SAREPTA.— See Zarephath.
SATAN. — 1. The word 'Satan' (|9^, SaTams),
which in the NT is invariably used as a proper name denoting the arch-enemy of God and man, occurs in the Hebrew of the OT originally as a synonym of the common words for 'adversary,' as the verb jc^y is used simply in the sense of withstanding, taking the opposite side. In this sense it is used in Nu 22'-- even of the angel of the Lord, who is said to go forth to be a Satan to Balaam. In other pas- sages it is ajiplied, witii no sinister meaning, to David, M'ho, as the Philistines feared, might desert Achish and turn against them in battle (1 S 29^) ; to Abishai when he opjiosed David's purpose of clemency towards Shiniei (2 S 19^^) ; and again to a foreign enemy in general (1 K S"*) ; and to Hadad and Rezon in connexion with their revolt against Solomon ( 1 K 11"- 23- 25)_ Elsewhere, as in the Book of Ps. (109®), in the first two chapters of the Book of Job and in Zee 3 it is used in a technical or legal sense as the equivalent of avrldiKos, an opponent in law, an advocate, whose function it is to plead for tlie condemnation of an accused person. In Job 2^ Jehovah taxes ' the Satan ' with over-officious zeal in his efforts to test the motives of the righteous man whom he is permitted to accuse ; and again in Zee 3^ He distinctly rebukes him for pressing his charge against Joshua. But notwitlistanding such suggestions that an evil spirit, a malicious accuser, is described (like the Satan, the accuser of the brethren, Sid^oXos, Kar-riyopos of the NT), there is no explicit indication that this is the case. The being thus described as ' the Satan ' or the Adver- sary appears in Zechariah as an official accu.ser, and in the Book of Job he takes his place among ' the sons of God ' in the court of heaven as one having a right to be there, and that in connexion with the function attributed to him of ' going to and fro upon the earth,' and 'considering' and reporting upon the conduct of the sons of men. He is recognized as a minister of the Divine justice, although God does tax him with overdoing his part. All that appears to be indicated there is the thought that thei'e is in the Court of God one whose office it is to plead for the condemnation of sinners. Of a malignant enemy of God and His cause, a personal spirit of evil called Satan, there is no express mention in the OT. The temptation of our first parents is ascribed in Genesis to ' the serpent,' and no interpretation is ottered of the symbolism of the story. Again, though in one passage in Chronicles (1 Ch 21^) we read that Satan tempted David to number the people — a pre- sumptuous offence for wliich the king was severely punished — the parallel passage (2 S 24'), much the older narrative, attributes David's conduct to trial at the hands of God, not to the temptation of the Evil One. Similarly the deception of the ' lying .spirit' who lured Aha)) to his destruction (1 K 22i9--i3) jg gj^i^i iq liave had the express sanction of God. Altogether it is one of the most noteworthy features of the theology of the OT, that so little reference is made to Satan as the great adversary of God and His people, or as tiie malignant tempter and accuser of man. Tlie Satan of tlie Book of Job and of the prophecies of Zechariah is described in language very (lifierent from tliat in which the arch-enemy is spoken of in the NT.
This fact, together with tiie circumstance that references to Satan as an accuser of mankind occur only in tho.se books of tlie OT whicli belong to a comparatively late period, has been taken as a proof of the theory that the Jewish belief in Satanic agency was introduced into the Hebrew theology from a foreign source. Traces appear else- where of early beliefs current anion<f the Hebrews in tlie existence of demons, satyrs, liliths, and the like, as in the use of the name 'Azazel,' a mys- terious being mentioned in the Pentateuch in con- nexion with the ordinance of the scapegoat (Lv 16).
570
SATAN"
SATAN
It has been supposed that upon tliose popular beliefs of early Semitic religion there was grafted, from Persian sources, the conception of a Prince of Darkness whose agency is similar to that which, in the religion of Zoroaster, is ascribed to the demon-god Ahriman, and that the belief in Satan and his angels as fallen spirits was thus intro- duced into Hebrew theology. But, as a matter of fact, the connexion between Satan and the Zoro- astrian Ahriman is more apparent than real. A simpler explanation of the history of the doctrine of the personality and agency of Satan is that it has been the subject of development under the influence of a progressive revelation. The complete revelation of such a being as the malignant author of evil was reserved for the time when, with the advent of Christ's Kingdom, the minds of God's people were prepared, without risk of idolatry, or of the mischievous dualism of such a i-eligion as that of Zoroaster, to recognize in the serpent of Eden and in the Satan who appeared as the adver- sary of Job and of Joshua, the great Adversary of God and man, whose power is to be feared and his temptations resolutely resisted, but from Avhose dark dominion the Son of God had come to deliver mankind.