When we pass from the Old to the New Test., this doctrine of an invisible evil agent becomes more clear. With the advent of Christ and the opening of the Christian dispensation, the great opposer of that king- dom, the particular adversary and antagonist of the Saviour, would naturally become more active and more known. The antagonism of Satan and his kingdom to ('iirist and his kingdom runs through the whole of the New Test., as will apjtear from the following passages and their contexts: JMatt, iv, 10; xii, 26; Mark iv, 15; Luke X, 18; xxii, 3, 31 ; Acts xxvi, 18; Rom. xvi, 20; 2 Cor. xi, 14; IJev. ii, 13; xii, 9. Peter is once called
SATAN
361
SATAN
Satan, because his spirit and conduct, at a certain time, were so much in opposition to the spirit and intent of Christ, and so much in the same line of direction with the workings of Satan. This is the only application of the word in the New Test, to any but the prince of the apostate angels. In the New Test, the word is an- Tuvuc, followed by the Vulg. Satnnas, except in 2 Cor. xii, 7, where aarav is used. It is found in twenty-five places (exclusive of parallel passages), and the corre- sponding word 6 ^(a/3o\oc in about the same number. The title o ajO^mv tov koctjuov tovtov is used three times; 6 TzovripiiQ is used certainly six times, probably more frequently, and o TTEipdZiov twice.
Ika-il (AiajSoXog) is the more frequent term of desig- nation given to Satan in the New Test. Both "Satan" and " devil" are in several instances applied to the same being (Rev. xii, 9), "That old serpent, the devil and Satan." Christ, in the temptation (Matt, iv), in his re- pulse of the tempter, calls him Satan; while the evan- gelists distinguish him by the term " devil." Devil is the word SidjSoXoi; transferred from the verb CiafidWuj, " to thrust through," " to carry over," and, tropically, "to inform against," " to accuse." He is also called the accuser of the brethren (Rev. xii, 10). The Hebrew term Satan is more generic than the word devil, at least by its etymology. The former expresses his character as an opposer of all good ; the latter denotes more par- ticularly the relation which he bears to the saints, as their traducer and accuser, Ain/JoXoc is the uniform translation which the Sept. gives of the Hebrew iSatun when used with the article. Farmer says that the term Satan is not appropriated to one particular person or spirit, but signifies an adversary', or opponent in general. This is to no purpose, since it is also applied to the " devil" as an adversary in particular. There are four instances in the New Test, in which the word " devil," diubolos, is applied to human beings. In three out of the four it is in the plural number, expressive of qual- ity and not personality (1 Tim. iii, 11; 2 Tim. iii, 3; Titus ii, 3). In the fourth instance (.John vi, 70), Jesus says to his disciples, " Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is n devil V This is the only instance in the New Test, of its application to a human being in the singular number;- and here Dr. Campbell thinks it should not be translated "devil." The translation is, however, of no consequence, since it is with the use of the original word that this article is concerned. The obvious reasons for this application of i'ldjSoXog to Ju- das, as an exception to the general rule, go to confirm the rule. The rule is that, in the New-Test, usage, the word in the singular number denotes individuality, and is applied to Satan as a proper name. By the excep- tion, it is applied to Judas, from his resemblance to the devil, as an accuser and betrayer of Christ, and from his contributing to aid him in his designs against Christ. With these exceptions, the iisus loqvendi of the New Test, shows 6 Ato/3oXoc to be a proper name, applied to an extraordinary being, whose mfluence upon the hu- man race is great and mischievous (Matt, iv, 1-11; Luke viii, 12; John viii, 44; Acts xiii, 10; Eph. vi, 11 ; 1 Pet. V, 8; 1 John iii, 8 ; Rev. xii, 9). See Devil.
The term "devil," which is in the New Test, the uniform translation of 5ta/3o\oc, is also frequently the translation of dee man, Saifiw%', and dmmonion, Caifiovtov. Between these words and CidlSoXog the English trans- lators have made no distinction. The former are almost always used in connection with demoniacal possessions, and are applied to the possessing spirits, but never to the prince of those spirits. On the other hand, 5io/3o- Xog is never applied to the daemons, but only to their prince, thus showing that the one is used definitely as a proper name, while the others are used indefinitely as generic terms. The sacred writers made a distinction, which in the English and most modern versions is lost. See D>4cmon.
II. Personality of Satan, — We determine this point by the same criteria that we use in determining whether
Caasar and Napoleon were real, personal beings, or the personifications of abstract ideas, viz. by the tenor of history concerning them, and the ascription of personal attributes to them. All the forms of personal agency are made use of by the sacred writers in setting forth the character and conduct of Satan. They describe him as having power and dominion, messengers and follow- ers. He tempts and resists; he is held accountable, charged with guilt ; is to be judged, and to receive final punishment. On the supposition that it was the object of the sacred writers to teach the proper personality of Satan, they could have found no more express terras than those which they have actually used. To suppose that all this semblance of a real, veritable, conscious moral agent is only a trope, a prosopopoeia, is to make the inspired penmen guilty of employing a figure in such a way that, by no ascertained laws of language, it could be known that it was a figure — in such a way that it could not be taken to be a figure, without violence to all the rhetorical rules by which they on other occa- sions are known to have been guided. A personifica- tion protracted through such a book as the Bible, even should we suppose it to have been written by one per- son, is altogether anomalous and inadmissible. But to suppose that the several writers of the different books of the Bible, diverse in their style and intellectual habits, writing under widely ditt'ering circumstances, through a period of nearly two thousand j'ears, should each, from Moses to John, fall into the use of the same personifica- tion, is to require men to believe that the inspired writ- ers, who ought to have done the least violence to the common laws of language, have really done the most.