SATAN
and
is
occasionally
designated
'the
evil
one'
(Mt
13"-
^^
etc.;
so,
perhaps,
also
in
the
Lord's
Prayer:
'deliver
us
from
the
evil
one').
Some
scholars
are
of
opinion
that
the
name
Beelzebub
means
not
'fly-god'
but
'enemy'
(i.e.
the
enemy
of
God).
He
is
called
the
'prince
of
the
devils
(or
demons)'
in
Mt
12",
just
as
Sammael,
'
the
great
prince
in
heaven,'
is
designated
the
'
chief
of
Satans
'
in
the
Midrash.
The
demonology
that
confronts
us
in
the
NT
has
striking
points
of
contact
with
that
which
is
developed
in
the
Enochic
literature.
The
main
features
of
the
latter,
in
fact,
reappear.
The
'angels
which
kept
not
their
first
estate
'
(Jude^,
2
P
2')
are
the
angelic
watchers
whose
fall
through
lust
is
described
in
Enoch
6-16.
Their
punishment
is
to
be
kept
imprisoned
in
perpetual
darkness.
In
Enoch
the
demons,
who
are
represented
as
the
evil
spirits
which
went
forth
from
the
souls
of
the
giant
offspring
of
the
fallen
watchers,
exercise
an
evil
activity,
working
moral
ruin
on
the
earth
till
the
final
judgment.
In
exactly
the
same
way
the
demons
are
described
in
the
NT
as
disembodied
spirits
(Mt
12<8-45_
Lk
llM-26).
The
time
of
their
punishment
is
to
be
the
final
judgment
(ct.
Mt
8'":
'Art
thou
come
hither
to
torment
us
before
the
time"!').
They
belong
to
and
are
subject
to
Satan.
As
in
the
Book
of
Enoch,
Satan
is
represented
in
the
NT
as
the
ruler
of
a
counter-
kingdom
of
evil
(cf.
Mt
12",
Lk
ll"
'if
Satan
cast
out
Satan,
how
shall
his
kingdom
stand?');
he
led
astray
angels
(Rev
12<)
and
men
(2
Co
11=);
his
functions
are
to
tempt
(Mt
#-12,
Lk
22si),
to
accuse
(Rev
12"),
and
to
punish
(1
Co
5^:
impenitent
sinners
delivered
over
to
Satan
for
destruction
of
the
flesh).
It
should
be
added
that
in
the
Fourth
Gospel
and
Johannine
Epp.
the
lesser
demonic
agencies
disappear.
Opposition
is
concentrated
in
the
persons
of
Christ
and
the
devil.
The
latter
is
the
ruler
of
this
world
(Jn
16"),
and
en-slaves
men
to
himself
through
sin.
The
Son
of
God
is
manifested
for
the
express
purpose
of
destroying
the
devil's
works
(1
Jn
3').
Both
in
St.
Paul
(cf.
Ro
16^,
2
Co
ll^-
')
and
in
the
Apocalypse
Satan
is
identified
with
the
Serpent
of
Gn
3.
It
is
also
noteworthy
that
St.
Paul
shared
the
contemporary
belief
that
angelic
beings
inhabited
the
higher
(heavenly)
regions,
and
that
Satan
also
with
his
retinue
dwelt
not
beneath
the
earth,
but
in
the
lower
atmospheric
region;
cf.
Eph
2?,
where
'the
prince
of
the
power
of
the
air'=Satan
(cf.
also
Eph
6"
and
Lk
10"
'I
beheld
Satan
fallen
as
lightning
from
heaven').
For
Satan's
r61e
in
the
Apocalypse
see
art.
EscHATOLOGY.
Cf.
also
art.
Devil.
4
.
The
attitude
of
our
Lord
towards
the
Satan
-belief
.
—
Our
Lord,
as
is
clearly
apparent
in
the
Synoptic
tradi-tion,
recognized
the
existence
and
power
of
a
kingdom
of
evil,
with
organized
demonic
agencies
under
the
control
of
a
supreme
personality,
Satan
or
Beelzebub.
These
demonic
agencies
are
the
source
of
every
variety
of
physical
and
moral
evil.
One
principal
function
of
the
Messiah
is
to
destroy
the
works
of
Satan
and
his
subordinates
(Mk
1«-
«
3"-
".
«
etc.).
Maladies
traced
to
demonic
possession
play
a
large
part
in
the
Synoptic
narratives
(see
Devil,
Possession).
In
the
expulsion
of
demons
by
His
disciples,
Jesus
sees
the
over-throw
of
Satan's
power
(Lk
10'*).
The
evil
effected
by
Satanic
agency
is
intellectual
and
moral
as
well
as
physical
(Mk
#5,
Mt
13'»-
»«;
cf.
2
Co
4<).
That
our
Lord
accepted
the
reality
of
such
personal
agencies
of
evil
cannot
seriously
be
questioned;
nor
is
it
necessary
to
endeavour
to
explain
this
fact
away.
The
problem
is
to
some
extent
a
psychological
one.
Under
certain
conditions
and
in
certain
localities
the
sense
of
the
presence
and
potency
of
evil
personalities
has
been
painfully
and
oppressively
felt
by
more
than
one
modern
European,
who
was
not
prone
to
superstition.
It
is
also
literally
true
that
the
light
of
the
gospel
and
the
power
of
Christ
operate
still
in
such
cases
to
'
destroy
the
works
of
darkness
'
and
expel
the
demons.
G.
H.
Box.
SAUL
SATCHEL.—
See
Bag.
SATHRABUZANES
(1
Es
6»-
»■
"
7')
=Shethar-bozenai,
Ezr
6'-
'
6«-
'».
SATRAPS.—
RV
tr.
of
'dchashdarpenlm,
Ezr
S",
Est
312
89
9'
(AV
lieutenants),
Dn
3'-
'■
"
6^-
(AV
princes).
The
term
stands
for
the
Pers.
khshatrapHvan
(='protectors
of
the
realm').
The
satrap
was
the
governor
of
a
whole
province,
and
he
held
the
position
of
a
vassal
king.
His
power,
however,
was
checked
by
the
presence
of
a
royal
scribe,
whose
duty
it
was
to
report
to
the
'great
king'
on
the
administration
of
the
province.
SATYR.
—
The
Heb.
word
sS'Ir
means
primarily
'he-
goat,'
but
the
plur.
se'%rlm
is
tr.
in
Lv
17'
and
2
Ch
11",
AV
'devils,'
RV
'he-goats'
;
in
Is
IS'i
34"
EV
'satyrs,'
RVm
'he-goats.'
Probably
too
in
2
K
23>
she'Orlm
('gates')
should
be
se'lrXm,
and
tr.
as
in
Lv
17'.
In
these
passages
some
'hairy'
demon
is
to
be
inferred
to
whom
'sacrifices'
were
made
(Lv
17'),
'high
places'
erected
(2
K
23*),
and
'priests'
set
apart
(2
Ch
11").
The
association
of
these
creatures
with
the
mythological
Lilith
(wh.
see)
in
Is
34"
is
specially
noticeable.
E.
W.
G.
Masterman.
SAUL.
—
1.
Son
of
Kish,
a
Benjamite,
the
first
king
of
Israel.
We
first
meet
him
about
to
abandon
the
search
for
his
father's
asses,
when
his
servant
suggested
consulting
Samuel.
As
it
was
customary
to
bring
a
present
to
aseer,
and
the
wallet
was
empty,
Saul
hesitated
till
the
servant
produced
the
fourth
part
of
a
shekel
of
silver
to
give
to
the
man
of
God.
The
seer.
Divinely
prepared
for
their
arrival,
met
them
as
he
was
on
his
way
to
the
high
place
to
sacrifice.
A
banquet
was
made
ready,
and
special
honour
paid
to
Saul
by
Samuel.
The
seer
told
the
seekers
that
the
asses
had
been
found,
and
broached
the
matter
of
the
kingdom
to
Saul,
and
anointed
him
as
he
was
leaving.
Saul
was
given
certain
signs
in
attestation
of
Samuel's
message,
and
after
leaving
the
seer's
house,
where
he
and
his
servant
spent
the
night,
he
met
a
band
of
prophets,
and
soon
was
prophesying
among
them,
to
the
marvel
of
his
acquaintances
(1
S
10").
This
narrative
gives
no
hint
that
the
people
asked
for
a
king,
or
that
his
selection
would
be
displeasing
to
either
Samuel
or
Jehovah.
The
account
is
interrupted
at
10"
by
one
of
a
different
temper.
The
people
demand
a
king,
which
Samuel
interprets
to
be
a
rejection
of
Jehovah,
their
true
king,
and
Saul,
after
protest,
is
elected
by
lot
at
Mizpah.
He
remained
quietly
at
home
till
Nahash's
cruel
demand
that
the
men
of
Jabesh-gilead
should
surrender
to
him,
and
each
one
lose
the
right
eye,
roused
him.
He
was
ploughing
in
the
field
when
the
news
reached
him,
and
immediately
sacrificed
the
oxen,
sending
out
parts
of
the
sacrifice
to
his
brethren
with
the
command
that
they
should
follow
him.
When
the
army
was
mustered
he
marched
to
Jabesh-gilead
and
administered
a
crushing
defeat
to
Nahash,
after
which
his
grateful
countrymen
made
him
king
at
Gt'iffo!
(ch.
11).
Astillgreaternecessity
for
a
king
appears
in
the
encroachments
of
the
Philistines.
Saul
and
Jonathan,
his
son,
were
encamped
in
Michmash
and
Gibeah
(Geba),
when
Jonathan
smote
the
'garrison'(7)
of
the
Philistines
in
Geba,
thus
precipitating
the
struggle.
The
plan
of
the
Philistines
was
to
send
out
plundering
parties,
and
Jonathan
threw
the
whole
camp
into
con-fusion
by
surprising
one
of
its
guerilla
headquarters
(131-S
I4i(.).
When
Saul
heard
of
the
flight
of
the
enemy
he
inquired
of
the
oracle
what
to
do,
but
the
rout
was
so
apparent
that
he
joined
pursuit
without
the
answer.
The
destruction
of
the
enemy
would
have
been
greater
had
not
Saul
put
a
taboo
on
food.
In
the
evening
the
famished
warriors
fell
upon
the
cattle,
and
ate
without
sacrificing
till
the
reported
impiety
reached
the
ears
of
Saul,
who
legitimated
the
meal
by
sacrificing
at
a
great
stone.
As
he
failed
to
receive
an
answer
from
the
oracle,
when
he
inquired
whether
he
should
pursue
the
Philistines
farther,
Saul
concluded
that
some
one
had
