro 12:1</a>).<P>2. Our Relation to God as Personal: New Testament Idea:<P>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 God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,8);">Ro 14:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,13);">Ro 6:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,19);">Ga 2:19</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,15);">Ro 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>). It is a life of unconquerable kindness and good will (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'43-48\');">Mt 5:43-48</a>). It is a life of "faith working through love" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,6);">Ga 5:6</a>), it is having the mind of Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,5);">Php 2:5</a>). 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.<P>3. Sanctification as God\'s Gift:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,17);">Joh 17:17</a>). So Paul prays for the Thessalonians (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,23);">1Th 5:23</a>), and declares that Christ is to sanctify His church (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,22);">Ro 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,13);">2Th 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,21);">2Ti 2:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,2);">1Pe 1:2</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,13);">Php 2:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,\'2-4\',9,14,\'16-26\');">Ro 8:2-4,9,14,16-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>f). Significant is the use of the words "creature" ("creation," see margin) and "workmanship" with Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',5,17);">2Co 5:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',6,15);">Ga 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,10);">Eph 2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,24);">4:24</a>). The new life is God\'s second work of creation.<P>4. Questions of Time and Method:<P>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.<P>5. An Element in All Christian Life:<P>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 <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT">HOLY SPIRIT</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',12,3);">1Co 12:3</a>). But this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether with Paul we say Spirit of Christ or Spirit of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,\'21-25\');">Am 5:21-25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,\'6-8\');">Mic 6:6-8</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9,10);">Ro 8:9,10</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,3,4,7);">1Th 4:3,4,7</a>). The strength of Paul\'s teaching, indeed, lies here in this combination of moral earnestness with absolute dependence upon God.<P>6. Follows from Fellowship with God:<P>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.<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,16);">1Co 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,5);">Php 2:5</a>), "the Spirit of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>), "Christ is in you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,10);">Ro 8:10</a>), "the spirit which is from God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,12);">1Co 2:12</a>), "the Spirit of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',3,16);">1Co 3:16</a>), "the Holy Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19);">1Co 6:19</a>), "the Spirit of the Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>), "the Lord the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,18);">2Co 3:18</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9);">Ro 8:9</a>). Paul\'s great contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit lies here. As he states it in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>: "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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,29);">Ro 8:29</a>). We are to grow up in Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">Eph 4:15</a>). He is to be formed in us (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,19);">Ga 4:19</a>). We are to behold Him and be changed into His image (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'3-11\');">Ro 6:3-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,9,10);">8:9,10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,16);">1Co 2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,22);">15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,6);">Isa 6:6</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,16);">Lu 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,3);">Ac 2:3</a>; for the latter, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,38);">Ac 2:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,16);">22:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,11);">1Co 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,26);">Eph 5:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,5);">Tit 3:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,22);">Heb 10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,5);">Re 1:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',7,14);">7:14</a>.) 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.<P>7. Is It Instantaneous and Entire?:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,13);">1Th 3:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,23);">5:23</a>)?<P>In answer to this we must first discriminate between the ideal and the empirical with Paul. Like John (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,6);">1Joh 1:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,9);">3:9</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,12);">1Th 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,14);">5:14</a>). Neither the absolute demand or the promise of grace gives us the right to conclude how the consummation shall take place.<P>8. Sanctification as Man\'s Task:<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,12);">Php 2:12</a>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,3);">1Th 4:3</a>). "Having therefore these promises...let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness (hagiosune) in the fear of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,1);">2Co 7:1</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,4);">Ro 6:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,16);">Ga 5:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,6);">Col 2:6</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,16);">Ga 5:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,25);">Ga 5:25</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,15);">Eph 4:15</a>). (Read also <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,\'1-\');">Ro 6</a>; 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',5,7);">1Co 5:7</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,\'5-10\');">1Th 5:5-10</a>.)<P>We may sum up as follows: The word "sanctify" is used with two broad meanings:<P>(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.<P>(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.<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT">HOLY SPIRIT</a> and the following article.<P>LITERATURE.<P>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).<P>Harris Franklin Rall<hr /><P><b>WESLEYAN DOCTRINE</b><P>1. Doctrine Stated<P>2. Objections Answered<P>3. Required for the Highest Success of the Preacher<P>4. Hymnology<P>5. Its Glorious Results<P>6. Wesley\'s Personal Testimony<hr /><P>1. Doctrine Stated:<P>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.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,2);">1Co 1:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,1);">2Co 1:1</a>). 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: <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,1);">2Co 7:1</a> "perfecting holiness," etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,13);">Eph 4:13</a>, the King James Version "Till we all come...unto a perfect man," etc. Thus sanctification is gradual, but entire sanctification is instantaneous (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,6);">Ro 6:6</a>, "our old man was crucified," etc., a sudden death; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live"). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,23);">1Th 5:23</a>, the word "sanctify" is a Greek aorist tense, signifying an act and not a process, as also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,19);">Joh 17:19</a>, "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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',12,14);">Heb 12:14</a>), does not apply to the saints, "the holy ones."<P>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,<P>"O the bitter shame and sorrow!"<P>The first response to the Saviour\'s call is,<P>"All of self, and none of Thee."<P>But after a view of Christ on the cross. the answer is faintly,<P>"Some of self, and some of Thee."<P>Then, after a period of growing love, the cry is,<P>"Less of self, and more of Thee."<P>After another period, the final cry is,<P>"None of self, and all of Thee!"<P>an aspiration for pure love, without any selfishness.<P>The attainment of this grace is certified by the total cessation of all Servile fear (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,18);">1Joh 4:18</a>). Wesley added to this the witness of the Spirit, for which his only proof-text is <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,12);">1Co 2:12</a>.<P>2. Objections Answered:<P>(1) Paul, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,12);">Php 3:12</a>, declares that he is not "made perfect":<P>(a) in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,15);">3:15</A>, he declares that he is perfect;<P>(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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,32);">Lu 13:32</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,15);">Php 3:15</a>, by the use of an adjective, that he is perfect. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,12);">3:12</A> Paul claims that he is not perfect as a victor, because the race is not ended. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,15);">3:15</A> he claims that he is perfect as a racer.<P>(2) Paul says (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,31);">1Co 15:31</a>), "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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,36);">Ro 8:36</a>, "we are killed all the day long."<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,8);">1Joh 1:8</a>: "If we say that we have no sin," etc.<P>(a) If this includes Christians, it contradicts John himself in the very next verse, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,9);">3:9</a>, sin," "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,36);">Joh 8:36</a>, "If...the Son shall make you free," etc., and in all those texts in the New Testament declaring sins forgiven.<P>(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 Christ\'s humanity. (By all means, see "The Epistles of John," Cambridge Bible for Schools, etc., 17-21.)<P>3. Required for the Highest Success of the Preacher:<P>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:<P>4. Hymnology:<P>"Take away our bent to sinning," ....<P>"Let us find that second rest," ....<P>"Make and keep me pure within," ....<p>"\'Tis done! Thou dost this moment save,<P>With full salvation bless." ....<P>5. Its Glorious Results:<P>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.<P>6. Wesley\'s Personal Testimony:<P>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."<P>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.``165';
isbe[7635]='Sanctity, Legislation of`sank\'-ti-ti, lej-is-la\'-shun.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[7636]='Sanctuary`sank\'-tu-a-ri, sank\'-tu-a-ri (miqdash, miqqedhash, qodhesh, "holy place"; hagion):<P>1. Nature of Article<P>2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis<P class="in15">The Three Stages<P>3. Difficulties of the Theory<P class="in15">(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial<P class="in15">(2) Sacrifice and Theophany<P class="in15">(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries<P class="in15">(4) The Altar of God\'s House<P class="in15">(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy<P>4. The Alternative View<P class="in15">(1) Lay Sacrifice<P class="in15">(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals<P>5. The Elephantine Papyri<P class="in15">The Elephantine Temple<P>LITERATURE<hr /><P>1. Nature of Article:<P>The present article is designed to supplement the articles on <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALTAR">ALTAR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HIGH+PLACE">HIGH PLACE</A>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TABERNACLE">TABERNACLE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPLE,+A1">TEMPLE</a>, 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 <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>.<P>It is said that there are three distinct stages of law and history.<P>2. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis:<P>The Three Stages:<P>(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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'24-26\');">Ex 20:24-26</a>, 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,12);">Ex 18:12</a>), Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',17,15);">Ex 17:15</a>, etc.), Joshua (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,30);">Jos 8:30</a>), Gideon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,26);">Jud 6:26</a> etc.), Manoah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,19);">Jud 13:19</a>), Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,17);">1Sa 7:17</a>, etc.), Elijah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,32);">1Ki 18:32</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,35);">1Sa 14:35</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a> 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).<P>(2) The second stage is presented by Deuteronomy in the Law and Josiah\'s reformation in the history. Undoubtedly, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,\'1-\');">De 12</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'1-\');">2Ki 23</a> tallies with these principles.<P>(3) The third great body of law (the Priestly Code, P) does not deal with the question (save in one passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-9\');">Le 17:1-9</a>, this belongs to H (the Law of Holiness, <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-\');">Le 17:1-26:46</a>), 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.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRITICISM">CRITICISM</a> (The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis).<P>3. Difficulties of the Theory:<P>(1) Slaughter Not Necessarily Sacrificial<P>The general substratum afforded by the documentary theory falls within the scope of the article <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PENTATEUCH">PENTATEUCH</a>. 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,7);">Ge 18:7</a> a calf is slain without any trace of a sacrifice, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,\'9-14\');">27:9-14</a> (Jacob\'s substitute for venison) no altar or religious rite can fairly be postulated. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,24);">1Sa 28:24</a> 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,19);">Jud 6:19</a>) 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,1);">Ex 22:1(Hebrew 21:37)</a>, 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,16);">Ge 43:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,11);">1Sa 25:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,21);">1Ki 19:21</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,13);">1Sa 8:13</a> the word translated "cooks" means literally, "women slaughterers." All these instances are prior to the date assigned to Deuteronomy. With respect to <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'1-7\');">Le 17:1-7</a> 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.<P>(2) Sacrifice and Theophany<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,26);">Ge 4:26</a>, where the calling on God implies sacrifice but not theophanies, Abram at Beth-el (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,8);">12:8</a>) and Mamre (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,18);">13:18</A>), and Jacob\'s sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,54);">31:54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,20);">33:20</a>). Compare later Samuel\'s altar at Ramah, Adonijah\'s sacrifice at En-rogel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,\'1-\');">1Ki 1</a>), Naaman\'s earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,\'1-\');">2Ki 5</a>), David\'s clan\'s sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,6,29);">1Sa 20:6,29</a>). It is impossible to postulate theophanies for the sacrifices of every clan in the country, and it becomes necessary to translate <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,24);">Ex 20:24</a> "in all the place" (see supra 2, (1)) and to understand "the place" as the territory of Israel.<P>(3) Alleged Plurality of Sanctuaries<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,19);">Ex 23:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,26);">34:26</a>; compare the parts of <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,23,27);">Jos 9:23,27</a> assigned to J). No eyewitness could mistake a house for an altar, or vice versa.<P>(4) The Altar of God\'s House<P>Moreover a curious little bit of evidence shows that the "house" had quite a different kind of altar. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,50);">1Ki 1:50</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,28);">2:28</a>ff, we hear of the horns of the altar (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,14);">Am 3:14</a>). Neither earth nor unhewn stones (as required by the Law of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'1-\');">Ex 20</a>) 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',27,\'1-\');">Ex 27</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,14);">Ex 21:14</a>, 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,27);">1Sa 2:27</a>) 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.<P>(5) Local Altars in Deuteronomy<P>Deuteronomy also recognizes a number of local altars in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,21);">16:21</a> (see ICC, at the place) and so does Later Deuteronomistic editors in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,30);">Jos 8:30</a>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.<P>4. The Alternative View:<P>(1) Lay Sacrifice<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,\'24-26\');">Ex 20:24-26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',16,21);">De 16:21</a>f to prevent possible abuses. But he also superimposed two other kinds of sacrifice<63>certain new offerings to be brought by individuals to the religious capital and the national offerings of <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',28,\'1-\');">Nu 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',29,\'1-\');">29</a> 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<72>which are never even mentioned in this connection<6F>but against the Canaanite high places. <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,1);">Deuteronomy 12</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,\'5-7\');">Le 17:5-7</a>) had led to the universal prohibition of lay slaughter for the period of the wanderings only, though it appears to be continued by Deuteronomy for those who lived near the House of God (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,21);">De 12:21</a>, limited to the case "if the place...be too far from thee").<P>(2) Three Pilgrimage Festivals.<P>The JE legislation itself recognizes the three pilgrimage festivals of the House of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,22);">Ex 34:22</a>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,19);">Ex 23:19</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,26);">34:26</a> 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.<P>5. The Elephantine Papyri:<P>The Elephantine Temple.<P>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.<P>LITERATURE<P>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, 173ff.``193';
isbe[7637]='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.<P>See Rock, III, (2).<P>Figurative:<P>(1) Used most often as a symbol of countless multitude; especially of the children of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,17);">Ge 22:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,12);">32:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,11);">2Sa 17:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,20);">1Ki 4:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,22);">Isa 10:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,19);">48:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',33,22);">Jer 33:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,10);">Ho 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,27);">Ro 9:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,12);">Heb 11:12</a>); also of the enemies of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,4);">Jos 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,12);">Jud 7:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,5);">1Sa 13:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,8);">Re 20:8</a>). Joseph laid up gram as the sand of the sea (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,49);">Ge 41:49</a>); God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,29);">1Ki 4:29</a>); Job says "I shall multiply my days as the sand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,18);">Job 29:18</a>); the multitude of quails provided for the Israelites in the desert is compared to the sand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,27);">Ps 78:27</a>); the Psalmist says of the thoughts of God, "They are more in number than the sand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,18);">Ps 139:18</a>); Jeremiah, speaking of the desolation of Jerusalem, says that the number of widows is as the sand (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',15,8);">Jer 15:8</a>).<P>(2) Sand is also a symbol of weight (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',6,3);">Job 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,3);">Pr 27:3</a>), and<P>(3) of instability (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,26);">Mt 7:26</a>).<P>It is a question what is meant by "the hidden treasures of the sand" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,19);">De 33:19</a>.``37';
isbe[7638]='Sand Flies`sand\'-fliz (kinnim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,16);">Ex 8:16</a> margin; Wis 19:10 margin)): English Versions of the Bible "lice."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLEA">FLEA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GNAT">GNAT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=INSECTS">INSECTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LICE">LICE</a>`1';
isbe[7639]='Sand, Glowing`glo\'-ing.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIRAGE">MIRAGE</a>`1';
isbe[7640]='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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,29,30);">Le 11:29,30</a>, and occurs nowhere else. It is probably a skink or some species of Lacerta.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LIZARD">LIZARD</a>`1';
isbe[7641]='Sandal`san\'-dal.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHOE">SHOE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHOE+LATCHET">SHOE-LATCHET</a>`1';
isbe[7642]='Sanhedrin`san\'-he-drin (canhedhrin, the Talmudic transcription of the Greek sunedrion):<P>1. Name:<P>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."<P>In the New Testament the word sometimes, especially when used in the plural (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,17);">Mt 10:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,9);">Mr 13:9</a>; compare Sanhedrin 1 5), means simply "court of justice," i.e. any judicatory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,22);">Mt 5:22</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,59);">Mt 26:59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,55);">Mr 14:55</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,1);">15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,66);">Lu 22:66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,47);">Joh 11:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,15);">Ac 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,21);">5:21</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,12);">6:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,30);">22:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,1);">23:1</A>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,20);">24:20</a>). Sometimes presbuterion (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,66);">Lu 22:66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,5);">Ac 22:5</a>) and gerousia (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,21);">Ac 5:21</a>) are substituted for sunedrion.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SENATE">SENATE</a>.<P>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."<P>2. Origin and History:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',11,\'16-24\');">Nu 11:16-24</a>) and was reorganized by Ezra immediately after the return from exile (compare the Targum to <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,1);">So 6:1</a>). 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.<P>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 (1Macc 12:6; 2Macc 1:10; 4:44; 11:27; 3Macc 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\'s RE, III, 49). Subsequently this developed into the Sanhedrin.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,2);">Ac 9:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,5);">22:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,12);">26:12</a>). 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).<P>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).<P>3. Constitution:<P>The Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was formed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,3,17,59);">Mt 26:3,17,59</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,53);">Mr 14:53</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,1);">15:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,66);">Lu 22:66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,5);">Ac 4:5</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,21);">5:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,30);">22:30</a>) 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,1);">Ac 4:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,17,34);">5:17,34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,6);">23:6</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,43);">Mr 15:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,50);">Lu 23:50</a>, Joseph of Arimathea is called bouleutes, "councillor," i.e. member of the Sanhedrin.<P>According to Josephus and the New Testament, the acting high priest was as such always head and president (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,3,17);">Mt 26:3,17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,17);">Ac 5:17</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,1);">7:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,1);">9:1</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,5);">22:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',23,2);">23:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,1);">24:1</a>; Ant, IV, viii, 17; 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 Haghighah 2 2), 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).<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,25);">Mt 5:25</a>) and of the "servants of the high priest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,51);">Mt 26:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,47);">Mr 14:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,10);">Joh 18:10</a>), 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).<P>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).<P>4. Jurisdiction:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,47);">Mt 26:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,43);">Mr 14:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,3);">Ac 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,17);">5:17</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,2);">9:2</a>; 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,31);">Joh 18:31</a>; 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.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',21,28);">Ac 21:28</a>). The only case of capital punishment in connection with the Sanhedrin in the New Testament is that of our Lord. The stoning of Stephen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,54);">Ac 7:54</a>) was probably the illegal act of an enraged multitude.<P>5. Place and Time of Meeting:<P>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.<P>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.<P>6. Procedure:<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,\'41-43\');">Lu 23:41-43</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>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).<P>See the article, <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TALMUD">TALMUD</a>.<P>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.<P>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).``98';
isbe[7643]='Sansannah`san-san\'-a (cancannah; [Sansanna], or Sethennak): One of the uttermost cities in the Negeb of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,31);">Jos 15:31</a>), identical with Hazar-susah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,5);">Jos 19:5</a>), one of the cities of Simeon, and almost certainly the same as Hazar-susim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,31);">1Ch 4:31</a>). 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).``1';
isbe[7644]='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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,18);">2Sa 21:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4);">1Ch 20:4</a>). It is supposed by some that he was the son of the giant Goliath, but this is not proved. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4);">1Ch 20:4</a>, the same person is called "Sippai."``1';
isbe[7645]='Saphat`sa\'-fat:<P>(1) A and Fritzsche, Saphat; omitted in Codex Vaticanus (and Swete); Babylonian margin Asaph: The eponym of a family which returned with Zerubbabel (1Esdras 5:9) = "Shephatiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,4);">Ezr 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,9);">Ne 7:9</a>.<P>(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 (1Esdras 5:34); wanting in the parallel <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,57);">Ezr 2:57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,59);">Ne 7:59</a>.``1';
isbe[7646]='Saphatias`saf-a-ti\'-as (Saphatias, Codex Vaticanus Sophotias; omitted in Codex Alexandrinus): Name of a family of returning exiles (1Esdras 8:34) = "Shephatiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,8);">Ezr 8:8</a>. If Saphatias (1Esdras 8:34) = Saphat (1Esdras 5:9), as would appear, then part of the family went up with Zerubbabel and part with Ezra.``1';
isbe[7647]='Sapheth`sa\'-feth: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAPHUTHI">SAPHUTHI</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7648]='Saphir`sa\'-fer (shaphir).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SHAPHIR">SHAPHIR</a>`1';
isbe[7649]='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" (1Esdras 5:33) = "Shephatiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,57);">Ezr 2:57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,59);">Ne 7:59</a>.``1';
isbe[7650]='Sapphira`sa-fi\'-ra (shappira\'; Aramaic for either "beautiful" or "sapphire"; Sappheira): Wife of Ananias (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,\'1-10\');">Ac 5:1-10</a>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANANIAS">ANANIAS</a>`1';
isbe[7651]='Sapphire`saf\'-ir.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[7652]='Sarabias`sar-a-bi\'-as (Sarabias): One of the Levites who taught and expounded the Law for Ezra (1Esdras 9:48) = "Sherebiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',8,7);">Ne 8:7</a>, probably identical with the "Asebebias" in 1Esdras 8:47 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,18);">Ezr 8:18</a>).``1';
isbe[7653]='Sarah; Sarai`sa\'-ra, sa\'-ri:<P>(1) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,15);">Ge 17:15</a> 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.)<P>The former name appears to be derived from the same root as Israel, if, indeed, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,28);">Ge 32:28</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,3,4);">Ho 12:3,4</a>, of Jacob), or later when the child\'s character developed; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,6);">Ge 16:6</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,10);">21:10</a> a contentious character appears. Yet comparison with the history of her husband\'s name (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM</a>) 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,16);">Ge 17:16</a>).<P>We are introduced to Sarai in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,29);">Ge 11:29</a>. 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Genesis 11</a> knew nothing of the relationship announced in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">20:12</A>. But there can be no proof of such ignorance, even on the assumption of diversity of authorship in the two passages.<P>Sarai\'s career as described in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'1-\');">Genesis 11</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',20,12);">20:12</A> would indeed admit of her being Abram\'s niece, but the fact that there was but 10 years\' difference between his age and hers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">Ge 17:17</a>) renders this hypothesis less probable. Marriage with half-sisters seems to have been not uncommon in antiquity (even in the Old Testament compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,13);">2Sa 13:13</a>).<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,\'1-\');">Genesis 12</a>). 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."<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,2);">Ge 16:2</a> margin). That is, according to contemporary law and custom as witnessed by the Code of Hammurabi (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ABRAHAM">ABRAHAM, iv, 2</a>), a son born of this woman would be the freeborn son and heir of Abraham and Sarah.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',23,\'1-\');">Genesis 23</a>, 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.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,11);">Heb 11:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,6);">1Pe 3:6</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,67);">Ge 24:67</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,17);">Ge 17:17</a>, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,23);">23:1</a> with <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,20);">Ge 25:20</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,\'22-31\');">Ga 4:22-31</a>).<P>Apart from the three New Testament passages already cited, Sarah is alluded to only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,2);">Isa 51:2</a> ("Sarah that bare you," as the mother of the nation), in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,19);">Ro 4:19</a> ("the deadness of Sarah\'s womb"), and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,9);">Ro 9:9</a>, where God\'s promise in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,10);">Ge 18:10</a> is quoted. Yet her existence and her history are of course presupposed wherever allusion is made to the stories of Abraham and of Isaac.<P>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.<P>(2) The daughter of Raguel, and wife of Tobias (Tobit 3:7,17, etc.).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TOBIT,+BOOK+OF">TOBIT, BOOK OF</a>`15';
isbe[7654]='Saraias`sa-ra\'-yas, sa-ri\'-as (Saraias; Latin, Sareus):<P>(1) = Seraiah, the high priest in the reign of Zedekiah (1Esdras 5:5, compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,14);">1Ch 6:14</a>).<P>(2) Sareus the father of Ezra (2Esdras 1:1) = "Seraiah" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,1);">Ezr 7:1</a>, sometimes identified with Saraias under (1). He is probably identical with the "Azaraias" of 1Esdras 8:1.<P>(3) the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) "Azaraias" (1Esdras 8:1).``1';
isbe[7655]='Saramel`sar\'-a-mel: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASARAMEL">ASARAMEL</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7656]='Saraph`sa\'-raf, sa\'-raf (saraph, "noble one"; compare saraph, "burn" "shine"): A descendant of Judah through Shelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',4,22);">1Ch 4:22</a>).``1';
isbe[7657]='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 1:21f; another form of Esar-haddon.``1';
isbe[7658]='Sardeus`sar-de\'-us: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZARDEUS">ZARDEUS</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7659]='Sardin(E); Sardius`sar\'-din, sar\'-din.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[7660]='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 Revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,11);">1:11</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,1);">3:1</a>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,2,3);">Re 3:2,3</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,12);">Re 3:12</a>). 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.<P>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.<P>We quote the following from the Missionary Herald (Boston, Massachusetts, August,1911,pp. 361-62):<P>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?"<P>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 Revelation 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<72>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.\'"``7';
isbe[7661]='Sardite`sar\'-dit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SERED">SERED</a>`1';
isbe[7662]='Sardius`sar\'-di-us.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[7663]='Sardonyx`sar\'-do-niks.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=STONES,+PRECIOUS">STONES, PRECIOUS</a>`1';
isbe[7664]='Sarepta`sa-rep\'-ta (Sarepta): The name in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,26);">Lu 4:26</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,9,10);">1Ki 17:9,10</a>). The Revised Version (British and American) adopts the form of the name based upon the Hebrew, and as found in the Old Testament: <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZAREPHATH">ZAREPHATH</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7665]='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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',20,1);">Isa 20:1</a>), when he sent his Tartan (turtannu) against Ashdod, but he is referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,6);">2Ki 17:6</a> as "the king of Assyria" who carried Israel into captivity.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.``24';
isbe[7666]='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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,10,12);">Jos 19:10,12</a>). 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.``1';
isbe[7667]='Saron`sa\'-ron, (Saron): the King James Version; Greek form of Sharon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,35);">Ac 9:35</a>).``1';
isbe[7668]='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 (1Esdras 5:34); it is wanting in the parallel lists in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,57);">Ezr 2:57</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',7,59);">Ne 7:59</a>.``1';
isbe[7669]='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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,3);">Jer 39:3</a>). The versions with their various readings<67>"Nabousachar" "Nabousarach," "Sarsacheim"<22>point to a corrupt text. The best emendation is the reading "Nebhoshazibhon" (= Nabusezib-anni, "Nebo delivers me"); this is based on the reading in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',39,13);">Jer 39:13</a>.``1';
isbe[7670]='Saruch`sa\'-ruk (Sarouch, Serouch): the King James Version; Greek form of Serug (thus, <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',3,35);">Lu 3:35</a> the Revised Version (British and American)).``1';
isbe[7671]='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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,10);">Re 12:10</a>), "accuser"):<P><b>I. DEFINITION</b><P><b>II. SCRIPTURAL FACTS CONCERNING SATAN</b><P class="in15">1. Names of Satan<P class="in15">2. Character of Satan<P class="in15">3. Works of Satan<P class="in15">4. History of Satan<P><b>III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS</b><P class="in15">1. Scripture Doctrine of Satan Not Systematized<P class="in15">2. Satan and God<P class="in15">3. Satan Essentially Limited<P class="in15">4. Conclusions<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Definition.<P>A created but superhuman, personal, evil, world-power, represented in Scripture as the adversary both of God and men.<P>II. Scriptural Facts concerning Satan.<P>1. Names of Satan:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',22,22,32);">Nu 22:22,32</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,4);">1Sa 29:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,22);">2Sa 19:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,6);">Ps 109:6</a>, etc.). The word "Satan" is used 24 times in the Old Testament. In Job (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,6);">1:6</a>f) and Zec (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1);">3:1</a>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,1);">1Ch 21:1</a> (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,1);">2Sa 24:1</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,5);">Mt 4:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',3,5);">1Th 3:5</a>); Beelzebub (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,24);">Mt 12:24</a>); Enemy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,39);">Mt 13:39</a>); Evil One (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,19,38);">Mt 13:19,38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13,14);">1Joh 2:13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,12);">3:12</a>, and particularly <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,18);">1Joh 5:18</a>); Belial (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,15);">2Co 6:15</a>); Adversary (antidikos), (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,8);">1Pe 5:8</a>); Deceiver (literally "the one who deceives") (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,9);">Re 12:9</a>); Dragon (Great) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,3);">Re 12:3</a>); Father of Lies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>); Murderer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">Joh 8:44</a>); Sinner (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,8);">1Joh 3:8</a>)<29>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.<P>2. Character of Satan:<P>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. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,39);">Mt 13:39</a> 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,19,38);">Mt 13:19,38</a>; compare Isaiah\'s description of Yahweh as the "Holy One," <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,4);">Isa 1:4</a> 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.<P>3. Works of Satan:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,22);">Mr 3:22</a>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,16);">Lu 13:16</a> our Lord speaks of the woman who was bowed over as one "whom Satan has bound, lo, these eighteen years," and that in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',12,7);">2Co 12:7</a> Paul speaks of his infirmity as a "messenger of Satan sent to buffet him." Paul also speaks (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,18);">1Th 2:18</a>) 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14);">Heb 2:14</a>) 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,32);">Joh 8:32</a>)<29>this is the way of deliverance from the power of Satan.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,10);">2Co 1:10</a>). 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 <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TEMPTATION+OF+CHRIST">TEMPTATION OF CHRIST</a>). This incident reveals one of the methods of Satan<61>by immediate suggestion as in the case of Judas (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,3);">Lu 22:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,2,27);">Joh 13:2,27</a>). Sometimes, however, and, perhaps, most frequently, Satan\'s devices (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,11);">2Co 2:11</a>) include human agents. Those who are given over to evil and who persuade others to evil are children and servants of Satan (See <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,23);">Mt 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,33);">Mr 8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,8);">Lu 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,70);">Joh 6:70</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,44);">8:44</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,10);">Ac 13:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,8);">1Joh 3:8</a>). 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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>) 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',11,13,15);">2Co 11:13,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,1);">1Joh 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',2,9);">2Th 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,9);">Re 12:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,20);">19:20</a>). 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.<P>4. History of Satan:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,6);">Job 1:6</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,4);">2Pe 2:4</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,6);">Jude 1:6</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,\'1-\');">38-41</a>), where Yahweh\'s power extends even to the symbolized spirit of evil.<P>According to synoptic tradition, our Lord in the crisis of temptation immediately following the baptism (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,\'1-\');">Mt 4</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',10,18);">10:18</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,31);">Joh 12:31</a>), "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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,30);">Joh 14:30</a>), "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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,11);">Joh 16:11</a>) that the Spirit would convict the world of judgment, "because the prince of this world hath been judged." In Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,14,15);">2:14,15</A>) 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,8);">1Joh 3:8</a> it is said, "To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,9);">Re 12:9</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,10,11,12);">12:10-12</a>), 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13);">1Joh 2:13</a> the young men are addressed as those who "have overcome the evil one." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,\'1-\');">Re 20</a> 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."<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,30);">Joh 14:30</a>); then, for believers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,31);">Lu 22:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,18);">Ac 26:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,20);">Ro 16:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,7);">Jas 4:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,13);">1Joh 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,4,18);">5:4,18</a>); and, finally, for the whole world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,10);">Re 20:10</a>). The work of Christ has already destroyed the empire of Satan.<P>III. General Considerations.<P>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.<P>1. Scripture Doctrine of Satan Not Systematized:<P>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.<P>2. Satan and God:<P>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 <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ANGEL">ANGEL</a>). 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.<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,1);">1Sa 24:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',21,1);">1Ch 21:1</a>) 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',1,6);">1:6</a>), however, Satan is among the Sons of God and his assaults upon Job are divinely permitted. In Zec (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1,2);">3:1,2</a>) 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, 316f). 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 Genesis 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,7);">Isa 45:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,6);">Am 3:6</a>). 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.<P>3. Satan Essentially Limited:<P>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<65>a time-lease of activity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,6);">Lu 4:6</a>).<P>4. Conclusions:<P>These three general considerations have been grouped in this way because they dispose of three objections which are current against the doctrine of Satan.<P>(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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,1,13,14);">Ge 3:1,13,14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',12,\'7-9\');">Re 12:7-9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',5,8);">1Pe 5:8</a>) does not imply more than a literary clothing of Satan in attributes commonly ascribed to malignant and disorderly forces.<P>(2) The second objection is that the doctrine is due to the influence of Persian dualism (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PERSIAN+RELIGION">PERSIAN RELIGION</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOROASTRIANISM">ZOROASTRIANISM</a>). 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).<P>(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).<P>LITERATURE.<P>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.``169';
isbe[7672]='Satan, Depths of`(ta bathea tou Satana): Found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,24);">Re 2:24</a>, 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,33);">Ro 11:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,10);">1Co 2:10</a>.``61';
isbe[7673]='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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,27,35);">Nu 14:27,35</a>, Yahweh expresses His wrath against "the evil congregation" Septuagint sunagoge ponera) which He threatens to consume in the wilderness. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,16);">Ps 21 (22):16</a>, 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."<P>Only in the New Testament occurs the phrase "synagogue of Satan," and here only twice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,9);">Re 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,9);">3:9</a>). Three observations are evident as to who constituted "the synagogue of Satan" in Smyrna and Philadelphia.<P>(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.<P>(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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,28);">Ro 2:28</a>).<P>(3) They are persecutors of the Christians in Smyrna.<P>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.<P>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."<P>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."<P>LITERATURE.<P>Ramsay, The Seven Churches of Asia, chapter xii; Swete, The Apocalypse of John,31,32; Polycarp, Mar. xiiiff.17,2; Mommsen, Historische Zeitschrift, XXXVII, 417.``194';
isbe[7674]='Satchel`sach\'-el.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BAG">BAG</a>`1';
isbe[7675]='Sathrabuzanes`sath-ra-bu\'-za-nez, sath-ra-bu-za\'-nez (Sathrabouzanes): In 1Esdras 6:3,7,27 = "Shethar-bozenai" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',5,3,6);">Ezr 5:3,6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,6,13);">6:6,13</a>.``1';
isbe[7676]='Satisfaction`sat-is-fak\'-shun: Occurs twice in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,31,32);">Nu 35:31,32</a>) 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,\'30-32\');">Ex 21:30-32</a>).``44';
isbe[7677]='Satraps`sa\'-traps, sat\'-raps (\'achashdarpenim, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,36);">Ezr 8:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',3,12);">Es 3:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',8,9);">8:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',9,3);">9:3</a>, the King James Version "lieutenants"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,2,3,27);">Da 3:2,3,27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,1);">6:1</a>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."``1';
isbe[7678]='Satyr`sat\'-er, sa\'-ter (sa\'ir, literally "he-goat"; sa\'ir, "hairy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,11);">Ge 27:11</a>, of Esau), and Arabic sha\'r, "hair"; plural se\'irim): For se\'irim in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,7);">Le 17:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,15);">2Ch 11:15</a>, 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>, 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">Isa 34:14</a>, 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."<P>The text of the American Standard Revised Version in these passages is as follows: <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,7);">Le 17:7</a>, "And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the he-goats, after which they play the harlot"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,15);">2Ch 11:15</a>, "And he (Jeroboam) appointed him priests for the high places, and for the he-goats, and for the calves which he had made"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>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"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,11,13,14,15);">Isa 34:11,13,14,15</a> (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."<P>The question is whether sa\'ir and se\'irim in these passages stand for real or for fabulous animals. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,7);">Le 17:7</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,15);">2Ch 11:15</a>, 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,20);">Isa 13:20</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a> for se\'irim and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</A> for tsiyim; onokentauroi, from "centaur," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,22);">Isa 13:22</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</A> for \'iyim, and again in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a> for lilith; seirenes, "sirens," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a> for benoth ya\'anah, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,13);">34:13</A> 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.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOAT">GOAT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JACKAL">JACKAL</a>`37';
isbe[7679]='Saul`sol (sha\'ul; Saoul):<P>(1) The first king of Israel.<P><b>I. EARLY HISTORY</b><P class="in15">1. Name and Meaning<P class="in15">2. Genealogy<P class="in15">3. Home and Station<P class="in15">4. Sources for Life<P class="in15">5. Election as King<P class="in15">6. Reasons for It<P><b>II. REIGN AND FALL</b><P class="in15">1. His First Action<P class="in15">2. Army Reorganized<P class="in15">3. Battle of Michmash<P class="in15">4. Defeats the Amalekites<P class="in15">5. Deposition Pronounced<P class="in15">6. David Introduced to Saul<P class="in15">7. Two Accounts<P class="in15">8. Saul\'s Envy of David<P class="in15">9. Attempts to Get Rid of David<P class="in15">10. David Spares Saul<P class="in15">11. Saul\'s Divided Energies<P class="in15">12. Consults a Necromancer<P class="in15">13. Battle of Gilboa<P class="in15">14. Double Accounts<P class="in15">15. Saul\'s Posterity<P><b>III. CHARACTER</b><P class="in15">1. Book of Chronicles<P class="in15">2. Saul\'s Failings<P class="in15">3. His Virtue<P class="in15">4. David\'s Elegy<hr /><P>I. Early History.<P>1. Name and Meaning:<P>The name Saul is usually regarded as simply the passive participle of the verb "to ask," and so meaning "asked" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,4);">1Sa 8:4</a>ff), but the gentilic adjective sha\'uli (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,13);">Nu 26:13</a>) would point to its having also an intensive connotation, "the one asked importunately," or perhaps, "the one asking insistently," "the beggar."<P>2. Genealogy:<P>Saul was the son of Kish, a Benjamite. His genealogical tree is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,1);">1Sa 9:1</a> (compare Septuagint 10:21). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,1);">1Sa 9:1</a> his grandfather is Abiel, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,33);">1Ch 8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',9,39);">9:39</a>, Ner, who appears as his paternal uncle in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,50,51);">1Sa 14:50,51</a>.<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,30);">1Sa 20:30</a>). This was quite common, and in some cases compulsory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',25,\'5-9\');">De 25:5-9</a>).<P>3. Home and Station:<P>Saul\'s home was at <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIBEAH">GIBEAH</a> (which see), which is also called Gibeah of Saul, i.e. Saul\'s Hill (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,4);">1Sa 11:4</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,5);">1Sa 10:5</a>, God\'s Hill, or simply The Hill, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,10);">1Sa 10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',5,8);">Ho 5:8</a>, etc.), or the Hill of Benjamin or of the Benjamites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,15);">1Sa 13:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,29);">2Sa 23:29</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,21);">1Sa 9:21</a>) are not to be taken literally.<P>4. Sources for Life:<P>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.<P>See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SAMUEL,+BOOKS OF">SAMUEL, BOOKS OF</a>.<P>5. Election as King:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,\'1-\;);">1Sa 9:1</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'1-16\');">10:16</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,\'1-\');">1Sa 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,\'17-27\');">10:17-27</a>, omitting the last clause; and chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,\'1-\');">12</A>).<P>6. Reasons for It:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,1);">1Sa 8:1</a>); second, an invasion of the Ammonites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,12);">1Sa 12:12</a>); and third, the Philistines (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',9,16);">1Sa 9:16</a>). 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.<P>II. Reign and Fall.<P>1. His First Action:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,27);">1Sa 10:27</a> the Septuagint, for Massoretic Text "But he held his peace"), the summons came. A message from the citizens of <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JABESH-GILEAD">JABESH-GILEAD</a> (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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,\'1-\');">1Sa 11</a>). This double election, first by the chiefs and then by the people, is quite a regular proceeding.<P>2. Army Reorganized:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,26);">1Sa 10:26</a>, 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 <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONATHAN">JONATHAN</a> (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<74>the Israelites knowing only bronze, and having even been deprived of weapons of the softer metals. They seem to have armed themselves<65>with the exception of the king and his son<6F>with mattocks and plowshares (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,19);">1Sa 13:19</a>).<P>3. Battle of Michmash:<P>The first encounter was the attack upon the Philistine post at Michmash (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,\'1-\');">1Sa 13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,\'1-\');">14</a>). The text of the narrative is uncertain, but the following outline is clear. On hearing that the Hebrews had revolted (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,3);">1Sa 13:3</a>, the Septuagint), the Philistines gathered in great force, including 3,000 chariots (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,5);">1Sa 13:5</a>, the Septuagint; the Massoretic Text has 30,000) at Michmash. In dismay, Saul\'s troops deserted (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,6);">1Sa 13:6</a>f), until he was left with only 600 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,2);">1Sa 14:2</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,47);">1Sa 14:47</a>).<P>4. Defeats the Amalekites:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,\'1-\');">1Sa 15</a>).<P>5. Deposition Pronounced:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,6);">1Sa 8:6</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,10);">1Sa 13:10</a>), and to have considered him merely as his lieutenant (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,3);">1Sa 15:3</a>) who could be dismissed for disobedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,14);">1Sa 15:14</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,8);">1Sa 13:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,8);">1Sa 10:8</a>). "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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,3);">1Sa 15:3</a>) 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,35);">1Sa 15:35</a>).<P>6. David Introduced to Saul:<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',9,6,10);">2Ki 9:6,10</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,14);">1Sa 16:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,15);">2Ki 3:15</a>).<P>7. Two Accounts:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,1);">1Sa 17:1</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAVID">DAVID</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',16,1);">1 Samuel 16</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'1-\');">17</a> 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'12-31\',41,50,55);">1Sa 17:12-31,41,50,55</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'1-5\');">18:1-5</a>.<P>8. Saul\'s Envy of David:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,7);">1Sa 18:7</a>f). His consequent attempt upon the life of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'8-11\');">1Sa 18:8-11</a>) is omitted in the Septuagint. Not least was the love of his own daughter for David (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,20);">1Sa 18:20</a>; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,28);">1Sa 18:28</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',20,30);">1Sa 20:30</a>).<P>See also <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAVID">DAVID</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JONATHAN">JONATHAN</a>.<P>9. Attempts to Get Rid of David:<P>Saul could not believe that David could remain loyal to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,9);">1Sa 24:9</a>); 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,\'8-11\');">1Sa 18:8b-11</a>) was to encourage him to make raids on the Philistines in the hope that these might kill him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,21);">1Sa 18:21</a>); his next, assassination by one of his servants (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,1);">1Sa 19:1</a>), and then by his own hand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,9);">1Sa 19:9</a>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,17);">1Sa 22:17</a>). From one spot to another David was hunted, as he says, like a partridge (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,20);">1Sa 26:20</a>).<P>10. David Spares Saul:<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,\'1-\');">1 Samuel 24</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,\'1-\');">26</a>, but the points of resemblance are slight. Three thousand (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,2);">24:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,2);">26:2</A>) was the number of Saul\'s picked men (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,2);">13:2</a>). David uses the simile of "a flea" in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,14);">24:14</a>, but in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,20);">26:20</A> 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.<P>11. Saul\'s Divided Energies:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,27);">1Sa 23:27</a>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.<P>12. Consults a Necromancer:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,6);">1Sa 28:6</a>), and was obliged to have recourse to a necromancer, one of a class whom he himself had taken means to suppress (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,3);">1Sa 28:3</a>). The result of the seance confirmed his worst fears and filled his soul with despair (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,7);">1Sa 28:7</a>).<P>13. Battle of Gilboa:<P>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 <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,4);">1Sa 14:4</a>). The result was what had been foreseen. The Israelites, no doubt greatly reduced in numbers (contrast <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,8);">1Sa 11:8</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,10);">1Ch 10:10</a>). The citizens of Jabesh-gilead, out of ancient gratitude, rescued the bodies and, in un-Semitic wise, burned them and buried the bones.<P>14. Double Accounts:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,4);">1Sa 31:4</a>). According to the second (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,2);">2Sa 1:2</a>), 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,9);">2Sa 4:9</a>).<P>15. Saul\'s Posterity:<P>With Saul the first Israelite dynasty began and ended. The names of his sons are given in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,49);">1Sa 14:49</a> as Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua. Ishvi or Ishyo (Septuagint) is Eshbaal, called in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,8);">2Sa 2:8</a> ISH-BOSHETH (which see). <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,33);">1Ch 8:33</a> adds Abinadab. Jonathan left a long line of descendants famous, like himself, as archers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',8,34);">1Ch 8:34</a>). The rest of Saul\'s posterity apparently died out. Malchishua and Abinadab were slain at Gilboa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,6);">1Sa 31:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,2);">1Ch 10:2</a>), and Ish-bosheth was assassinated shortly after (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,2);">2Sa 4:2</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,8);">2Sa 21:8</a>, not Michal; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,19);">1Sa 18:19</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,8);">2Sa 12:8</a>), but of them and their descendants we know nothing.<P>III. Character.<p>1. Book of Chronicles:<P>Saul\'s life and character are disposed of in a somewhat summary fashion by the Chronicler (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,\'1-\');">1Ch 10</a>, especially <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,13,14);">1Ch 10:13,14</a>). 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.<P>2. Saul\'s Failings:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,7);">1Sa 18:7</a>f) at once set his jealousy on fire. His persecution of David was largely due to the instigation of mischievous courtiers (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,9);">1Sa 24:9</a>). Upon remonstrance his repentance was as deep as it was short-lived (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,16);">1Sa 24:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,21);">26:21</a>). His impulsiveness was such that he did not know where to stop. His interdict (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,24);">1Sa 14:24</a>) was quite as uncalled for as his religious zeal (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,9);">1Sa 15:9</a>) was out of place. He was always at one extreme. His hatred of David was only equal to his affection for him at first (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',18,2);">1Sa 18:2</a>). His pusillanimity led him to commit crimes which his own judgment would have forbidden (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,17);">1Sa 22:17</a>). Like most beaten persons, he became suspicious of everyone (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,7);">1Sa 22:7</a>f), and, like those who are easily led, he soon found his evil genius (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,9,18,22);">1Sa 22:9,18,22</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,6);">1Sa 11:6</a>). His mind was peculiarly subject to external influences, so that he was now respectable man of the world, now a prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,11);">1Sa 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,24);">19:24</a>).<P>3. His Virtues:<P>On the other hand, Saul possessed many high qualities. His dread of office (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,22);">1Sa 10:22</a>) was only equaled by the coolness with which he accepted it (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,5);">1Sa 11:5</a>). To the first call to action he responded with promptitude (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,6);">1Sa 11:6</a>). His timely aid excited the lasting gratitude of the citizens of Jabesh-gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,11);">1Sa 31:11</a>) If we remember that Saul was openly disowned by Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,30);">1Sa 15:30</a>), 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.<P>4. David\'s Elegy:<P>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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,19);">2Sa 1:19</a>).<P>(2) Saul of Tarsus. See <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PAUL">PAUL</a>``189';
isbe[7680]='Savaran`sav\'-a-ran: the King James Version = the Revised Version (British and American) <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AVARAN">AVARAN</a> (which see).``1';
isbe[7681]='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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,11);">Ec 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,8);">Am 9:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,32);">Mt 5:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,27);">Lu 4:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,17);">Re 2:17</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',15,4);">De 15:4</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,31);">Ps 18:31</a>, etc.), but the English Revised Version has dropped "saving" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,27);">Lu 4:27</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,17);">Re 2:17</a> and the American Standard Revised Version also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,11);">Ec 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',9,8);">Am 9:8</a>, retaining it only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,32);">Mt 5:32</a>.``1';
isbe[7682]='Savias`sa-vi\'-as (Saouia): In 1Esdras 8:2, for Uzzi, an ancestor of Ezra, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,4);">Ezr 7:4</a>.``1';
isbe[7683]='Saviour`sav\'-yer:<P>(1) While that "God is the deliverer of his people" is the concept on which, virtually, the whole Old Testament is based (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SALVATION">SALVATION</a>), 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,\'1-\');">Isa 43:1-63:19</a>).<P>(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<6E>10 in the Pastorals, 5 in 2 Peter, and one each in John, 1 John, and Jude<64>while the other instances are <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,47);">Lu 1:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,11);">2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,31);">Ac 5:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,23);">13:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,23);">Eph 5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,20);">Php 3:20</a>. 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.<P>(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.<P>(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, <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">Tit 2:13</a>), "love toward man" (philanthropia, <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,4);">Tit 3:4</a>), "captain" (archegos, <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',5,31);">Ac 5:31</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,10);">Heb 2:10</a>), etc. These terms are found in the Greek sources many times in exactly the same combinations with Sorer.<P>(5) In the New Testament Soter is uniformly reserved for Christ, except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,47);">Lu 1:47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,25);">Jude 1:25</a>, and the Pastorals. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,1);">1Ti 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,3);">2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,10);">4:10</a> it is applied only to the Father, in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',1,10);">2Ti 1:10</a>, (only) it is applied to Christ, while in Titus there seems to be a deliberate alternation: of the Father in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,3);">1:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,10);">2:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,4);">3:4</A>; of Christ in <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,4);">1:4</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,13);">2:13</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',3,6);">3:6</A>.<P>LITERATURE.<P>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.``48';
isbe[7684]='Savor`sa\'-ver (reach; osme;<P>(1) The primary meaning of the word is "taste," "flavor" (from Latin sapor, "taste"). So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,13);">Mt 5:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,34);">Lu 14:34</a>, "if the salt have lost its savor" (moranthe, "become tasteless," "insipid," so as to lose its characteristic preserving virtue).<P>(2) But generally it has the meaning of "smell," "odor":<P>(a) once of evil odor: "Its stench shall come up, and its ill savor shall come up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,20);">Joe 2:20</a>);<P>(b) elsewhere in the sense of pleasant smell. In the Old Testament, with the exception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,21);">Ex 5:21</a> and the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,3);">So 1:3</a> (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," <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,21);">Ge 8:21</a>; "to make a sweet savor unto Yahweh," <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,3);">Nu 15:3</a>; and frequently).<P>In the New Testament, "savor" in the sense of smell is used metaphorically:<P>(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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,14);">2Co 2:14</a>; see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRIUMPH">TRIUMPH</a>.<P>(b) Elsewhere the metaphor is borrowed from the fragrant smell of the sacrifices. The apostles "are a sweet savor of Christ unto God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,15);">2Co 2:15</a>), 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," <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',2,16);">2Co 2:16</a>). By the same sacrificial metaphor, Christ\'s offering of Himself to God is said to be "for a sweet smelling savor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,2);">Eph 5:2</a> the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "for an odor of a sweet smell"; the same phrase is used in <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',4,18);">Php 4:18</a> of acts of kindness to Paul, which were "a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God").<P>(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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',5,21);">Ex 5:21</a>). Compare the English phrase, "to be in bad odor."<P>The verb "to savor" means:<P>(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<P>(2) transitively, to perceive by the taste or smell, to discern: "thou savourest not the things that be of God" (the King James Version <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,23);">Mt 16:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,33);">Mr 8:33</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "mindest"; phroneis; Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sapis). The adjective "savory" occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,4,7,9,14,17,31);">Ge 27:4,7,9,14,17,31</a> ("savory food") and the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,24);">Isa 30:24</a> (margin "salted").``49';
isbe[7685]='Saw`so.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TOOLS">TOOLS</a>`1';
isbe[7686]='Sawing Asunder`so\'-ing a-sun\'-der.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PUNISHMENTS">PUNISHMENTS</a>`1';
isbe[7687]='Sayest`sa\'-est: "Thou sayest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,11);">Mt 27:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,2);">Mr 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,70);">Lu 22:70</a>, "Ye say"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,37);">Joh 18:37</a>), i.e. rightly; "Thou hast said" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,25,64);">Mt 26:25,64</a>), = "Yes"; a rabbinical idiom never found in the Old Testament. <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,62);">Mr 14:62</a> renders by "I am." All these passages WHm punctuate interrogatively (compare Kethubhoth, f. 103 b).``1';
isbe[7688]='Sayings of Jesus``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LOGIA">LOGIA</a>`1';
isbe[7689]='Sayings, Dark`sa\'-ingz.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DARK+SAYINGS">DARK SAYINGS</a>`1';
isbe[7690]='Sayings, Faithful``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FAITHFUL+SAYINGS">FAITHFUL SAYINGS</a>`1';
isbe[7691]='Sayings, Unwritten`un-rit\'-\'-n.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AGRAPHA">AGRAPHA</a>`1';
isbe[7692]='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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,2,6);">Le 13:2,6</a>) from the more virulent and spreading eruptions which (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,7);">Le 13:7</a>) were regarded as causes of ceremonial uncleanness. These severer forms are the leichen of Septuagint mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',21,20);">Le 21:20</a>, 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',22,22);">Le 22:22</a>). 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 <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',13,18);">Eze 13:18</a> 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,17);">Isa 3:17</a>). In Middle English, "scab" is used for itch or mange, and as a term of opprobrium, as in Greene, Bacon and Bungay,35,1591.``107';
isbe[7693]='Scabbard, Sheath`skab\'-ard, sheth.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR;+arms">ARMOR</a>`1';
isbe[7694]='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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',6,13);">2Ch 6:13</a>).``1';
isbe[7695]='Scale`skal.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SIEGE">SIEGE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEIGHTS+AND+MEASURES">WEIGHTS AND MEASURES</a>`1';
isbe[7696]='Scales`skalz<P>(1) qasqeseth "fish-scales";<P>(2) meghinnah, maghen, "scales of the crocodile";<P>(3) lepis, with verb lepizo "scale away" (Tobit 3:17; 11:13)):<P>(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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,9);">Le 11:9</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,9);">De 14:9</a>f). In the figurative sense the word is used of a coat of mail (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,5,38);">1Sa 17:5,38</a>).<P>(2) Meghinnah from maghen, literally, "a buckler" or "small shield" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',23,9);">2Ch 23:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,3);">Jer 46:3</a>), is used in the description of the crocodile (see <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LEVIATHAN">LEVIATHAN</a>) for the horny scales or scutes imbedded in the skin, not imbricated upon it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,15);">Job 41:15 (Hebrew verse 7)</a>).<P>(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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,18);">Ac 9:18</a>).<P>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" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,13);">Ac 22:13</a>). 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.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,12);">Isa 40:12</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,11);">Pr 16:11</a> for peles, in the sense of "instrument for weighing."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BALANCE">BALANCE</a>`106';
isbe[7697]='Scall`skol (netheq; thrausma): This only occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-\');">Leviticus 13</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',13,\'1-\');">14</a> where it is used 14 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.``1';
isbe[7698]='Scape-Goat`skap\'-got.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AZAZEL">AZAZEL</a>`1';
isbe[7699]='Scarlet`skar\'-let.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLORS">COLORS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DYEING">DYEING</a>`1';
isbe[7700]='Scarlet (Worm)`(tola\'ath shani (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,4);">Ex 25:4</a>, etc.)): Cermes vermilio, a scale insect from which a red dye is obtained.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=COLOR">COLOR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DYEING">DYEING</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WORM">WORM</a>`1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink