[556]. Numb. xxii. 22.

[557]. 1 Tim. i. 20.

[558]. “ שׁטן‎ (1.) adversarius; in antiquiori Hebraismo homo, ut in 1 Sam. xxix. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 23; 1 Reg. v. 4; xi. 14; xxiii. 25: in sequiori, post exilium Babylonicum, angelus malus sive diabolus, qui κατ’ ἐξοχὴν Satan vocatur, Ps. cix. 6; Zach. iii. 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxi. 1. (2.) circuitor, qui civium motus observat; secundum quosdam, Hiob. i. 6, 8; ii. 1.”—Joh. Simonis Lex. Hebr. in verb.

In Ps. cix. 6, and Zach. iii. 1, 2, there is, however, no reason to suppose that the word is used as a proper name. The former of the two passages is best rendered, “Let an accuser stand at his right hand:” and in explanation of the latter, Archbishop Newcome cites the following note from Dr. Blayney; “It appears to me most probable, that by Satan, or the Adversary, is here meant the adversaries of the Jewish nation in a body, or perhaps some leading person among them, Sanballat for instance, who strenuously opposed the rebuilding of the temple, and of course the restoration of the service of the sanctuary, and the reestablishment of Joshua in the exercise of his sacerdotal ministry.”—Newcome’s Minor Prophets, in loc.

[559]. 1 Chron. xxi. 1.

[560]. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1.

[561]. Wisd. ii. 24; Tobit iii. 8.

[562]. On entering the creed of the Jews, this doctrine underwent another change, of which many traces are to be found in all their subsequent writings, and which throws light on several passages of the New Testament. It is thus stated by Dr. D. F. Strauss: “When that Satan who appears in the Persian religion as a wicked being inimical to mankind, passed into the Jewish faith, his character was accommodated to the Hebrew peculiarity, which confined to the people of Israel all that is good and worthy of humanity; and he was regarded as at once the special enemy of their nation, and the Lord of their Gentile foes. The interests of the Jewish people becoming concentrated in the person of the Messiah, it was natural that the Satan should be conceived of as the personal opponent of the Messiah.” “Accordingly,” adds this writer, “in the New Testament the idea of Jesus as the Messiah everywhere involves that of Satan as the adversary of his person and work.”[] We may well object to the unqualified generalization comprised in this last remark, and therefore to many of the author’s particular applications of it; and especially we must regard as unsuccessful his attempt to destroy the historical character of the narrative of our Lord’s temptation; but no judicious interpreter will wholly neglect the suggestion which the passage contains.

[b]. Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet, § 55.

[563]. Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4.