God

The self-existent, infinitely perfect, and infinitely good Being, who created and preserves all things that have existence. As the Divine Being possesses a nature far beyond the comprehension of any of his creatures, of course that nature is inexplicable. "All our knowledge of invisible objects is obtained by analogy; that is, by the resemblance which they bear to visible objects; but as there is in nature no exact resemblance of the nature of God, an attempt to explain the divine nature is absurd and impracticable. All similitudes, therefore, which are used in attempting to explain it must be rejected." Yet, though we cannot fully understand his nature, there is something of him we may know. He hath been pleased to discover his perfections, in a measure, by the works of creation and the Scriptures of truth; these, therefore, we ought to study, in order that we may obtain the most becoming thoughts of him. For an account of the various attributes or perfections of God, the reader is referred to those articles in this work.

There are various names given to the Almighty in the Scriptures, though properly speaking, he can have no name; for as he is incomprehensible, he is not nominable; and being but one, he has no need of a name to distinguish him; nevertheless, as names are given him in the Scriptures, to assist our ideas of his greatness and perfection, they are worthy of our consideration. these names are, El, which denotes him the strong and powerful God, Gen 17:1. Eloah, which represents him as the only proper object of worship, Psa 45:6-7. Shaddai, which denotes him to be all-sufficient and all-mighty, Exo 6:3. Hheeljon, which represents his incomparable excellency, absolute supremacy over all, and his peculiar residence in the highest heavens, Psa 50:11. Adoni, which makes him the great connector, supporter, lord, and judge, of all creatures, Psa 110:1. Jah, which may denote his self-existence, and giving of being to his creatures, or his infinite comeliness, and answerableness to himself, and to the happiness of his creatures, Exo 15:2. Ehjeh, I am, or I will be, denotes his self-existence, absolute independency, immutable eternity, and all-sufficiency, to his people, Exo 3:14. Jehovah, which denotes his self- existence, absolute independence, unsuccessive eternity, and his effectual and marvellous giving of being to his creatures, and fulfilling his promises. Gen 2:4, &c. In the New Testament, God is called Kurios, or Lord, which denotes his self-existence, and his establishment of and authority over all things; and Theos, which represents him as the maker, pervader, and governing observer of the universe.

We enter with profound veneration and holy awe upon any attempt to explain what is in itself beyond the grasp of men or angles to apprehend. When we pronounce the glorious name of God, we desire to imply all that is great, gracious, and glorious in that holy name; and having said this, we have said all that we can say. The Scriptures have given several names, by way of expressing all that can be expressed of him; that he is the First and the Last, and the Author and Creator of all things. It is worthy observation, that theLord speaking of himself to Moses, (Exod. vi. 2, 3.) saith, "I am JEHOVAH: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai, ) but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." By which we are not to imagine, that the Lord was not known to the patriarchs as their Creator, and as self - existing; but the meaning is, that he had not so openly revealed himself. They know him in his adorable perfections, but not so clearly in his covenant relations. So that the name itself wasnot so different, as the great things implied in the name. For certain it is, that very early in the church men began to call upon the name of JEHOVAH, (Gen. 4: 26.) And Abram told the king of Sodom, that he had lifted up his hand unto the Lord, the most High God. Here we have both the names expressly used by Abram, Gen. 14. 22. But certain it is, that never until this revelation by Moses, did the church understand how the incommunicable name of JEHOVAH became the security of fulfilling all the promises.

And this seems to be more fully revealed from the very manner in which the Lord communicated it to Moses. I AM that I AM; that is, I have a being in myself, and, consequently, I give being to all my promises. And it is worthy farther of remark, that the very name JEHOVAH carries this with it; for it is an Hemantick noun, formed from Hayah, he was; as expressing his eternity. The Jews had so high a veneration for this sacred name, that they never used it but upon memorable occasions. We are told by Eusebius, that in his daysthe Jews wrote the holy name in Samaritan characters, when they had occasion to mention the name of the Lord, lest that strangers, and not of the stock of Israel, should profane it. And in modern times it is generally observed by the seed of Abraham, when marking the number fifteen (which in the ordinary way of doing it by letters would take the Yod (10, ) and the He (5.) forming the incommunicable name of Jah, ) they always take the Teth and the Vau, that is the 9 and the 6, instead of it, to make the number fifteen by.A plain proof in what high veneration the sacred name was held by them. It were devoutly to be wished, that men calling themselves Christians were always to give so lively an evidence of their reverence to that "glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD." (Deut. 28. 58.) It is said in the history of the Jews, that after their return from Babylon, they lost the true pronunciation of this glorious name JEHOVAH. And certain it is, that none know the real and correct manner in which it should be pronounced. But what aprecious thought is it to the believer in Jesus that "if any man love God, the same is known by him. (I Cor. 8.3.) I only add, that in confirmation of the blessed doctrine: of our holy faith, it is our happiness to know, that this glorious name is equally applied to each and to all the persons of the GODHEAD. To God the Father, Eph. i. 3; to God the Son, John i. 1; and to God the Holy Ghost, Acts v. 3, 4. And to the whole Three glorious persons in the unity of the divine essence, 1Jn 5:7. (See JEHOVAH.)

an immaterial, intelligent, and free Being; of perfect goodness, wisdom, and power; who made the universe, and continues to support it, as well as to govern and direct it, by his providence. Philologists have hitherto considered the word God as being of the same signification with good; and this is not denied by M. Hallenberg. But he thinks that both words originally denoted unity; and that the root is אתד , unus; whence the Syriac Chad and Gada; the Arabic Ahd and Gahd; the Persic Choda and Chuda; the Greek αγαθος and λαθος; the Teutonic Gud; the German Gott; and our Saxon God. The other names of God, this author thinks, are referable to a similar origin.

2. By his immateriality, intelligence, and freedom, God is distinguished from Fate, Nature, Destiny, Necessity, Chance, Anima Mundi, and from all the other fictitious beings acknowledged by the Stoics, Pantheists, Spinosists, and other sorts of Atheists. The knowledge of God, his nature, attributes, word, and works, with the relations between him and his creatures, makes the subject of the extensive science called theology. In Scripture God is defined by, “I am that I am, Alpha and Omega; the Beginning and End of all things.” Among philosophers, he is defined a Being of infinite perfection; or in whom there is no defect of any thing which we conceive may raise, improve, or exalt his nature. He is the First Cause, the First Being, who has existed from the beginning, has created the world, or who subsists necessarily, or of himself.

3. The plain argument, says Maclaurin, in his “Account of Sir I. Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries,” for the existence of the Deity, obvious to all, and carrying irresistible conviction with it, is from the evident contrivance and fitness of things for one another, which we meet with throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice or subtle reasonings in this matter; a manifest contrivance immediately suggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful reasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our belief. No person, for example that knows the principles of optics, and the structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without skill in that science; or that the ear was formed without the knowledge of sounds; or that the male and female in animals were not formed for each other, and for continuing the species. All our accounts of nature are full of instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful structure of things for final causes, exalts our idea of the Contriver; the unity of design shows him to be one. The great motions in the system performed with the same facility as the least, suggest his almighty power, which gave motion to the earth and the celestial bodies with equal ease as to the minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the internal parts of bodies, shows that his influence penetrates the inmost recesses of things, and that he is equally active and present every where. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the excellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and the beauty which adorns the work of nature, far superior to any thing in art, suggest his consummate wisdom. The usefulness of the whole scheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it, with the internal disposition and moral structure of these beings themselves, shows his unbounded goodness. These are arguments which are sufficiently open to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while at the same time they acquire new strength and lustre from the discoveries of the learned. The Deity’s acting and interposing in the universe, show that he governs as well as formed it; and the depth of his counsels, even in conducting the material universe, of which a great part surpasses our knowledge, keeps up an reward veneration and awe of this great Being, and disposes us to receive what may be otherwise revealed to us concerning him. It has been justly observed, that some of the laws of nature now known to us must have escaped us if we had wanted the sense of seeing. It may be in his power to bestow upon us other senses, of which we have at present no idea; without which it may be impossible for us to know all his works, or to have more adequate ideas of himself. In our present state, we know enough to be satisfied of our dependency upon him, and of the duty we owe to him, the Lord and Disposer of all things. He is not the object of sense; his essence, and, indeed, that of all other substances, are beyond the reach of all our discoveries; but his attributes clearly appear in his admirable works. We know that the highest conceptions we are able to form of them, are still beneath his real perfections; but his power and dominion over us, and our duty toward him, are manifest.

4. Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself, says Mr. Locke, yet, having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with, he hath not left himself without a witness; since we have sense, perception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him as long as we carry ourselves about us, To show, therefore, that we are capable of knowing, that is, of being certain that there is a God, and how we may come by this certainty, I think we need go no farther than ourselves, and that undoubted knowledge we have of our own existence. I think it is beyond question, that man has a clear perception of his own being; he knows certainly that he exists, and that he is something. In the next place, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles. If, therefore, we know there is some real Being, it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be produced by something else. Next it is evident, that what has its being from another must also have all that which is in, and belongs to, its being from another too; all the powers it has must be owing to, and derived from, the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being, must be also the source and original of all power; and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful. Again: man finds in himself perception and knowledge: we are certain, then, that there is not only some Being, but some knowing, intelligent Being, in the world. There was a time, then, when there was no knowing Being, or else there has been a knowing Being from eternity. If it be said there was a time when that eternal Being had no knowledge, I reply, that then it is impossible there should have ever been any knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing Being, as it is impossible that a triangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and knowing Being, which, whether any one will call God, it matters not. The thing is evident; and from this idea, duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. From what has been said, it is plain to me, that we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say that we more certainly know that there is a God, than that there is any thing else without us. When I say we know, I mean, there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply our minds to that as we do to several other inquiries. It being then unavoidable for all rational creatures to conclude that something has existed from eternity, let us next see what kind of thing that must be. There are but two sorts of beings in the world that man knows or conceives; such as are purely material without sense or perception, and sensible, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be. These two sorts we shall call cogitative and incogitative beings; which to our present purpose are better than material and immaterial. If, then, there must be something eternal, it is very obvious to reason that it must be a cogitative being; because it is as impossible to conceive that bare incogitative matter should ever produce a thinking, intelligent being, as that nothing should of itself produce matter. Let us suppose any parcel of matter eternal, we shall find it in itself unable to produce any thing. Let us suppose its parts firmly at rest together, if there were no other being in the world, must it not eternally remain so, a dead inactive lump? Is it possible to conceive that it can add motion to itself, or produce any thing? Matter, then, by its own strength cannot produce in itself so much as motion. The motion at has must also be from eternity, or else added to matter by some other being, more powerful than matter. But let us suppose motion eternal too, yet matter, incogitative matter, and motion could never produce thought: knowledge will still be as far beyond the power of nothing to produce. Divide matter into as minute parts as you will, vary its figure and motion as much as you please, it will operate no otherwise upon other bodies of proportionable bulk, than it did before this division. The minutest particles of matter knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the greater do; so that if we suppose nothing eternal, matter can never begin to be; if we suppose bare matter without motion eternal, motion can never begin to be; if we suppose only matter and motion to be eternal, thought can never begin to be; for it is impossible to conceive that matter, either with or without motion, could have originally in and from itself, sense, perception, and knowledge, as is evident from hence, that then sense, perception, and knowledge must be a property eternally inseparable from matter, and every particle of it. Since, therefore, whatsoever is the first eternal Being must necessarily be cogitative; and whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it, and actually have, at least all the perfections that can ever after exist, it necessarily follows, that the first eternal Being cannot be matter. If, therefore, it be evident that something, must necessarily exist from eternity, it is also evident that that something must necessarily be a cogitative Being. For it is as impossible that incogitative matter should produce a cogitative Being, as that nothing, or the negation of all being, should produce a positive Being or matter.

This discovery of the necessary existence of an eternal mind sufficiently leads us to the knowledge of God. For it will hence follow, that all other knowing beings that have a beginning must depend upon him, and have no other ways of knowledge or extent of power than what he gives them; and therefore if he made those, he made also the less excellent pieces of this universe, all inanimate bodies, whereby his omniscience, power, and providence will be established, and from thence all his other attributes necessarily follow.

5. In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God; such an attempt would have been entirely useless, because the fact was universally admitted. The error of men consisted, not in denying a God, but in admitting too many; and one great object of the Bible is to demonstrate that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments, however, are employed in it for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded in the history of the Jews, from which it appears that they were always victorious and prosperous so long as they served the only living and true God, Jehovah, the name by which the Almighty made himself known to them, and uniformly unsuccessful when they revolted from him to serve other gods. What argument could be so effectual to convince them that there was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel? The sovereignty and universal providence of the Lord Jehovah are proved by predictions delivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and of empires, specifying distinctly their rise, the duration of their power, and the causes of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God ruled among the nations, and made them the unconscious instruments of promoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the attributes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning: they are simply affirmed and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular deduction of doctrines and conclusions from a few admitted principles, we are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional expressions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God. These circumstances point out a marked singularity in the Scriptures, considered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers, generally speaking, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do not attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to rouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what might have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commission, and armed with undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions.

6. In three distinct ways do the sacred writers furnish us with information on this great and essential subject, the existence and the character of God; from the names by which he is designated; from the actions ascribed to him; and from the attributes with which he is invested in their invocations and praises; and in those lofty descriptions of his nature which, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have recorded for the instruction of the world. These attributes will be considered under their respective heads; but the impression of the general view of the divine character, as thus revealed, is too important to be omitted.

7. The names of God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of overwhelming greatness and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousness with which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals, the divine essence and mode of existence must ever be invested. Though ONE, he is אלהים , ELOHIM, GODS, persons adorable. He is יהוה , JEHOVAH, self-existing; אל , EL, strong, powerful; אהיה , EHIEH, I am, I will be, self- existence, independency, all-sufficiency, immutability, eternity; שדי , SHADDAI, almighty, all-sufficient; אדן , ADON, Supporter, Lord, Judge. These are among the adorable appellatives of God which are scattered throughout the revelation that he has been pleased to make of himself: but on one occasion he was pleased more particularly to declare his name, that is, such of the qualities and attributes of the divine nature as mortals are the most interested in knowing; and to unfold, not only his natural, but also those of his moral attributes by which his conduct towards his creatures is regulated. “And the Lord passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation,” Exodus 34. This is the most ample and particular description of the character of God, as given by himself in the sacred records; and the import of the several titles by which he has thus in his infinite condescension manifested himself, has been thus exhibited. He is not only JEHOVAH, self-existent, and EL, the strong or mighty God; but he is, says Dr. A. Clarke, “רחום , ROCHUM, the merciful Being, who is full of tenderness and compassion; חנון , CHANUN, the gracious One, he whose nature is goodness itself, the loving God. ארכּ פים , EREC APAYIM long- suffering, the Being who, because of his tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind; רב , RAB, the great or mighty One: חסד , CHESED, the bountiful Being, he who is exuberant in his beneficence; אמת , EMETH, the Truth, or True One, he alone who can neither deceive nor be deceived; נצר חסד , NOTSER CHESED, the Preserver of bountifulness, he whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy, for thousands of generations, showing compassion and mercy while the world endures; נשא עון ופשע וחטאה , NOSE AVON VAPESHA VECHATAAH, he who bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin; properly the Redeemer, the Pardoner, the Forgiver, the Being whose prerogative it is to forgive sin, and save the soul; נקה לא ינקה NAKEH LO YINNAKEH, the righteous Judge, who distributes justice with an impartial hand; and עין פקד , PAKED AVON, &c, he who visits iniquity, he who punishes transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape; the God of retributive and vindictive justice.”

8. The second means by which the Scriptures convey to us the knowledge of God, is by the actions which they ascribe to him. They contain, indeed, the important record of his dealings with men in every age which is comprehended within the limit of the sacred history; and, by prophetic declaration, they also exhibit the principles on which he will govern the world to the end of time; so that the whole course of the divine administration may be considered as exhibiting a singularly illustrative comment upon those attributes of his nature which, in their abstract form, are contained in such declarations as those which have been just quoted. The first act ascribed to God is that of creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing; and by his fiat alone arranging their parts, and peopling them with living creatures. By this were manifested—his eternity and self- existence, as he who creates must be before all creatures, and he who gives being to others can himself derive it from none:—his almighty power, shown both in the act of creation and in the number and vastness of the objects so produced:—his wisdom, in their arrangement, and in their fitness to their respective ends:—and his goodness, as the whole tended to the happiness of sentient beings. The foundations of his natural and moral government are also made manifest by his creative acts. In what he made out of nothing he had an absolute right and prerogative; it awaited his ordering, and was completely at his disposal: so that to alter or destroy his own work, and to prescribe the laws by which the intelligent and rational part of his creatures should be governed, are rights which none can question. Thus on the one hand his character of Lord or Governor is established, and on the other our duty of lowly homage and absolute obedience.

9. Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created, he was placed under a rule of conduct. Obedience was to be followed with the continuance of the divine favour; transgression, with death. The event called forth new manifestations of the character of God. His tender mercy, in the compassion showed to the fallen pair; his justice, in forgiving them only in the view of a satisfaction to be hereafter offered to his justice by an innocent representative of the sinning race; his love to that race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the fulness of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and his holiness, in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the means of restoring him to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image of God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divine mercy are traced from age to age, in his establishing his own worship among men, and remitting the punishment of individual and national offences in answer to prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in dependence upon the typified or actually offered universal sacrifice:—of his condescension, in stooping to the cases of individuals; in his dispensations both of providence and grace, by showing respect to the poor and humble; and, principally, by the incarnation of God in the form of a servant, admitting men into familiar and friendly intercourse with himself, and then entering into heaven to be their patron and advocate, until they should be received into the same glory, “and so be for ever with the Lord:”—of his strictly righteous government, in the destruction of the old world, the cities of the plain, the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, upon their “filling up the measure of their iniquities;” and, to show that “he will by no means clear the guilty;” in the numerous and severe punishments inflicted even upon the chosen seed of Abraham, because of their transgressions:—of his long-suffering, in frequent warnings, delays, and corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations, before sentence of utter excision and destruction:—of faithfulness and truth, in the fulfilment of promises, often many ages after they were given, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the possession of the land of Canaan by his seed, and in all the “promises made to the fathers” respecting the advent, vicarious death, and illustrious offices of the “Christ,” the Saviour of the world:—of his immutability, in the constant and unchanging laws and principles of his government, which remain to this day precisely the same, in every thing universal, as when first promulgated, and have been the rule of his conduct in all places as well as through all time:—of his prescience of future events, manifested by the predictions of Scripture:— and of the depth and stability of his counsel, as illustrated in that plan and purpose of bringing back a revolted world to obedience and felicity, which we find steadily kept in view in the Scriptural history of the acts of God in former ages; which is still the end toward which all his dispensations bend, however wide and mysterious their sweep; and which they will finally accomplish, as we learn from the prophetic history of the future, contained in the Old and New Testaments.

Thus the course of divine operation in the world has from age to age been a manifestation of the divine character, continually receiving new and stronger illustrations until the completion of the Christian revelation by the ministry of Christ and his inspired followers, and still placing itself in brighter light and more impressive aspects as the scheme of human redemption runs on to its consummation. From all the acts of God as recorded in the Scriptures, we are taught that he alone is God; that he is present every where to sustain and govern all things; that his wisdom is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power irresistible; that he is holy, just, and good; the Lord and the Judge, but the Father and the Friend, of man.

10. More at large do we learn what God is, from the declarations of the inspired writings. As to his substance, that “God is a Spirit.” As to his duration, that “from everlasting to everlasting he is God;” “the King, eternal, immortal, invisible.” That, after all the manifestations he has made of himself, he is, from the infinite perfection and glory of his nature, incomprehensible: “Lo, these are but parts of his ways, and how little a portion is heard of him!” “Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out.” That he is unchangeable: “The Father of Lights, with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” That “he is the fountain of life,” and the only independent Being in the universe: “Who only hath immortality.” That every other being, however exalted, has its existence from him: “For by him were all things created, which are in heaven and in earth, whether they are visible or invisible.” That the existence of every thing is upheld by him, no creature being for a moment independent of his support: “By him all things consist;” “upholding all things by the word of his power.” That he is omnipresent: “Do not I fill heaven and earth with my presence, saith the Lord?” That he is omniscient. “All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” That he is the absolute Lord and Owner of all things: “The heavens, even the heaven of heavens, are thine, and all the parts of them:” “The earth is thine, and the fulness thereof, the world and them that dwell therein:” “He doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” That his providence extends to the minutest objects: “The hairs of your head are all numbered:” “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.” That he is a Being of unspotted purity and perfect rectitude: “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts!” “A God of truth, and in whom is no iniquity:” “Of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” That he is just in the administration of his government: “Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?” “Clouds and darkness are round about him; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne.” That his wisdom is unsearchable: “O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” And, finally, that he is good and merciful: “Thou art good, and thy mercy endureth for ever:” “His tender mercy is over all his works:” “God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ:” “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them:” “God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”

11. Under these deeply awful but consolatory views, do the Scriptures present to us the supreme object of our worship and trust; and they dwell upon each of the above particulars with inimitable sublimity and beauty of language, and with an inexhaustible variety of illustration. Nor can we compare these views of the divine nature with the conceptions of the most enlightened of Pagans, without feeling how much reason we have for everlasting gratitude, that a revelation so explicit, and so comprehensive, should have been made to us on a subject which only a revelation from God himself could have made known. It is thus that Christian philosophers, even when they do not use the language of the Scriptures, are able to speak on this great and mysterious doctrine, in language so clear, and with conceptions so noble; in a manner too so equable, so different from the sages of antiquity, who, if at any time they approach the truth when speaking of the divine nature, never fail to mingle with it some essentially erroneous or grovelling conception. “By the Word of Gods,” says Dr. Barrow, “we mean a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things, to whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience and immensity, perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and veracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, and supreme right of dominion belong; and to whom the highest veneration, and most profound submission and obedience are due.” “Our notion of Deity,” says Bishop Pearson, “doth expressly signify a Being or Nature of infinite perfection; and the infinite perfection of a being or nature consists in this, that it be absolutely and essentially necessary; an actual Being of itself; and potential, or causative of all beings beside itself, independent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed.” “God is a Being,” says Lawson, “and not any kind of being; but a substance, which is the foundation of other beings. And not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are perfect in their kind, yet limited and finite. But God is absolutely, fully, and every way infinitely perfect; and therefore above spirits, above angels, who are perfect comparatively. God’s infinite perfection includes all the attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all dependency, borrowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality, contingency; ignorance, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all imperfections whatever. It includes necessity of being, independency, perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most perfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, and all these in the highest degree. We cannot pierce into the secrets of this eternal Being. Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can proceed no farther, faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can understand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason; but reason itself dictates unto us, that we must believe far more of God than it can inform us of.” To these we may add an admirable passage from Sir Isaac Newton: “The word GOD frequently signifies Lord; but every lord is not God: it is the dominion of a spiritual Being or Lord that constitutes God; true dominion, true God; supreme, the Supreme; reigned, the false god. From such true dominion it follows, that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect; he is eternal and infinite; omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and is present from infinity to infinity. He governs all things that exist, and knows all things that are to be known; he is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present; he endures always, and is present every where; he is omnipresent, not only virtually, but also substantially; for power without substance cannot subsist. All things are contained and move in him, but without any mutual passion; he suffers nothing from the motions of bodies; nor do they undergo any resistance from his omnipresence. It is confessed, that God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and every where. Hence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, all ear, all arm, all the power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but after a manner not at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of men, after a manner wholly to us unknown. He is destitute of all body, and all bodily shape; and therefore cannot be seen, heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any thing corporeal. We have ideas of the attributes of God, but do not know the substance of even any thing; we see only the figures and colours of bodies, hear only sounds, touch only the outward surfaces, smell only odours, and taste tastes; and do not, cannot, by any sense, or reflex act, know their inward substances; and much less can we have any notion of the substance of God. We know him by his properties and attributes.”

12. Many able works in proof of the existence of God have been written, the arguments of which are too copious for us even to analyze. It must be sufficient to say that they all proceed, as it is logically termed, either a priori, from cause to effect, or, which is the safest and most satisfactory mode, a posteriori, from the effect to the cause. The irresistible argument from the marks of design with which all nature abounds, to one great intelligent, designing Cause, is by no writers brought out in so clear and masterly a manner as by Howe, in his “Living temple,” and Paley, in his “Natural Theology.”

The two principal Hebrew names of the Supreme Being used in the Scriptures are Jehovah and Elohim. Dr. Havernick proposes the reading Jahveh instead of Jehovah, meaning ’the Existing One.’Both names, he admirably proves, are used by Moses discriminately, in strict conformity with the theological idea he wished to express in the immediate context; and, pursuing the Pentateuch nearly line by line, it is astonishing to see that Moses never uses any of the names at mere random or arbitrarily, but is throughout consistent in the application of the respective terms. Elohim is the abstract expression for absolute Deity apart from the special notions of unity, holiness, substance, etc. It is more a philosophical than devotional term, and corresponds with our term Deity, in the same way as state or government is abstractedly expressive of a king or monarch. Jehovah, however, he considers to be the revealed Elohim, the Manifest, Only, Personal, and Holy Elohim: Elohim is the Creator, Jehovah the Redeemer, etc.

To Elohim, in the later writers, we usually find affixed the adjective ’the living’ (Jer 10:10; Dan 6:20; Dan 6:26; Act 14:15; 2Co 6:16), probably in contradistinction to idols, which might be confounded in some cases with the true God.

The attributes ascribed to God by Moses are systematically enumerated in Exo 34:6-7, though we find in isolated passages in the Pentateuch and elsewhere, additional properties specified, which bear more directly upon the dogmas and principles of religion, such as e.g. that he is not the author of sin (Gen 1:31), although since the fall, man is born prone to sin (Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21, etc.). But as it was the avowed design of Moses to teach the Jews the Unity of God in opposition to the polytheism of the other nations with whom they were to come in contact, he dwelt particularly and most prominently on that point, which he hardly ever omitted when he had an opportunity of bringing forward the attributes of God (Deu 6:4; Deu 10:17; Deu 4:39; Deu 9:16, etc.; Num 16:22; Num 23:19, etc.; Exo 15:11; Exo 34:6-7, etc.).

In the Prophets and other sacred writers of the Old Testament, these attributes are still more fully developed and explained by the declarations that God is the first and the last (Isa 44:6), that He changes not (Hab 3:6), that the earth and heaven shall perish, but He shall endure (Psa 102:26)—a distinct allusion to the last doomsday—and that He is Omnipresent (Pro 15:3; Job 34:22, etc.).

In the New Testament also we find the attributes of God systematically classified (Rev 5:12; Rev 7:12), while the peculiar tenets of Christianity embrace, if not a farther, still a more developed idea, as presented by the Apostles and the primitive teachers of the church.

The expression ’to see God’ (Job 19:26; Job 42:5; Isa 38:11) sometimes signifies merely to experience His help; but in the Old Testament Scriptures it more usually denotes the approach of death (Gen 32:30; Jdg 6:23; Jdg 13:22; Isa 6:5).

The term ’son of God’ applies to kings (Psa 2:7; Psa 82:6-7). The usual notion of the ancients, that the royal dignity was derived from God, may here be traced to its source. This notion, entertained by the Oriental nations with regard to kings, made the latter style themselves gods (Psa 82:6).

’Sons of God,’ in the plural, implies inferior gods, angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6); as also faithful adherents, worshippers of God (Deu 14:1; Psa 73:15; Pro 14:26).

’Man of God’ is sometimes applied to an angel (Jdg 13:6; Jdg 13:8); as also to a prophet (1Sa 2:27; 1Sa 9:6; 1Ki 13:1).

This name, the derivation of which is uncertain, we give to that eternal, infinite, perfect, and incomprehensible Being, the Creator of all things, who preserves and governs all by his almighty power and wisdom, and is the only proper object of worship. The proper Hebrew name for God is JEHOVAH, which signifies He is. But the Jews, from a feeling of reverence, avoid pronouncing this name, substituting for it, wherever it occurs in the sacred test, the word ADONAI, Lord; except in the expression, ADONAI JEHOVAH, Lord Jehovah, for which they put, ADONAI ELOHIM, Lord God. This usage, which is not without an element of superstition, is very ancient, dating its origin some centuries before Christ; but there is no good ground for assuming its existence in the days of the inspired Old Testament writers. The proper word for God is ELOHIM, which is plural in its form, being thus used to signify the manifold perfections of God, or, as some think, the Trinity in the godhead. In Exo 3:14, God replies to Moses, when he asks Him His name, I AM THAT I AM; which means either, I am he who I am, or, I am what I am. In either case the expression implies the eternal self-existence of Jehovah, and his incomprehensible nature. The name I AM means the same as JEHOVAH, the first person being used instead of he third.\par The Bible assumes and asserts the existence of God, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and is itself the most illustrious proof of his existence, as well as our chief instructor as to his nature and will. It puts a voice into the mute lips of creation; and not only reveals God in his works, but illustrates his ways in providence, displays the glories of his character, his law, and his grace, and brings man into true and saving communion with him. It reveals him to us as a Spirit, the only being from everlasting and to everlasting by nature, underived, infinite, perfect, and unchangeable in power, wisdom, omniscience, omnipresence, justice, holiness, truth, goodness, and mercy. He is but one God, and yet exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and this distinction of the Thee in One is, like his other attributes, from everlasting. He is the source, owner, and ruler of all beings, foreknows and predetermines all events, and is the eternal judge and arbiter of the destiny of all. True religion has its foundation in the right knowledge of God, and consists in supremely loving and faithfully obeying him. See JESUS CHRIST, and HOLY, HOLINESS SPIRIT.\par

God. (good). Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, two chief names are used for the one true divine Being -- Elohim, commonly translated God in our version, and Jehovah, translated Lord. Elohim is the plural of Eloah, (in Arabic, Allah); it is often used in the short form, El, (a word signifying strength, as in El-Shaddai, God Almighty, the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. Gen 17:1; Gen 28:3; Exo 6:3.

The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world.

The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.

Jehovah denotes specifically the one true God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his truth. The name is never applied to a false god, nor to any other being except one, the Angel-Jehovah who is, thereby, marked as one with God, and who appears again, in the New Covenant, as "God manifested in the flesh."

Thus much is clear; but all else is beset with difficulties. At a time too early to be traced, the Jews abstained from pronouncing the name, for fear of its irreverent use. The custom is said to have been founded on a strained interpretation of Lev 24:16, and the phrase there used, "The Name", (Shema), is substituted by the rabbis for the unutterable word. In reading the Scriptures, they substituted for it the word Adonai, (Lord), from the translation of which by Kurios, in the Septuagint (LXX) followed by the Vulgate, which uses Dominus, we have the Lord of our version. The substitution of the word Lord is most unhappy, for it in no way represents the meaning of the sacred name.

The key to the meaning of the name is unquestionably given in God’s revelation of himself to Moses by the phrase "I AM that I AM", Exo 3:14; Exo 6:3. We must connect the name Jehovah with the Hebrew substantive verb to be, with the inference that it expresses the essential, eternal, unchangeable being of Jehovah. But more, it is not the expression only, or chiefly, of an absolute truth: it is a practical revelation of God, in his essential, unchangeable relation to this chosen people, the basis of his covenant.

(See GENESIS, on Elohim and Yahweh). ELOHIM expresses the might of the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. ELYON, His sublimity, (Gen 14:22), "the Most High." SHADDAI, the "Almighty," His all sufficiency (Gen 17:1; Php 4:19; 2Co 3:5; 2Co 12:9). JEHOVAH, His unchangeable faithfulness to His covenanted promises to His people. ADONAI, His lordship, which being delegated to others as also is His might as ELOHIM, ADONAI and ELOHIM are used occasionally of His creatures, angels and men in authority, judges, etc. (Psa 8:5; Psa 97:7 (Hebrew); Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6-7.) "Lord" in small letters stands for Hebrew ADONAI in KJV, but in capitals ("LORD") for JEHOVAH. ELYON, SHADDAI, and JEHOVAH are never used but of GOD; Jehovah the personal God of the Jews, and of the church in particular.

ELOAH, the singular, is used only in poetry. The derivation is ’aalah "to fear," as Gen 31:42; Gen 31:53, "the fear of Isaac," or ’aalah "to be mighty." The plural ELOHIM: is the common form in prose and poetry, expressing that He combines in Himself all the fullness of divine perfections in their manifold powers and operations; these the heathen divided among a variety of gods. ELOHIM concentrates all the divine attributes assigned to the idols severally, and, besides those, others which corrupt man never of himself imagined, infinite love, goodness, justice, wisdom, creative power, inexhaustible riches of excellence; unity, self existence, grace, and providence are especially dwelt on, Exo 3:13-15; Exo 15:11; Exo 34:6-7. The plural form hints at the plurality of Persons, the singular verb implies the unity of Godhead.

The personal acts attributed to the Son (Joh 1:3; Psa 33:6; Pro 8:22-32; Pro 30:4; Mal 3:1, the Lord the Sender being distinct from the Lord the Sent who "suddenly comes") and to the Holy Spirit respectively (Gen 1:2; Psa 104:30) prove the distinctness of the Persons. The thrice repeated "LORD" (Num 6:25-27) and "Holy" (Isa 6:3) imply the same. But reserve was maintained while the tendency to polytheism prevailed, and as yet the redeeming and sanctifying work of the Son and the blessed Spirit was unaccomplished; when once these had been manifested the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity was fully revealed in New Testament.

The sanctions of the law are temporal rather than spiritual, because a specimen was to be given in Israel of God’s present moral government. So long as they obeyed, Providence engaged national prosperity; dependent not on political rules or military spirit, as in worldly nations, but on religious faithfulness. Their sabbatical year, in which they neither tilled nor gathered, is a sample of the continued interposition of a special providence. No legislator without a real call from God would have promulgated a code which leans on the sanction of immediate and temporal divine interpositions, besides the spiritual sanctions and future retributions.

from the same Saxon root as good, thus beautifully expressing the divine benignity as the leading attribute of the most general term for the Deity, and corresponding almost invariably to two Hebrew words, both from a common root (אוּל, au, to be strong). Hengstenberg, however, regards the simpler of these words (אֵל, El) as a primitive (Auth. of Pent. 1:251), while some consider the extended form (אֵֵלוֹהּ, Elo’dh) as derived from a different root (the obsolete אָלָהּ, found in Arabic = to worship). The corresponding Shemitic terms are: Arabic, Al or Allah (q.v.); Syriac, Ilo or Eloho; Samar. El or Chilah (= powerful; Castell, in Walton’s Polyglot Bible, 6, s.v.); Phoenician El (ἠλ or ἰλ), as in En-el (῎Ενυλος, עינאל), Gag-el (Gagilus, גגאל), Ε᾿λοείμ (Sanchon.). SEE ALMIGHTY.

The only other Hebrew word generally employed in naming the Supreme Being is Jehovah, יְהוָֹה, which some (so Havernick, Historische-critsche Einleitung ins alte Testament, Berlin, 1839) propose to point יִהְוֶה, Jahveh, meaning "the Existing One," holding that Elohim is used merely to indicate the abundance and super-richness contained in the Divine Being. With such, therefore, Jehovah is not of the same origin as the heathen Jove, but of a strictly peculiar and Hebrew origin. Both names are used by Moses discriminately, in strict conformity with the theological idea he wished to express in the immediate context; and, pursuing the Pentateuch nearly line by line, it is astonisling to see that Moses never uses any of the names at mere random or arbitrarily, but is throughout consistent in the application of the respective terms. Elohim is the abstract expression for absolute Deity apart from the special notions of unity, holiness, substance, etc. It is more a philosophical than devotional term, and corresponds with our term Deity, in the same way as state or government is abstractly expressive of a king or monarch. Jehovah, however, seems to be the revealed Elohim, the Manifest, Only, Personal, and Holy Elohim: Elohim is the Creator, Jehovah the Redeemer, etc. SEE JEHOVAH.

The translators of the Eng. A.V. have invariably translated this last Hebrew word by " Lord," which is printed in those passages in small capitals in our common Bibles, but whenever the two words which they thus render occur together, Adonai-Jehovah, the latter is rendered "God," in order to prevent the repetition of " Lord." The Greek has θεός (either with or without the art.). Jerome and the Rabbins enumerate ten Heb. words as meaning God; but they relate rather to his attributes. SEE LORD.

I. Usage of the Hebrew terms properly rendered "God."

1. אֵל, El. This term is used in the most general way as a designation of Deity, whether of the true God or of the false gods, even the idols, of the heathen. In the latter reference it occurs Isa 44:10; Isa 44:15; Isa 45:20; Isa 46:6; and in the plur. אֵלַים, Elim’, Exo 15:11; Dan 11:36; though in both these last instances it may be questioned whether the word is not used in the sense of mighty ones. To render the application of the term in this reference more specific, such epithets as אִחֵר, other, foreign (Exo 34:14), זָר, strange, hostile (Psa 81:10), נֵכָר, strange (Deu 32:12), are used. When used of the true God, אֵלis usually preceded by the article (הָאִל, Gen 31:13; Deu 7:9), or followed by such distinctive epithets as שִׁדִּי, Almighty (Exo 6:3); עוֹלָם, eternal (Gen 21:33; Isa 40:28); עִלְיוֹן, Supreme (Gen 14:18); חִי, living (Jos 3:10); גַּבּרֹ, mighty (Isa 9:5); or such qualifying adjuncts as כָּבוֹד, of glory (Psa 29:3); אֵֶמת, of truth (Psa 31:6); גְּמֻלוֹת, of retributions (Jer 51:56); בֵּיתאּאֵל, of Bethel (Gen 31:13). יַשְׂרָאֵל, of Israel (Gen 33:20); יְשֻׁרוּן(Deu 33:26). In poetry אֵל sometimes occurs as a sign of the superlative; as הִרִרֵיאּאֵל, hills of God, very high hills (Psa 36:7); אִרְזֵיאּאֵל, cedars of God (Psa 80:11). The phrase בְּנֵיאּאֵלַים. occurs Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7; and is supposed by some to refer to angels; but others take אלים here for אילים, and translate Sons of the mighty (see Rosenmuller, ad loc.). There is no instance of אֵלin the singular being used in the sense of mighty one or hero; for even if we retain that reading in Eze 31:11 (though thirty of Kennicott’s codices have the reading איל, and the probability is that in those which present אל the י is implied), the rendering "God of the nations" may be accepted as conveying a strong but just description of the power of Nebuchadnezzar, and the submission rendered to him; compare 2Co 4:4. In proper names אל is often found sometimes in the first member of the compound word, e.g. אליה, Elijah; אלדד, Eldad, etc., and sometimes as the last member, e.g. שׁמואלSamuel; למואל, Lemuel; טבאל, Tabeel, etc. SEE EL.

2. אלֵוֹהִּ, Elo’ah, plur. אלֵהַים, Elohim’. The singular form occurs only in poetry, especially in Job, and in the later books, such as Daniel, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. It is used as well of idol deities as of the true God (Dan 11:37-38; Hab 1:11; Deu 32:15; Psalms 1:22; Hab 3:3, etc.); once in the former case with the addition of נֵכָר (Dan 11:39), and in the latter with that of יִעֲקֹב (Psa 114:7). The more common usage is that of the plural. This pervades all the books of the Old Test., from the earliest to the latest. Thus it is used principally of the true God, and in this case frequently with the article prefixed (Gen 5:22; Gen 6:9; Gen 6:11; Gen 17:18), as well as with such adjuncts as הִשָּׁמִיַם (Neh 1:4), or with the addition of וְהָאָרֶו ֹ (Gen 24:3); אָמֵן (Isa 65:16); צִדַּק (Psa 4:2); הִצִּבָּאוֹת (Amo 3:13), etc. When the relation of Israel to God is to be indicated, the phrases God of Israel, Jacob, Abraham are used (Eze 5:1; Psalm 20:2; 47:10, etc.); and in this case, as the term Elohim is equivalent in effect to Jehovah, it is often used interchangeably with that term; thus Moses, who is designated עֵבֶד יְהֹוָה, Ebed-Jehovah (Deu 34:5), is called in the same sense ע אלֵהַים, Ebed-Elohim (Dan 9:11); and the same object is designated indifferently רוּחִ יְהֹוָה, Ruach-Jehovah, and ר אלֵהַים, Ruach-Elohim (comp. Jdg 3:10, and Exo 31:3, etc.). Not unfrequently the two terms are combined (Lev 18:2; Lev 18:4, etc.; Lev 19:2, etc.; 2Sa 5:10; 1Ki 1:36; 1Ki 14:13; Psa 18:29, etc.). Most commonly, however, they are used distinctively, with respect, probably, to the difference between their primary meanings (see Hengstenberg, Auth. d. Pent. 1:181 sq.). In the Pentateuch this discriminative usage has given ground for certain hypotheses as to the composition of that work. SEE PENTATEUCH.

In the earlier historical books, Jehovah is more frequently used than Elohim; in Job, Jehovah is more frequently used in the poetical, Eloah or Elohim in the prosaic portions; in the Psalms, sometimes the one, sometimes the other predominates, and this has been thought to afford some criterion by which to judge of the age of the psalm, the older psalms being those in which Elohim is used; in Proverbs we have chiefly Jehovah; in Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and Jonah almost exclusively Elohim, and in the other prophets chiefly Jehovah. Elohim is also used of idol deities or false gods, because these are worshipped as if they were God (Exo 19:20; Exo 32:31; Jos 24:20; Jer 2:11; Jon 1:5, etc.); and, like El, it is used as a superlative (Psa 68:16; Psa 65:10, etc.). Kings and judges, as the vicegerents of Deity, or as possessing a sort of repreasentative majesty, are sometimes called Elohim (Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6; Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8). Whether the term is used of angels may be made matter of question. This is the rendering given to אֵֹלהַים by the Sept.,Vulg., Targ., Syr., etc., in Gen 3:5; Psa 8:6; Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6; Psa 97:7; Psa 138:1; but in the majority of these instances there can be little doubt that the translators were swayed by were dogmatical considerations in adopting. that rendering; they preferred it because they avoided thus the strongly by anthropomorphic representation which a literal rendering would have preserved. In all these passages the proper signification of אלֹהַים may be retained, and in some of them, such as Gen 3:5; Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6, this seems imperatively required. In Psa 8:6 also the rendering "angels" seems excluded by the consideration that the subject of the writer is the grace of God to man in giving him dominion over the works of his hands, in which respect there can be no comparison between man and the angels, of whom nothng of this sort is affirmed. In Psa 97:7, the connection of the last clause with what precedes affords sufficient reason for our giving Elohim its proper rendering, as in the A.V. That the author of the epistle to the Hebrews should have adopted the Sept. rendering in citing these two passages (Heb 2:7; Heb 1:6), cannot be held as establishing that rendering, for, as his argument is not affected by it, he was under no call to depart from the rendering given in the version from which he quotes. But, though there be no clear evidence that Elohim is ever used in the sense of angels, it is sometimes used vaguely to describe unseen powers or superhemman beings that are not properly thought of as divine. Thus the witch of Endor saw "Elohim ascending out of the earth" (1Sa 28:13), meaning thereby some beings of. an unearthly, superhuman character. So also in Zec 12:8 it is said, "The house of David shall be as Elohim, as the angel of the Lord," where, as the transition from Elohim to the angel of the Lord is a minori ad majus, we must regard the former as a vague designation of supernatural powers. Hengstenberg would explain Psa 8:6 in accordance with this; but the legitimmicy of this may be doubted. SEE ELOHIM.

On the use or absence of the article with אֵֹלהַים see Quarry (Genesis, page 270 sq.), who, after an elaborate examination of the subject, sums up the results as the following: "The dispelling of the supposition that any essential difference existed, at least in the earlier books, between Elohim with and without the article — any difference at all, but such as the exigencies of each occasion with respect to sense or grammar would have made in the case of any common appellative; the illustration of the use of the article with particles and prepositions, elucidating many passages of Scripture, and explaining many seeming causes of perplexity; and the establishment of an important characteristic difference as regards the usage in the case of Elohim with or without the article, between the earlier and later books of the sacred canon." SEE ARTICLE (IN GRAMMAR).

II. The attributes ascribed to God by Moses are systematically enumerated in Exo 34:6-7, though we find is isolated passages in the Pentateuch and elsewhere additional properties specified, which bear more directly upon the dogmas and principles of religion, such as, e.g. that he is not the author of sin (Gen 1:31), although since the fall man is prone to sin (Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21, etc.). But, as it was the avowed design of Moses to teach the Jews the unity of God in opposition to the polytheism of the other nations with whom they were to come in contact, he dwelt particularly and most prominently on that point, which he hardly ever omitted when he had an opportunity of bringing forward the attributes of God (Deu 6:4; Deu 10:17; Deu 4:39; Deu 9:16, etc.; Num 16:22; Num 33:19, etc.; Exo 15:11; Exo 34:6-7, etc.).

In the prophets and other sacred writers of the Old Testament these attributes are still more fully developed and explained by the declarations that God is the first and the last (Isa 44:6); that he changes not (Hab 3:6); that the earth and heaven shall perish, but he shall endure (Psa 102:26) — a distinct allusion to the last doomsday — and that he is omnipresent (Pro 15:3; Job 34:22, etc.).

In the New Testament also we find the attributes of God systematically classified (Rev 5:12; Rev 7:12), while the peculiar tenets of Christianity embrace, if not a further, still a more developed idea, as presented by the apostles and the primitive teachers of the Church (compare Semisch’s Justin Martyr, 2:151 sq., translated by J.E. Ryland, 1843).

The expression "to see God" (Job 19:26; Job 13:5; Isa 38:11) sometimes signifies merely to experience his help; but in the Old Testament Scriptures it more usually denotes the approach of death (Gen 32:30; Jdg 6:23; Jdg 13:22; Isa 6:5). SEE DEATH.

The term בֶּןאּאֵֹלהַים “son of God," applies to kings (Psalm 2:7; 82:6, 27). The usual notion of the ancients that the royal dignity was derived from God may here be traced to its source: hence the Homeric διογένης βασιλεύς. This notion, entertained by the Oriental nations with regard to kings, made the latter style themselves gods (Psa 82:6). Add. בְּנֵי אֵֹלהַים"sons of God," in the plural, implies inferior gods, angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6);also faithful adherents, worshippers of God (Deu 14:1; Psa 73:15; Pro 14:26). אַישׁ אֵֹלהַים "man of God," is sometimes applied to an angel (Jdg 13:6; Jdg 13:8), as also to a prophet (1Sa 2:27; 1Sa 9:6; 1Ki 13:1).

When, in the Middle Ages, scholastic theology began to speculate on the divines attributes as the basis of systematic and dogmatic Christianity, the Jews, it appears, did not wish to remain behind on that head, and, collecting a few passages from the Old Testament, and more especially from Isa 11:2, and 1Ch 29:11, where the divine attributes are more amply developed and enumerated, they strung them together in a sort of cabbalistic tree, but in reality representing a human figure. SEE CABBALA.

III. The Scriptures contain frequent notices of false gods as objects of idolatrous worship:

1. By the Hebrews. These were of two kinds:

a. Adoration of other beings than Jehovah, held as divine (Ehrlen, De diis et deab. Gentil. in S.S. memoratis, Argent. 1750; Leusden, De idolis V.T. in his Philolog. Hebr. mixt. page 291 sq.; Kalkar, Udsigt over den idolatr. Cultus som omtales i bibeln, Odense, 1838 sq.). Such false deities (which are generally identified with their images, Deu 4:28 sq.; Psa 115:4 sq.; Psa 135:15 sq.; 2Ma 2:2; comp. also עֲצָבַים, idols, in passages like 1Sa 31:9; Hos 4:17) are called אֵַלילַיםnothings (perhaps a play upon אֵֹלהַים), in the Jewish Church phraseology (Lev 19:4; Lev 26:1; comp. Hab 2:18), or חֲבָלַים, breaths, i.e., vanities (Jer 2:5; Jer 8:19; Jer 14:22), הִבְלֵי שׁ וְאutter vanities (Jon 2:9; comp. τὰ μάταια, Act 14:15), שַׁקּוּצַים, abominations (1Ki 11:5; Kings 23:13); derisively גַּלּוּלַים, logs (Eze 6:4; Eze 14:3); their sacred rites אָיֶן, frivolity (1Sa 15:23; Isa 66:3), and their whole worship harlotry (Ezekiel 23; compare זָנָה, and derivatives, in Winer, Simonis Lex. p. 286 sq.), in contrast with which Jehovah is called the true God (אֵֹלהַים חִיַּים, Jer 10:10 sq.; Dan 6:20; Dan 6:26 [compare מֵתַים, Psalm 116:28]; Act 14:15; 2Co 6:16), the God of Heaven (Jdt 5:7; compare Jer 10:11, etc.). Indeed idolatry was reprobated as a capital offense in the Mosaic law, under penalty of extirpation and destruction in the case of the whole people (Lev 19:4; Deu 6:15; Deu 8:19; Deu 11:16 sq.; Deu 28:15 sq.; Deu 30:17 sq.; Deu 31:16 sq.; comp. Jos 23:16; 1Ki 9:6 sq.), and stoning for individuals (Exo 22:20; Deu 17:2 sq.; comp. Deu 6:14 sq.; Deu 7:16; Deu 8:19; Deu 13:2 sq.; Exo 20:3; Exo 20:23); and the Israelites were admonished in their campaigns utterly to demolish idolatrous images (Exo 23:24; Exo 34:13; Deu 7:5; Deu 7:25; Deu 12:2 sq.; comp. 1Ch 14:12; 1Ma 10:84), and not to tolerate any heathen whatever in their land (Exo 23:33; Deu 20:17), and, furthermore, to shun all connection (even civil and political) with idolatrous nations (Exo 23:32; Exo 34:15 sq.; Deu 7:1 sq.). Even instigation to idolatry was liable to punishment by death (Deu 13:6 sq.). In spite, however, of these severe statutes, we find the Israelites, not only during the passage through the wilderness and the unsettled period of their polity (Num 25:2; Deu 13:13; Jos 24:23; comp. Amo 5:25 sq.), but also under the monarchy, sadly departing from the worship of Jehovah, and addicting themselves to the adoration of Phoenico-Philistine-Syrian and Arabico-Saboean (in the time of the Maccabees also to Graeco-Syrian) deities (see Gramberg, Religionsideen, 1:436), such as Baal, Ashtaroth, Moloch, Chemosh, Thammuz, etc., and connecting therewith soothsaying and sorcery (Deu 18:10 sq.; comp. Dale, De divinationib. idolol. V.T. in his work De origine et progr. idolol. page 363 sq.). See each of these names in its place.

The service rendered to foreign deities was very multiform (Mishna, Sanhedrinm, 7:6), but consisted principally of vows (Hos 9:10), incense (1Ki 11:8; 2Ki 22:17; 2Ki 23:5; Jer 1:16; Jer 7:9; Jer 11:12; Jer 13:15; Jer 32:29), bloodless (Jer 7:18) and bloody offerings (2Ki 5:17), including even human beings. SEE MOLOCH. The incense and offerings were presented on high places and hills (Isa 57:7; Jer 2:20; Jer 3:6; Jer 13:27; Hos 4:13; 1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 23:5; comp. Philostr. Apoll. 2:4; Spanheim, ad Callim. Del. 70; SEE HIGH PLACE ), on roofs. (Jer 19:13; Jer 32:29; Isa 65:3), under shady trees (1Ki 14:23; 2Ki 16:4; 2Ki 17:10; Hos 4:13; Isa 1:29; Jer 2:20; Jer 3:13; Jer 17:2; 2Ch 28:4; Eze 6:13; Eze 20:28; see Movers, Phönic. page 577 sq.), also in valleys (Jer 2:23; 2Ch 28:3) and gardens (Isa 1:29; Isa 65:3). SEE GROVE. The votaries of many of these deities made an offering of their own chastity to them, and illicit commingling of the sexes was a chief element of such cultus. SEE BAAL; SEE ASTARTE. Sitting upon graves formed also a part of idolatry, either as a propitiation to the manes or in necromancy (Isa 65:4). Lustration even was not wanting (Isa 66:17). The priestly castes of these idolatrous systems were numerous (1Ki 18:22; 2Ki 10:21) and in good station (Hos 10:5). One kind of them was called Kemarim (כַּמָרַים, Zep 1:4; 2Ki 23:5; a Syriac word, Gesen. Thes. page 693; Mishna, Megil. 4:9). SEE IDOLATRY.

b. The worship of Jehovah, under the form of any image whatever, was strictly forbidden (Exo 20:4; Deu 4:16; Deu 5:8; Deu 27:15; comp. Tacit. Hist. 5:5). Such symbols as the Golden Calf (q.v.) were borrowed from Egypt (Jos 24:14; Eze 20:7 sq.). See Ewald, Isr. Gesch. 2:109 sq.; Gerritsen, Cur Hebraei ante exil. Babyl. se ad idolorum et plurium deor. cultum valde promos ostenderint, in the Annal. Acad. Rheno-Traject. 1822-3, page 120 sq.; Michaelis, Mos. Recht, 5:98 sq.; Otho, Lex. Rabb. page 286 sq. SEE IMAGE.

2. Idolatry of non-Israelitish Nations. — See each in its place. This was frequently portrayed by the prophets in all its grossness (1Ki 18:27; comp. Deyling’s Observ. 1:136 sq.), especially by exhibitions of the (mechanical) construction of these gods (images, Isa 2:8; Isa 2:20; Isa 44:10 sq.; Jer 10:3 sq.; Hos 13:2; Psa 115:4; Bar 6:3 sq.; Wis 13:11 sq.; Wis 15:7 sq.; compare Philo, 2:472; Horace, Sat. 1:81 sq. Arnob. 3:12; 6:13 sq.; Augustine, Civ. Dei. 6:10), and their powerlessness (Isa 41:29; Isa 42:17; Isa 46:1-2; Jer 2:28; compare Deu 4:28; Deu 28:36 Psa 115:5 sq.; Hab 2:18). The images of the gods (מִצֵּבוֹת) were sometimes cast (metallic, Jdg 17:4; Isa 2:20; Isa 40:19; Hos 13:2), נֶסֶךְ, מִסֵּכָה; sometimes carved (of wood, Isa 44:13; Jer 10:3; comp. Pliny, 12:2; 13:17; Pausan. 2:19, 3), פֶּסֶל, פְּסַילSEE DIANA, or even moulded of clay (Wis 15:8; Pliny distinguishes "lignea et fictilia simulacra," 34:16). They were fastened with chains, so as not to fall down or be carried away (Isa 41:7; Jer 10:4; comp. Pausan. 3:15, 5; 8:41, 4; Arnob. 6:13), and were usually overlaid with gold or silver, and were, besides, richly decked with apparel (Isa 2:20; Isa 30:22; Isa 31:7; Isa 40:19; Jer 10:4; Hos 8:4; Baruch 12:16; compare Dougtaei Analect. 2:179 sq.; Bahr, Symbol. 1:277 sq.). They were also painted with red (vermilion) color (Wis 13:14; compare Pliny, 33:7, 36; 35:12, 45; Virgil, Eclog. 6:22; 10:26 sq.; Plutarch, Quaest. Romans 98; Arnob. 6:10; Bahr, Symbol. 1:334). They were taken by armies with them into battle (2Sa 5:21; comp. Curtius, 8:14, 11; Polyamn. 7:4). Victors were accustomed to carry them about in triumph, in order to despoil the subject nations of their divinities (Isa 10:10; Isa 36:19; Isa 37:12), or to bind them to greater fidelity (Isa 46:1 sq.; Jer 48:7; Jer 49:3; Hos 10:5; Dan 11:8; compare Pausan. 8:46, 1; see Bochart, Hieroz. 1:372; Withof, Opusc. page 143 sq.). The weapons of slain enemies were hung as trophies in the temples of the gods (1Sa 31:10; Pausan. 1:13, 3; Xenoph. Anab. 5:3, 4; Euseb. Chron. Arm. 1:67). Soothsaying and sorcery ever stand in, connection with this cultus (Isa 19:3). SEE MARK IN THE FLESH.

IV. The Christian Doctrine of God. —

1. Source. — The Christian idea of God is derived from the Scriptures. The statement GOD IS GOD suffices for the wants of theology in itself, and is given as a complete proposition in the Scriptures (Exo 3:14; Isa 43:12). But the Scriptures afford many indications, not merely as to the character of God, but also as to his nature. The substance of these teachings may be summed up in the statements. God is a Spirit, God is Love, God is Lord. These statements include the idea of an immaterial, intelligent, and free personal Being, of perfect goodness, wisdom, and power, who made the universe and continues to support it, as well as to govern and direct it, by his providence. Dr. Adam Clarke gives the following general statement of the doctrine of the Great First Cause: "The eternal, independent, and self-existent Being; the Being whose purposes and actions spring from himself, without foreign motive or influence; he who is absolute in dominion; the most pure, the most simple, the most spiritual of all essences; infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true, and holy; the cause of all being, the upholder of all things; infinitely happy, because infinitely perfect; and eternally self-sufficient, needing nothing that he has made; illimitable in his immensity, inconceivable in his mode of existence, and indescribable in his essence; known fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can only be fully comprehended by itself. In a word, a Being who, from his infinite wisdom, can not err or be deceived, and, from his infinite goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, and right, and kind." The Christian doctrine of God, in its development, involves the idea of the Trinity: God the Fathar, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. SEE TRINITY.

2. Connotation of the term God. — The word Θεός, God, taken to signify "an object of religious venersation," was formerly applied to the pretended deities of the heathen, and accordingly Δευς and Deus were employed by the promulgators of the Gospel when calling on the heathen to transfer their worship from their idols to Jehovah. But the word "God" has come to signify in Christian sense the Maker and Ruler of the world, and is absolutely and exclusively applied to him. There is "one God" in the Christian sense, and there can be but one. "It is not meant merely that we believe this as a fact, but that it is moreover implied in the very meaning we attach to the word. And this is a distinction which should always be carefully attended to. The word ’Mohamedan’ means nothing more or less than a believer in Mohammed, though the Christian regards Mohammed as having been in fact an impostor, and the Mohammedans regard him as a true prophet; but neither of these is implied (or connoted) by the word ’Mohammedan’ when used by a Christian. On the contrary, thee word ’God’ does imply what has been above stated, as is evident from this: that any one who should deny that there exists any such being as a Maker and Governor of the world, would be considered by Christians not only as in error, but as an Atheist — as holding that there is no God (while whoever should affirm the existence of more than one God would be held to be an idolater); and this not the less though he should admit the existence of some being superior to man, such as the fairies, demons, nixes, etc., which are still feared lay the vulgar in almost all parts of Christendom; the genii of the Eastern nations, and the gods and goddesses of the ancient heathens, which were all of this description. None of them was accounted the ’Creator,’ and the births of most of them are recorded in their mythology; and altogether the notions entertained of time seem to have been very nears the same as the vulgar superstitions still prevailing in most parts of Europe relative to the fairies, etc., these being doubtless no other than the ancient heathen deities of those parts, the belief in their existence and dread of their power having survived the introduction of Christianity, though the title of ’gods’ has been dropped, as well as the words ’sacrifice’ and ’worship’ in reference to the offerings, invocations, and other tokens of reverence with which they are still in several places honored. It appears, therefore, that as the ancient heathens denounced the early Christians as Atheists for contemning the heathen deities, so they may be considered as being, in the Christian sense of the word, themselves Atheists (as indeed they are called in Eph 2:12), and that consequently the word ’God,’ in the Christian sense sand in the heathen must be regarded as having two meanings. Wide, therefore, of the truth is the notion conveyed in Pope’s ’Universal Prayer,’ the Pantheism, as it is called, of the ancient heathen philosophers and the Brahmins of the present day, who applied the word God to a supposed soul of the universe:

"’Mens agitat molem, et toto se coampore miscet,’

a spirit pervading all things (but not an agent or a person), and of which the souls of man and brutes are portions. In the Book of Revelation, ’Jehovah, the self-existent and all-perfect Being, with the world which he created and which he is ever ruling, alone meets our view. Though intimately present with all his works, he is yet entirely distinct from them. In him we live, and move, and have our being. He is infinitely nigh to us and he is intimately present with us, while we remain infinitely distant from his all-perfect and incommunicable essence’" (Eden).

3. Can God be known? — The Scriptures declare that God is invisible (Exo 33:20; Joh 1:18; 1Jn 4:12; 1Ti 6:16, etc.) and unsearchable (Job 11:7; Job 37:23). But the very existence of the idea of God, and even the use of the name God, with its connotation as given above, imply, not indeed that it is possible for man to comprehend God, but that it is not impossible to know God. And so the Scriptures make it man’s duty to become "acquainted with God" (1Ch 28:9; Jer 9:24; 2Pe 1:2; Joh 17:3, etc.). Even Atheists are bound to explain the res in intellectu manifested in the thought and language of men. To deny absolutely that God can be known is to deny that he exists; and, on the other hand, the proof, or even the admission that God exists, implies that it can not be absolutely unknown what or how he is: the knowledge of his existence implies as a necessary condition some knowledge of the mode of his existence, i.e. his power, wisdom, justice, etc. The passages cited above, declaring that God is invisible, etc., are not to be tortured to favor the idea that the human mind is absolutely incapable of knowing God. On the contrary, their purpose is to vindicate the claims of revelation as the source of knowledge of God. The Scriptures teach that God is made known him Christ (1) by his works (Rom 1:20; Psa 19:1-2); (2) through his Son, which is, in part, his essence. True, God revealed his "glory" to Moses (Exo 33:18-23), but the manifestation was given through a medium, or, rather, reflection, making "the goodness" of God to "pasbefore" Moses. Not sight, but faith, is the condition and means of our knowledge of God in this life (2Co 5:7). God, then, can be known, but only so far as he gives the knowledge of himself, and so far as the capacity of man can reach. Johannes Damascenus said truly, "It is not possible to know God altogether; neither is it altogether impossible to know God." To see him with the bodily eyes would be fatal to a sinful creature (see citations above). But there is a dead "knowledge of God" (Rom 1:21; Jas 2:19); and, in contrast with it, there is a living knowledge of God, which includes a spiritual seeing of the invisible, the privilege of all who are in vital union with God through faith is his Son (Heb 11:27).

Science trusts to the functions and laws of the human mind as its instruments for the discovery of truth. But to know the truth, and to recognize the ground and object of phenomena in their connection and unity, is a process which leads invariably to the knowledge of the original and perfect Being; for every science which recognizes truth and goodness in the world, in nature and in reason, recognises therewith a power of wisdom and goodness. But as we cannot recognize such a power abstractly, in recognizing it at all we recognize the eternal God (Suabedissen, Metaphysik, 1836, page 143). Yet as man, by science, can know the works of God only very imperfectly and incompletely, criticism and skepticism are alwvays the companions of science , and she can be, at best, only the pioneer of true religious knowledge, or its servant. For the true religious knowledge of God is not founded upon science, but upon life — the life of communion with God. In the religious life the consciousness of God is before and apart from all reflection, all speculation; the souls, in its rapid dialectics, under the pressure of religious needs, has no need of syllogism to prove the existence of God. So Tertullian declares (in his Testimonium Animae) that even the common heathen mind, a part from philosophy, reached a truer knowledge of God and of divine things than the heathen mythology and philosophy could teach. Even the Platonic philosophy taught that the longing of the soul for the truth and beauty of goodness leads to a renunciation of the outward and visible in behalf of an apprehension of the spiritual and real. Spiritual Christianity transforms this teaching into a higher one, viz. that the longing of the soul for God, the search for God in Christ, is always rewarded, and that the "pure in heart" see God with the spiritual eyes of faith. Luther’s doctrine that God may be taught, named, and apprehended in Christ, and in Christ alone, is quite in harmony with the early theology of the Church (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2).

Not that a mere intellectual faith in Christ brings this knowledge of God. With the conversion of the soul begins its new, spiritual capacity to receive and apprehend God; and as the soul is emptied of self and purged from sin by the Holy Spirit, it grows in knowledge of God, in light and love, until the "life of God" becomes the "life of the soul." Dr. Nevin (Reply to Dorner, 1869) has the following striking passage as to the specifically Christian conception of God: "There is a sense in which the absolute being of God, as related immediately and directly to our created being, must be considered the necessary ground of our knowing him and coming into union with him in the way of religion. The whole possibility of religion for us starts in the God-consciousness, or direct sense of Deity, which is as much a part of our original nature as the sense we have of the world around us or of our own existence. It is not put into us by any outward evidence or argument. It authenticates and necessitates itself as a fundamental fact in our life; and in doing this it certifies, to the same extent, the truth of the object on which it is exercised. Or, rather, we must say, the truth of the object on which it is exercised, which is the Divine Being, or the existence of the Absolute, certifies itself, makes itself sure in and through the consciousness into which it enters. In this sense, the idea of God comes before Christianity, as it comes before religion in every other form. But who will say that this general idea of God can be for us, therefore, the actual root of Christianity, so that any among us, starting with that alone, could ever by means of it come to a full construction of what God is for true Christian faith? It lies at the ground of pantheism, dualism, polytheism, deism, and all false religions, no less than at the ground of Christianity. For the distinctive knowledge of Christianity, then, we need some other specific principle or root. which, however it may be comprehended in the general principle of all religion, must be regarded at the same time nevertheless as the ground and beginning, exclusively and entirely, of religion under this its highest and only absolutely complete form. Where, now, is that principle to be found? Where does the whole world of Christianity, the new creation of the Gospel (life, power, doctrine, and all), take its rise and start? Where do we come to the source of its perennial revelation, the ground of its indestructible life? Where, save in the presence of the Word Incarnate, the glorious Person of him who is the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright and morning Star — the faithful and true Witness, the BEGINNING of the creation of God!"

But Religion has had her errors and excesses as well as Science. As the latter seeks in its pride, by purely intellectual effort, to apprehend the absolute, so the former has at certain periods allowed mysticism to take the place of the simple revealed truth as to the life of God in the soul, and, in the spirit of the Oriental theosophy, has called the "redeemed soul but a drop in the ocean of God", SEE MYSTICISM. The orthodox Christian doctrine keeps the golden mean between these extremes. It asserts, and has asserted from the beginning, that a real and objective knowledge of God comes only from God’s revelation, and that only κατὰ τὸἐφικτόν, pro virili (Arist. De Mund.), according to the best capacity of man. It teaches not only that God is "incomprehensible," but also that every step taken in the true knowledge of God by the soul makes his "incomprehensibility" more obvious. It does not pretend that the scriptural doctrine of one God in three persons is perfectly within the scope of the human intellect to comprehend as well as to apprehend; but all Church history shows that a genuine and even scientific knowledge of God has been better maintained with the doctrine of the Trinity than without it. When the Arians attacked the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity on the ground that it transcended human reason, the orthodox replied that it was easier to know God by receiving the doctrine of the Trinity than by rejecting it. Naked monotheism, whether in Judaism, Islamism, or elsewhere, has always ended in bald pantheism (q.v.), while on the other hand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, though stigmatized by infidel and rationalistic opponents as Tritheism, has, from the beginning, preserved in the Church the idea of God as the eternal, spiritual, and personal Being, and has kept up, also, a pure and spiritual worship of the Great Supreme. See Ritter, Ueber die Erkenntniss Gottes in der Welt, 1836; Nitzsch, Syst. d. Christlichen Lehre, § 7, 60-80; Nitzsch, in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop. s.v. Gott.

V. Substance and Mode of the Scripture Teaching. — In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God. The error of men consisted not in denying a God, but in admitting too many; and one great object of the Bible is to demonstrate that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments, however, are employed in it for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded in the history of the Jews, from which it appears that they were always victorious and prosperous so long as they served the only living and true God, Jehovah (the name by which the Almighty made himself known to them), and uniformly unsuccessful when they revolted from him to serve other gods. What argument could be so effectual to convince them that there was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel? The sovereignty and universal providence of the Lord Jehovah are proved by predictions delivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and of empires, specifying distinctly their rise, the duration of their power, and the causes of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God ruled among the nations, and made them the unconscious instruments of promoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the attributes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning: they are simply affirmed and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular deduction of doctrines and conclusions from a few admitted principles, we are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional expressions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God. These circumstances point out a marked singularity in the Scriptures, considered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers, generally speaking, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do not attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to rouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what might have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commission, and armed with undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions. The sacred writers furnish u with information on the existence and the character of God

(1) from the names by which he is designated; (2) from the actions ascribed to him; and (3) from the attributes with which he is invested.

"1. The names of God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of overwhelming greatness and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousness with which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals, the divine essence and mode of existence must ever be invested. Though ONE, he is אֵֹלהַים, ELOHIM, GODS, persons adorable. He is יְהוָֹה, JEHOVAH, self-existing; אֵל, EL, the Mighty, Almighty; שׁדּי, SHADDAI, omnipotent, all-sufficient; אֲדֹנָי, ADONAI, Lord, Ruler, Judge. These are among the adorable appellatives of God which are scattered throughout the, revelation that he has been pleased to make of himself. But on one occasion he was pleased more particularly to declare his name, that is, such of the qualities and attributes of the divine nature as mortals are the most interested in knowing, and to unfold not only his natural, but also those of his moral attributes by which his conduct towards his creatures is regulated: ’And the Lord passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children unto the third and fourth generation’ (Exodus 34). This is the most ample and particular description of the character of God, as given by himself in the Old Testament" (Watson). The name "which is above every name" (Php 2:9), is the name JESUS (Col 3:17). The name in Exo 3:14 is peculiar in denoting God as the "God who reveals himself." The declaration "I am that I am," or "I will be that I will be," does not so much include a predicate of God as a declaration of the eternal being of God, as revealing himself and his kingdom in time; it involves not merely the sense of existence (to which it is limited by the Septuaguint version ὁ ὤν), but also the idea of the continual self-revealing of God, and thus unifies, so to speak, all the successive steps and epochs of revelation. HE is "the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come — the Almighty" (Rev 1:8). The name Jehovah was too holy to be uttered, and others were substituted for it by the Jews; the fearful penalty for blaspheming it was death (Lev 24:16; see Clarke’s note ad loc.). In the names Father and Redeemer (Isa 63:16), new elements of the character of the self- revealing Jehovah are set forth; he shows himself as the God of grace and love to his people who turn unto him. — Watson, Institutes, part 2, 100:1; Nitzsch, in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop. s.v. Gott; Hengstensberg, Die Gottesnamen des Pentateuch; Knapp, Theology (Wood’s ed. page 84) Lange, On Genesis, Introd. § 7.

2. Actions. — "The second means by which the Scriptures convey to us the knowledge of God is by the actions which they ascribe to him. They contain, indeed, the important record of his dealings with men in every age which is comprehended within the limit of the sacred history, and by prophetic declaration they also exhibit the principles on which he will govern the world to the end of the so that the whole course of the divine administration may be considered as exhibiting a singularly illustrative comment upon those attributes of his nature which, in their abstract form, are contained in such declarations as those which have been just quoted.

(1.) The first act ascribed to God is that of creation. By this were manifested: his eternity and self-existence, as he who creates must be before all creatures, and he who gives being to others can himself derive it from none; his almighty power, shown both in the act of creation and in the number and vastness of the objects so produced; his wisdom, in their arrangement and in their fitness to their respective ends; and his goodness, as the whole tended to the happiness of sentient beings. The foundations of his natural and moral government are also made manifest by his creative acts. In what he made out of nothing he had an absolute right and prerogative; it awaited his ordering, and was completely at his disposal; so that to alter or destroy his own work, and to prescribe the laws by which the intelligent and rational part of his creatures should be governed, are rights which none can question. Thus, on the one hand, his character of Lord or Governor is established, and, on the other, our duty of lowly homage and absolute obedience.

(2.) Providence. — Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created he was placed under a rule of conduct. Obedience was to be followed with the continuance of the divine favor; transgression, with death. The event called forth new manifestations of the character of God. His tender mercy, in the compassion showed to the fallen pair; his justice, in forgiving them only in the view of a satisfaction to be hereafter offered to his justice by an innocent representative of the sinning race; his love to that race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the fullness of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and his holiness, in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the means of restoring him to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image of God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divine mercy are traced from age to age in his establishing his own worship among men, and remitting the punishment of individual and national offenses in answer to prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in dependence upon the typified or actually offered universal sacrifice; of his condescension, in stooping to the cases of individuals, in his dispensations both of providence and grace, by showing respect to the poor and humble, and principally by thee incarnation of God in the form of a servant, admitting even into familiar and friendly intercourse with himself, and then entering into heaven to be their patron and advocate until they should be received into the sauce glory, ’and so be forever with the Lord;’ of his strictly righteous government, in the destruction of the old world, the cities of the plain, the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, upon their ’filling up the measure of their iniquities,’ and, to show that ’he will by no means clear the guilty,’ in the numerous and severe punishments inflicted even upon the chosen seed of Abraham because of their transgressions; of his long-suffering, in frequent warnings, delays, and corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations before sentence of utter excision and destruction; of faithfulness and truth, in the fulfillment of promises, often many ages after they were given, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the possession of the land of Canaan by his seed, and in all the ’promises made to the fathers’ respecting the advent, vicarious death, and illustrious offices of the ’Christ,’ the Savior of the world; of his immutability, in the constant and unchanging laws and principles of his government, which remain to this day precisely the same in every thing universal as when first promulgated, and have been the rule of his conduct in all places as well as through all time; of his prescience of future events, manifested by the predictions of Scripture; and of the depth and stability of his counsel, as illustrated in that plan and purpose of bringing back a revolted world to obedience and felicity which we find steadily kept in view in the scriptural history of the acts of God in former ages — which is still the end towards which all his dispensations bend, however wide and mysterious their sweep, and which they will finally accomplish, as we learn from the prophetic history of the future contained in the Old and New Testaments. Thus the course of divine operation in the world has from age to age been a manifestation on the divine character, continually receiving new and stronger illustrations until the completion of the Christian revelation by the ministry of Christ and his inspired followers, and still placing itself in brighter light and more impressive aspects as the scheme of human redemption runs on to its consummation. From all the acts of God as recorded in the Scriptures we are taught that he alone is God; that he is present every where to sustain and govern all things; that his wisdom is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power irresistible; that he is holy, just, and good — the Lord and the Judge, but the Father and the Friend, of Man 1:3.

Nature and Attributes. — "More at large do we learn what God is from the declarations of the inspired writings. As to his substance, that ’God is a Spirit.’ As to his duration, that ’from everlasting to everlasting he is God;’ ’the King, eternal, immortal, invisible.’ That, after all the manifestations he has made of himself, he is, from the infinite perfection and glory of his nature, incomprehensible: ’Lo, these are but parts of his ways, and how little a portion is heard of him!’ ’Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out.’ That he is unchangeable: ’The Father of Lights, with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ That ’he is the fountain of life,’ and the only independent Being in the universe: ’Who only hath immortality.’ That every other being, however exalted, has its existence from him: ’For by him were all things created which are in heaven and in earth, whether they are visible or invisible.’ That the existence of every thing is upheld by him, no creature being for a moment independent of his support: ’By him all things consist;’ ’upholding all things by the word of his power.’ That he is omnipresent: ’Do not I fill heaven and earth with my presence? saith the Lord.’ That he is omniscient: ’All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do.’ That he is the absolute Lord and Owner of all things: ’The heavens, even the heaven of heavens, are thine, and all the parts of then;’ ’The earth is thine, and the fullness thereof, the world and them that dwell therein;’ ’He doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants ’of the earth.’ That his providence extends to the minutest objects: ’The hairs of your head are all numbered;’ ’Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.’ That he is a Being of unspotted purity and perfect rectitude: ’Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts!’ ’A God of truth, and in whom there is no iniquity;’ ’Of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.’ That he is just in the administration of his government: ’Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?’ ’Clouds and darkness are round about him; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne.’ That his wisdom is unsearchable: ’O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!’ And, finally, that he is good and merciful: ’Thou art good, and thy mercy endureth forever;’ ’His tender mercy is over all his works;’ ’God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ;’ ’God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;’ ’God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.’ SEE ATTRIBUTES; also VI below. "Under these deeply awful but consolatory views do the Scriptures present to us the supreme object of our worship and trust; and they dwell upon each of the above particulars with inimitable sublimity and beauty of language, and with an inexhaustible variety of illustration. Nor can we compare these views of the divine nature with the conceptions of the most enlightened of pagans without feeling how much reason we have for everlasting gratitude that a revelation so explicit and so comprehensive should have been made to us on a subject which only a revelation from God himself could have made known. It is thus that Christian philosophers, even when they do not use the language of the Scriptures, are able to speak on this great and mysterious doctrine in language so clear and with conceptions so noble; in a manner, too, so equable, so different from the sages of antiquity, who, if at any time they approach the truth when speaking of the divine nature, never fail to mingle with it some essentially erroneous or groveling conception. ’By the word GOD,’ says Dr. Barrow, ’we mean a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things, to whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience and immensity, perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and veracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, and supreme right of dominion belong, and to whom the highest veneration and most profound submission and obedience are due’ (Barrow, On the Creed). ‘Our notion of Deity,’ says Bishop Pearson, ’doth expressly signify a Being or Nature of infinite perfection; and the infinite perfection of a being or nature consists in this, that it be absolutely and essentially necessary, an actual being of itself, and potential or causative of all beings beside itself; independent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed’ (Pearson, On the Creed). ’God is a Being,’ says Lawson, ’and not any kind of being, but a substance which is the foundation of other beings; and not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are perfect in their kind, yet limited and finite; but God is absolutely, fully, and every way infinitely perfect, and therefore above spirits, above angels, who are perfect comparatively. God’s infinite perfection includes all the attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all dependency, borrowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality, contingency, ignorance, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all imperfections whatever. It includes necessity of being, independency, perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most perfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, and all these in the highest degree. We can not pierce into the secrets of this eternal Being. Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can proceed no farther faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can understand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason, but reason itself dictates unto us that we must believe far more of God than it can inform us of (Lawson, Theo-Politica). To these we may add an admirable passage from Sir Isaac Newton, ’The word GOD frequently signifies Lord, but every lord is not God: it is the dominion of a spiritual Being or Lord that constitutes God; true dominion, true God; supreme, the Supreme; feigned, the false god. From such true dominion it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful, and from his other perfections that he is supreme, or supremely perfect; he is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity, and is present from infinity to infinity. He governs all things that exist, and knows all things that are to be known; he is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present — he endures always and is present everywhere; he is omnipresent, not only virtually, but also substantially, for power without substance can not subsist. All things are contained and move in him, but without any mutual passion; he suffers nothing from the motions of bodies, nor do they undergo any resistance from his omnipresence. It is confessed that God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and every where: hence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, all ear, all arm, all the power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but after a manner not at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of men, after a manner wholly to us unknown. He is destitute of all body and all bodily shape, and therefore can not be seen, heard, or touched, nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of anything corporeal. We have ideas of the attributes of God, but do not know the substance of even anything; we see only the figures and colors of bodies, hear only sounds, touch only the outward surfaces, smell only odors, and taste tastes, and do not, cannot, by any sense or reflex act, know their inward substances, and much less can we have any notion of the substance of God. We know him by his properties and attributes.’" — Newton, Principia, 2:311, ed. 1803; Watson, Instit. part 2, 100:1.

VI. Dogmatical Treatment of the Doctrine of God. —

1. The exposition of the doctrine of GOD is the province of Theology proper, as distinguished from Anthropology, Soteriotogy, etc. SEE THEOLOGY. The doctrine is set forth by writers on systematic theology according to their views of the relations of the subject to the other branches, but in general it constitutes the first topic treated, and is divided very much as follows:

2. Division. —

I. The NATURE OF GOD:

1. As the original and unoriginated personal Being: (a) One; (b) self- existent; (c) infinite.

2. As the original Word and Will: (a) Creator; (b) preserver; (c) governor of the world.

3. As the original Spirit: (a) Essential Spirit; (b) origin of all moral and spiritual laws and existences. And hence,

II, the TRINITY of three persons in the one Godhead: Father, Son, Holy Ghost. SEE MONOTHEISM; SEE TRINITY.

III. The ATTRIBUTES of God. These are not parts of the divine essence, but conceptions of the idea of God in his relations to the world and to human thought (Suabedissen, page 150). Perfectiones Dei, qaue essentiam divinam nostro concipiendi modo per se consequuntunr, et de Deo paronymice praedicantur (Hollaz, page 234). So Aquinas: "The name of God does not express the divine essence as it is, as the name of man expresses is its signification the essence of man as it is; that is to say, by signifying the definition which declares the essence" (Summa, part 1, q. 13, art. 1). The ground of this distinction was the conviction that finite things cannot indicate the nature of the infinite God otherwise than by imperfect analogies. The attributes of God must be represented to our minds, so far as they can be represented at all, under the similitude of the corresponding attributes of man. Yet we cannot conceive them as existing in God in the same manner as they exist in man. In man they are many, in God they must be one. In man they are related to and limit each other; in God there can be no relation and sea limitation. In man they exist only as capacities at times carried into action; in God, who is purus actus, there can be no distinction between faculty and operation. Hence the divine attributes may properly be called mysterious; for, though we believe in their coexistence, we are unable to conceive the manner of their co-existence" (Quarterly Review, July 1864, art. 3). There have been many divisions of the attributes of God. The scholastic theology set forth the attributes in three ways: 1. by causality (via causalitatis), in which all the perfections we observe in creation, and especially in man, are necessarily to be attributed to their Creator;

2. by negation (via negationis), under which the imperfections of created beings are kept out of the conception of God;

3. by analogy or eminence (via analogiae, via eminentiae), by which the highest degree of all known perfections is attributed to God.

Accordingly, the attributes of God were classed en negative and positive, the negative being such as remove from him whatever is imperfect in creatures — such are infinity, immutability, immortality, etc; while the positive assert some perfection in God which is in and of himself, and which in the creatures, in any measure, is from him. This distinction is now mostly discarded. Among modern writers, Dr. Samuel Clarke sums up the attributes as ultimately referrible to these three leading ones: omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect goodness. Others distinguish them into absolute and relative: absolute are such as belong to the essence of God, as Jehovah, Jah, etc.; relative ones are such as may be ascribed to him in time, with relation to his creatures, ass creator, governor, preserver, redeemer, etc. Others, again, divide them into conmmunicable and incommunicable attributes. The communicable are those which can be imparted to the creature, as goodness, holiness, wisdom, etc.; the incommunicable are such as cannot be so imparted, as independence, immutability, immensity, and eternity. Another division makes one class of natural attributes, e.g. eternity, immensity, etc., and another of moral, e.g. holiness, goodness, etc. The later German theologians attempt more scientific discriminations; e.g. Böhme (Lehre v.d. Göttl. Eigenschaften, 1821; last ed. Altenurg, 1842) distinguishes the attributes is to those which refer to the world in general, and those which refer to the moral world in particular. Schleiermacher makes two classes:

(1.) attributes which refer to the universal sense of dependence on God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence;

(2.) attributes which refer to the Christian sense of redemption and of dependence on God, viz. holiness, justice, wisdom, love.

Pelt (Theolog. Encycl. § 74) classes them as

(1.) attributes of God as absolute cause (a.) in himself — eternal, infinite, self-sufficient; (b) in relation to the world — omnipotent, omnipresent;

(2.) attributes of God as the original and self-revealing will — good, holy, just, benevolent, etc. Rothe’s scheme of the attributes is thus set forth by Babut in the Bulletin of the Revue Christienne (1868, No. 3, Juillet):

I. Absolute or immanent Attributes:

1. self-sufficiency of God as a pure and absolute Being; 2. majesty; the divine will; 3. blessedness.

II. Relative Attributes, implied in God’s relation to the universe; the love of God is the source of creation and being, While the essence of God is expressed in infinity, immensity, immutability. The personality of God is manifested to the world in goodness, wrath, grace; the intelligence of God in omniscience, holiness, truth. The will of God is manifested in omnipotence, justice, faithfulness; and the divine nature is manifested in the one attribute of omnipotence. See Bates, Harmony of the Divine Attributes; Charnock, Existence and Attributes of God (Lond. 1845, 8vo last edit.); Elwert, in Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1830; Blasche, göttl. Eigenschaften (Erfurdt, 1831); Andreae, De Attrib. Divin., etc. (Lugdun. 1824); Bruch, Lehre v. d. göttl. Eigenschaften (Hamb. 1842); Moll, De justo attributorum Dei discrimine (Hal. 1855); Shedd, History of Doctrine, 1:240; Hase, Evang. Dogmatik, § 102 sq., s and writers on systematic theology generally. SEE CREATION; SEE TRINITY; SEE PROVIDENCE.

VII. History of the Doctrine of God. — The history of the argument for the being of God will be found under NATURAL THEOLOGY. We treat here briefly the history of the doctrine of the nature and attributes of God. The first office of Christianity was to vindicate the spirituality of God against the material and anthropomorphic ideas of paganism, and even of corrupted Judaism. The proposition "God is a Spirit" was therefore a fundamental one; yet at an early period anthropomorphic ideas were developed in the Church. Melito, bishop of Sardis, in his treatise Περὶ ἐνσωμάτου θεοῦ (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4:26), taught a corporeal representation of God. Tertullian (adv. Praxeam, 100:7) declares Deum corpus esse, etsi Spiritus est; nihil enim incorporale nissi quod non est; and thus plainly shows that he could not distinguish reality from corporeity, even in God. The Anthropomorphites took the phrase "image of God" in a material sense, and taught that God is man per eminentiam.

(2.) The second error was Dualism (q.v.), brought in by the Gnostic distinction between the supreme God and the Desmiurge. SEE GNOSTICISM.

(3.) Opposed to both these was the philosophical mode of conceiving God, including the idea of immateriality, proved negatively, e.g. Minucius Felix: Hic nec videri potest — visu clarior est; nec comprehendi potest — tactu purior est; nec aestimari — sensibus major est: infinitus, immensus, et soli sibi tantus quantus est notus. "The Alexandrians opposed all crude anthropopathisms, but they were not successful in correctly separating the real and the sensuous view, and hence were led into a subtilizing of the divine attributes. Clement attributes all errors in the apprehension of the Old Testament to the sensuous and liberal mode of understanding it, which led men to represent, after human fashion, the nature of God, who is exalted above all human passions. The prophets could represent God to us not as he is, but only as we sensuous men can understand it (Strom. page 391). Origen also sees in the Old Testament a condescension of God to the weakness of man. In fact, there is no wrath in God, but he must appear as if wrathful to the bad, on account of the sufferings which their own evil conduct entails upon them (Hom. 18, in Jerem.). The Alexandrians disputed the self-subsistence of God’s primitive justice, and merged it in the idea of a δικαιοσύνη σωτήριος, a disciplining reformatory love." Augustine speaks of God as the ipsa incommutabilis veritas... illud solum quod non tantum non mutatur, verum etiam mutari non potest, etc. But he declares that no complete definition of God can be given: Deus ineffabilis est: facilius dicimus quod Deus non sit, quam quid sit (Comm. in Psalms 85). In the period of the Arian controversy, all questions as to the nature of God were bound up with the discussion of the Trinity (q.v.); and it the period from Gregory I to the scholastic age (11th century), with that of the doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the Person of Christ. SEE CHRISTOLOGY. In the scholastic period Anselm supposed an analogy (before used by Augustine) between the divine mind and the human. "We cannot know," he says, "the supreme Being in himself, but only after a certain analogy with created beings, therefore most of all with the rational spirit. The more this spirit enters into itself and observes itself, the more will it succeed in raising itself to the knowledge of the absolute Spirit. The human spirit is a mirror in which we may see the image of that which we do not directly behold. The supreme Spirit presupposes his own existence, knows himself; the Word begotten from himself is one with his own essence.

Thus the supreme Being expressed himself. As everything which is produced by human art was before in the idea of the formative spirit, and as this idea remains even when the work perishes, and is, in this respect, one with the art of the formative spirit itself, so it is not another, but the same word by which God knows himself and all creatures. In the divine Word creatures have a higher being than in themselves; the ideal being rests in the divine thoughts. The relation of the Son to the Father is something elevated above all language. The expression generation is best suited to represent the relation, but yet it is symbolical. Further, as God knows himself, he loves himself; his love to himself presupposes his being and knowing. This is also denoted by the procession of the Holy Spirit from both; all three pass completely into one another, and thus constitute the unity of the Supreme Being" (Monologium, 100:64). The view of God taught by Scotus Erigena — In deo immutabiliter et essentialiter sunt omnia — led, in the hands of David of Dinanto and Amalrich of Bena, to a pantheistic theory, which was opposed by Aquinas and the later schoolmen, especially by Albertus Magnus. As to the attributes of God; the principal discussions of the scholastic period related to his omnipotence and omnipresence. The confessions of faith of the Reformation period generally agree as to the doctrine of the nature, attributes, and works of God: the discussions that have arisen in the bosom of Protestantism on this subject refer chiefly to the doctrines of the Trinity (q.v.) and predestination (q.v.).

The later theories of the philosophical period, on the sceptical side, are those of Idealism, Materialism, and Pantheism (see the several heads). Some later Christian writers, in opposing the extremes of German Rationalism, have denied the possibility of any scientific knowledge of God. Mansell (Limits of Religious Thought, Bampton Lectures for 1859) maintains that only a regulative (as distinguished from a speculative) knowledge of God is possible. "To conceive," says he, "the Deity as he is, we must conceive him as first cause, as absolute, and as infinite. But do not these three conceptions imply contradiction to each other, when viewed in conjunction, as attributes of one and the same being? A cause cannot, as such, be absolute: the absolute cannot, as such, be a cause. How can the infinite become that which it was not from the first?" Mr. Mansell here pushes his opposition to the use of reason too far; and finding the words "absolute" and "infinite" used in transcendental senses by the Germans, he adopts those senses, and reasons as if no other definitions were possible. For criticisms of his work, see London Review, July 1860, page 390 sq.; Young, The Province of Reason (London, 1860); McCosh, Method of the Divine Government (Edinb. 1859, 6th edit.). The Christian conception of God over against the modern speculative idea is well set forth in the following passage: "The problem in regard to God is simply this: The human mind is compelled to think a unity or synthesis of all things. But how is this to be thought? Are we to think it inside nature, or outside and above it? Here it is that the Christian idea breaks off from the speculative. The Christian, realizing his own personality, feeling intensely that he himself in his inmost being is numerically different from and above nature, is compelled to think of the divine as in like manner supernatural. Having attained to this stage, the next question that arises is, How are we to image forth the divine Being? and the answer is, not surely by the lowest kind of natural existence, but by the highest. The human personality itself, not the immutabilities of the material world, which are lower in the scale of being, must be the image which shall shadow forth the divine Being. That which comprehends all things must, at least, equal in perfection the highest of these things. Thus the human personality becomes in the Christian system the image and likeness of God. God may, indeed, be far higher than man — so high that to call him a person may be as inadequate as to call the human soul a power. But, at least, we are sure of this, that whatever he is in himself, all that we mean by personality is comprehended in him. Just as man is a power and something more, so God is a person and perhaps something more. There is an indestructible belief in man, that all the pure feelings of the soul find a response in the infinite Author of all things. Under the impress of this universal conviction, men fall on their knees and worship. Such is the pure Christian idea, and it involves this consequence, that each individual soul stands in a special and personal relation to the infinite Author of all.

There is an eye which is ever over us; a fatherly heat which yearns for us. There is One whose wisdom never fails, who is ever about our path and about our bed, and provides for us in all things. In like manner as he is all this to us, so we in turn are his children; we are responsible to him as to a father, and must be judged by him. Intellectually, too, the same Christian idea involves this consequence — that it is a grander and worthier conception of his providence to think him as dealing with and disciplining individual souls, than as contriving and arranging a world of dead laws. The one reveals heart and soul, the grandeur of personality and kingly might; the other, if taken by itself, only ingenuity, not necessarily personality at all. The speculative idea of God is the antithesis of this. It, too, recognizes a central unity; but, looking away from the world of mind and soul, it concentrates its attention on the world of matter. It takes the laws of the material world as the image of the divine. God is revealed in the evolutions of nature. His attributes consequently are such as these: perfect wisdom, infinite power, absolute invariability of purpose. He has neither heart nor soul, nor even consciousness, as we understand it. He is impersonal, and can have no personal relation to us. He has neither knowledge nor care of the individual, but acts purely by general law. We need not, however, pursue the consequences, which are sufficiently apparent. It will be enough if we point out their bearing on practical life. Here are two opposing systems which hold a very different language to the human soul. The one says in the fine language of St. Augustine, O homo, agnosce dignitatem tuam; the other, O man, rejoice in thy degradation. The one dignifies and ennobles the soul, and, supplying it with a lofty ideal and immortal hopes, raises it from the depth of selfishness; the other degrades it to the level of the brute, and, depriving it alike of hope and fear, bids it snatch what enjoyment it can from the passing hour. That lofty conception of God, which has done no much for modern Europe, is purely the creation of Christianity. Were this latter taken away, it would instantly collapse, and there would only remain, for the upper classes, hopeless, selfish atheism; for the lower, degrading superstition" (Christian Remembrancer, July 1866, art. 13). On the history of the doctrine OF GOD in general, see a series of able articles by Ritschl, ins the Jahrbücher. deutsche Theologie, volumes 10, 13. — Neander, History of Dogmas, pages 102, 285, 485, 460; Beck, Dogmengeschichte, pages 104-138; Hagenbach, Dogmengeschichte; Hase, Evangelische Dogmatik, pages 93-111; Meiners, Hist. doct. de vero deo (Lemgo, 1780, 8vo); Perrone, Praelect. Theol. 1:296-500; Gieseler, Dogmengeschichte, pages 107, 299, 486; Guericke, Christliche Symbolik, § 34; Storr and Flatt, Biblical Theol. Book 2, part 1; Knapp, Theology, § 83-85; Rothe, Ethick, 1; Weisse, Die Idee der Gottheit (1833); Ritter, Ueber d. Erkenntniss Gottes in d. Welt (1836); Sengler, Die Idee Gottes (1848-1852); Späth, Gott u. d. Welt (1867). SEE PANTHEISM; SEE PROVIDENCE.

God. The name of the Creator and the supreme Governor of the universe. He is a "Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth." He is revealed to us in his works and providential government, Rom 1:20; but more fully in the Holy Scriptures and in the person and work of his only begotten Son, our Lord. 1. Names. There are three principal designations of God in the Old Testament—Elohim, Jehovah (Javeh), and Adonai. The first is used exclusively in the first chapter of Genesis; chiefly in the second book of Psalms, Psa 42:1-11; Psa 43:1-5; Psa 44:1-26; Psa 45:1-17; Psa 46:1-11; Psa 47:1-9; Psa 48:1-14; Psa 49:1-20; Psa 50:1-23; Psa 51:1-19; Psa 52:1-9; Psa 53:1-6; Psa 54:1-7; Psa 55:1-23; Psa 56:1-13; Psa 57:1-11; Psa 58:1-11; Psa 59:1-17; Psa 60:1-12; Psa 61:1-8; Psa 62:1-12; Psa 63:1-11; Psa 64:1-10; Psa 65:1-13; Psa 66:1-20; Psa 67:1-7; Psa 68:1-35; Psa 69:1-36; Psa 70:1-5; Psa 71:1-24; Psa 72:1-20, called the Elohim Psalms, and occurs alternately with the other names in the other parts of the Old Testament. It expresses his character as the almighty Maker and his relation to the whole world, the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The second is especially used of him in his relation to Israel as the God of the covenant, the God of revelation and redemption. "Adonai," i.e., my Lord, is used where God is reverently addressed, and is always substituted by the Jews for "Jehovah," which they never pronounce. The sacred name Jehovah, or Yahveh, is indiscriminately translated, in the Common Version, God, Lord, and Jehovah. 2. The Nature of God. God is revealed to us as a trinity consisting of three Persons who are of one essence, Mat 28:19; 2Co 13:14; Joh 1:1-3—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. To the Father is ascribed the work of creation, to the Son the redemption, to the Holy Spirit the sanctification; but all three Persons take part in all the divine works. To each of these Persons of the Trinity are ascribed the essential attributes of the Supreme God. Thus, the Son is represented as the Mediator of the creation. Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:4. 3. The unity of the Godhead is emphasized in the Old Testament, while the trinity is only shadowed forth, or at best faintly brought out. The reason for the emphasis of the unity of the Godhead was to show the fallacy of polytheism and to discourage idolatry, which the heathen practiced. God is denominated "one Lord." Deu 6:4. Over against the false deities of the heathen, he is designated the "living" God. This belief in God as one was a chief mark of the Jewish religion.—Condensed from Schaff.

The names by which God makes Himself known are various.

1. El, ’the strong or mighty one.’ It is often used of God, especially in Job and the Psalms. Job 5:8; Psa 22:1, etc.; and of the Lord Jesus in Isa 9:6. It is also used for the false gods, Psa 81:9; Dan 11:36; and is translated ’mighty’ in Psa 29:1; Psa 82:1.

2. Eloah (Elah Chaldee), Elohim. The names most commonly used for God the Creator, the One with whom man has to do, the supreme Deity. Gen 1:1-31. (Running all through the O.T. to Mal 3:18.) These words are also applied to God’s representatives, such as angels and judges. Exo 22:28; Psa 82:6; and also to false gods. Lev 19:4. Elohim (which is plural, called the plural of majesty or excellency) is the word of most frequent occurrence. When it is distinctly used for the one true God the article is often added.

3. Jehovah. This is a name of relationship with men, especially with Israel, taken by God in time. It is derived from havah, ’to exist,’ and may be expanded into ’who is, who was, and is to come.’ God thus reveals Himself in time as the ever-existing One: that is, in Himself eternally, He is always the same: cf. Heb 1:12. The above ’relationship’ may be seen in the change from Elohim, the Creator, in Gen 1, to Jehovah Elohim in Gen 2, when man was brought into relationship with God. Again in Gen 7:16 Elohim ordered Noah to make the ark but Jehovah shut him in. Unfortunately the name Jehovah is seldom employed in the A.V. It is generally represented by LORD (sometimes GOD) printed in small capitals.* There is a contraction of Jehovah into Jah, also translated in the A.V. by LORD, except in Psa 68:4, where Israel is exhorted to sing unto God, and "extol him by his name JAH." Jah signifies the absolute supremacy of the self-existing One; whereas Jehovah was the name made known to Israel, and on which they could count. "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM," Exo 3:14, where the word is Ehyeh, which is from the same root as Jehovah, the Eternal existing One; He that was, and is, and the coming One.

4. Shaddai , ’the Almighty,’ is another name of God, and is often so translated, especially in Job, without any other name attached. Job 6:4; Job 6:14; Psa 68:14, etc. At times it is associated with one of the above words, and was the name by which He was especially known to the Patriarchs, as El Shaddai, God Almighty, Exo 6:3; which passage does not mean that the Patriarchs had not heard of the name of Jehovah, but that it was not the especial name for them.

5. Elyon, ’the Most High,’ is another name of God, which stands alone, as in Deu 32:8; 2Sa 24:14; and in Dan 4:17-34 (from a kindred word); or it has one of the above words added and is then ’the most high God,’ Gen 14:20; or ’the LORD most high.’ Psa 7:17. It is not confined to Israel, for He is "the Most High over all the earth." Psa 83:18.

6, 7. Adon and Adonai, and the plural Adonim, are all translated ’Lord’; they occur frequently, and are found in some of the following compounds:-

Adon Jehovah, Exo 23:17, the Lord GOD.

Adon Jehovah Elohim, Isa 51:22, thy Lord, the LORD, and thy God.

Adon Jehovah Sabaoth, Isa 19:4, the Lord, the LORD OF HOSTS.

Adonai Elohim, Psa 86:12, O Lord my God: cf. Dan 9:3; Dan 9:9; Dan 9:15.

Adona Jehovah, Deu 9:26, O Lord GOD (occurs frequently).

Adonai Jehovah Sabaoth, Jer 2:19, the Lord GOD of hosts.

El Elohim, Gen 33:20, El-elohe [Israel]; Gen 46:3, God, the God [of thy father].

El Elohim Jehovah, Jos 22:22, the LORD God of gods.

El Shaddai, Gen 28:3, etc., God Almighty.

Jah Jehovah, Isa 26:4, the LORD JEHOVAH.

Jehovah Adon, Neh 10:29, the LORD our Lord.

Jehovah Adonai, Psa 68:20, GOD the Lord.

Jehovah El, Psa 31:5, O LORD God.

Jehovah Elohim, Gen 9:26, etc., the LORD God.

Jehovah Elohim Sabaoth Adonai, Amo 5:16, the LORD, the God of hosts, the Lord.

Jehovah Jehovah El, Exo 34:6, the LORD, the LORD God.

Jehovah Sabaoth, Jer 46:18, the LORD of hosts.

Jehovah Sabaoth Elohim, Jer 27:4, etc., the LORD of hosts, the God [of Israel].

For titles in combination with Jehovah, See JEHOVAH.

The true pronunciation of Jehovah is declared to be lost: the Jews when reading the O.T. never utter it (from a constrained interpretation of Lev 24:16), but say, ’the name,’ ’the great and terrible name,’ etc.

In the N.T. the word Θεός is constantly translated God; and Κύριος is the word commonly rendered Lord. In the O.T. the latter is used by the LXX as the translation of Jehovah, so in the N.T. it often represents Jehovah, and is then mostly, if not always, without the article, as in Mat 1:20; Mat 1:22; Mat 1:24, etc. The Lord is also called ’the Almighty,’ Rev 1:8, etc.; and there are a few compound names as in the O.T.:

God Almighty, Rev 16:14; Rev 19:15.

Lord Almighty, 2Co 6:18.

Lord God Almighty, Rev 4:8; Rev 11:17; Rev 15:3; Rev 16:7; Rev 21:22.

Lord of Sabaoth, Rom 9:29; Jas 5:4.

The characteristic name of God in the N.T. in relationship with His saints is that of FATHER: it was used anticipatively in the Lord’s intercourse with His disciples, but made a reality after His resurrection, when He sent the message: "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." Joh 20:17.

THE TRINITY. In reference to this term the Father is God. Php 2:11; 1Th 1:1, etc. The Lord Jesus is God. Isa 9:6; Mat 1:23; Joh 1:1; Rom 9:5; Php 2:6; Col 2:9; 1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:8. The Holy Spirit is God: "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen 1:2. Ananias lied to ’the Holy Ghost,’ ’unto God;’ and Sapphira unto the ’Spirit of the Lord,’ Act 5:3-4; Act 5:9; ’Spirit of God.’ 1Co 2:11; 1Co 3:16, etc. That there are three divine Persons (if we may so express it) is plain from scripture. The Father sent the Son, and He came to earth. The Father sent the Holy Spirit, and the Lord Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, and He came from heaven. He is a divine Person, of which there are many proofs (See HOLY SPIRIT). There is but one God.

Scripture reveals what God is in Himself, ’God is love’ (used absolutely), 1Jn 4:8; and ’God is light’ (used relatively, in opposition to darkness), 1Jn 1:5; and Christ is the expression of both in a Man. The principal of God’s attributes and characteristics as revealed in scripture are

1. His Eternity. Hab 1:12; Rom 1:20.

2. Invisibility. Col 1:15.

3. Immortality. Psa 90:2; 1Ti 1:17.

4. Omnipotence. Job 24:1; Mat 19:26; only Potentate. 1Ti 6:15.

5. Omnipresence. Psa 139:7-10; Jer 23:23-24.

6. Omniscience. 1Ch 28:9; Isa 42:8-9; Rom 8:29-30; Heb 4:13.

7. Incorruptibility. Rom 1:23; Jas 1:13.

8. Immutability. Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17.

9. Wisdom. Psa 104:24; Rom 11:33-36.

10. Holiness. Psa 47:8; Psa 99:3; Psa 99:5; Rev 4:8.

11. Justice. Psa 89:14; 2Ti 4:8.

12. Grace and mercy. Psa 136; 2Co 1:3; Eph 2:4.

13. Longsuffering. Exo 34:6; Rom 9:22.

14. Faithfulness. Psa 36:5; Heb 10:23.

God’s eternal power and divinity may be known in creation, Rom 1:20; but He has revealed Himself in the person of Christ, the Son, the eternal Word. God has been pleased also to reveal Himself in His written word. His purposes, His ways, and what He has done for sinful man, all demand universal reverence, adoration, and worship.

* In four places the A.V. has preserved the name Jehovah, namely, Exo 6:8; Psa 83:18; Isa 12:2; Isa 26:4.

* See God-is-dead thought; Word of God; Moral argument for God; Ontological argument for God; and Teleological argument for God

GOD The Father, GOD The Son, And GOD The Holy Spirit Being One

1Jn_5:7.

Nothing Being Too Difficult For The LORD GOD

Gen_18:14; Jer_32:17.

The Character Of The LORD GOD

Gen_18:22-26; Exo_20:3-6; Exo_22:20-27; Exo_33:17-19; Exo_34:6-7; Exo_34:14; Lev_11:44-45; Lev_19:2; Lev_20:26; Lev_21:8; Num_14:18-19; Num_23:19; Deu_4:24; Deu_4:31; Deu_5:7-10; Deu_6:15; Deu_7:9; Deu_10:17; Deu_32:4; 1Sa_15:29; 1Sa_16:7; 1Ch_16:34; 2Ch_19:7; 2Ch_30:9; Ezr_9:9; Ezr_9:15; Neh_1:5; Neh_9:7-8; Neh_9:16-19; Neh_9:31-33; Job_8:20; Job_34:10-19; Job_35:13; Job_36:5-7; Job_37:23-24; Psa_5:4; Psa_7:9; Psa_11:7; Psa_25:8; Psa_34:8; Psa_78:32-38; Psa_86:5; Psa_86:15; Psa_92:15; Psa_94:14; Psa_99:5; Psa_99:9; Psa_100:5; Psa_102:24-27; Psa_103:8-10; Psa_107:1; Psa_111:4-5; Psa_116:5; Psa_117:2; Psa_118:1; Psa_118:29; Psa_119:65-68; Psa_119:137; Psa_130:7-8; Psa_136:1; Psa_143:10; Psa_145:8-9; Psa_145:17; Psa_146:5-6; Isa_5:16; Isa_6:1-3; Isa_26:4-7; Isa_30:18; Isa_40:28; Isa_49:7; Isa_54:5-10; Jer_3:11-12; Jer_9:23-24; Jer_32:17-19; Jer_33:11; Lam_3:31-36; Dan_6:26; Dan_9:4; Dan_9:14; Joe_2:12-13; Amo_5:15; Mic_7:18-20; Nah_1:2-3; Nah_1:7; Zep_3:5; Zec_9:9; Mal_3:6; Mat_5:48; Luk_6:35-36; Joh_17:25; Act_10:34; Rom_2:11; 1Co_1:9; 1Co_10:13; Eph_2:4-5; Eph_6:9; Php_2:5-8; 1Th_5:23-24; 2Th_3:3; Tit_1:2; Heb_1:10-12; Heb_6:10; Heb_8:10-12; Heb_10:23; Jam_1:13; Jam_1:17; 1Pe_1:15-17; 1Pe_2:2-3; 2Pe_3:9; 1Jn_1:5; Rev_3:14; Rev_15:3-4; Rev_16:5.

The LORD GOD Being The Living GOD

2Sa_22:47; Job_19:25-26; Psa_18:46; Jer_10:10; Eze_18:3; Dan_6:26; Joh_6:57; Act_14:11-15; 2Co_3:3; 2Co_6:16; 1Th_1:9; Rev_10:5-6.

The LORD GOD Being The Only GOD

Deu_4:35; Deu_4:39; Deu_6:4; Deu_32:36-39; 1Sa_2:2; 2Sa_7:22; 1Ki_8:23; 1Ki_8:60; 2Ki_5:15; 2Ki_19:15; 2Ki_19:19; 1Ch_17:20; 2Ch_6:14; Neh_9:6; Psa_62:6-7; Psa_73:25-26; Psa_83:18; Psa_86:8; Psa_86:10; Psa_89:8; Psa_148:13; Pro_30:4-5; Isa_37:16; Isa_37:18-20; Isa_43:10-12; Isa_44:6-8; Isa_44:24; Isa_45:5-6; Isa_45:18; Isa_45:22-23; Isa_46:9; Jer_10:6; Dan_3:29; Hos_13:4; Joe_2:27; Zec_14:9; Mal_2:10; Mat_23:8-10; Mar_12:29; Mar_12:32; Joh_17:1-3; Rom_3:29-30; 1Co_8:4-6; 1Co_12:3-6; Gal_3:19-20; Eph_4:4-6; 1Ti_1:17; 1Ti_2:5; Jam_4:10-12; Jud_1:4; Rev_15:4.

The Ways Of The LORD GOD

Deu_32:4; 2Sa_22:31; Psa_18:30; Psa_103:6-7; Pro_10:29; Isa_55:7-9; Eze_18:25-30; Eze_33:17-20; Dan_4:37; Hos_14:9; Rom_11:33-36; Rev_15:3.

The Works Of The LORD GOD

Deu_32:4; Psa_33:4; Psa_40:5; Psa_66:3-5; Psa_86:8; Psa_92:5-6; Psa_104:1-13; Psa_104:24-31; Psa_111:2-8; Psa_139:14-17; Psa_145:9-10; Pro_16:11; Ecc_3:10-15; Ecc_8:17; Ecc_11:5; Dan_4:37; Act_15:18; Rev_15:3.

What Is From The LORD GOD

Psa_62:1-2; Pro_16:1.

What Is In The Hand Of The LORD GOD

1Ch_29:11-12; Job_12:9-10; Psa_66:8-9; Psa_75:7-8; Psa_95:3-5; Pro_21:1; Ecc_9:1; Jer_18:5-6; Dan_5:23.

What Is Of The LORD GOD

Psa_37:39; Pro_16:33; Pro_20:24; Pro_21:31; Rom_11:34-36; 1Co_8:6.

What The LORD GOD Does

Exo_15:11; Deu_10:17-18; Deu_32:36-39; 1Sa_2:6-9; 1Sa_12:24; 2Sa_22:33-40; Job_1:20-21; Job_5:8-16; Job_12:9-25; Job_26:7-14; Job_35:10-11; Job_36:5-15; Job_36:26-33; Job_37:5; Job_42:1-2; Psa_18:31-36; Psa_33:10; Psa_46:1-9; Psa_66:3-7; Psa_72:18; Psa_86:10; Psa_89:8-10; Psa_90:1-3; Psa_98:1; Psa_100:2-5; Psa_104:1-20; Psa_104:24-30; Psa_106:21-22; Psa_107:8-9; Psa_107:23-41; Psa_113:5-9; Psa_115:3; Psa_118:15-16; Psa_119:65-68; Psa_135:6; Psa_136:1-25; Psa_144:1; Psa_146:5-8; Isa_12:5; Isa_25:1-2; Isa_40:22-23; Isa_43:16-20; Isa_44:1-3; Isa_44:24-28; Isa_45:7; Isa_51:15-16; Jer_9:23-24; Jer_10:10-13; Jer_17:10; Jer_31:35; Dan_2:20-22; Dan_4:34-35; Dan_6:26-27; Joe_2:21; Amo_4:13; Amo_5:8-9; Amo_9:6; Hab_3:19; Mat_21:42; Act_17:23-25; Php_2:13; 2Th_3:3.

What The LORD GOD Is

Gen_14:19-20; Gen_17:1; Exo_3:14; Exo_15:2-3; Exo_15:11; Exo_18:11; Lev_20:7; Deu_4:24; Deu_10:17; Deu_30:20; Deu_32:4; Jos_4:24; 1Sa_2:3; 1Sa_15:29; 2Sa_7:22; 2Sa_22:2-3; 2Sa_22:29; 2Sa_22:31-33; 2Sa_22:47; 2Sa_22:50-51; 1Ch_16:11-14; 1Ch_16:25; 2Ch_2:5; Neh_8:6; Neh_9:32; Job_13:16; Job_22:25; Job_33:12; Job_36:5; Job_36:26; Job_37:23; Psa_3:3; Psa_7:10; Psa_9:9; Psa_10:16; Psa_18:2-3; Psa_18:30-31; Psa_18:46; Psa_22:28; Psa_23:1-4; Psa_24:10; Psa_25:5; Psa_27:1; Psa_28:1; Psa_28:6-8; Psa_30:10; Psa_31:1-5; Psa_31:14; Psa_32:5-7; Psa_33:20; Psa_37:39; Psa_40:17; Psa_42:11; Psa_43:5; Psa_46:1-11; Psa_47:2; Psa_47:7-9; Psa_48:14; Psa_50:6; Psa_54:4; Psa_59:9; Psa_59:16-17; Psa_61:1-3; Psa_62:1-2; Psa_62:6-8; Psa_63:1-7; Psa_68:4-5; Psa_68:35; Psa_71:1-7; Psa_72:18-19; Psa_73:26; Psa_74:12; Psa_75:7; Psa_78:34-35; Psa_83:18; Psa_84:11; Psa_86:10; Psa_89:18; Psa_89:26; Psa_90:1-2; Psa_91:2; Psa_91:9; Psa_92:8; Psa_92:15; Psa_94:1-2; Psa_94:22; Psa_95:1-3; Psa_95:7; Psa_96:4; Psa_97:9; Psa_99:2; Psa_104:1; Psa_115:9-11; Psa_118:14; Psa_118:19-21; Psa_118:26-27; Psa_119:113-115; Psa_135:5; Psa_138:6; Psa_143:10; Psa_144:1-2; Psa_145:3; Psa_147:5; Pro_2:6-7; Pro_3:25-26; Pro_22:2; Pro_30:5; Isa_12:2; Isa_12:6; Isa_25:1-4; Isa_26:4; Isa_30:18; Isa_33:2; Isa_33:22; Isa_43:3; Isa_43:11; Isa_43:14-15; Isa_44:6; Isa_44:24; Isa_45:3; Isa_45:11; Isa_47:4; Isa_48:12-14; Isa_48:17; Isa_49:5; Isa_49:7; Isa_49:26; Isa_52:12; Isa_54:5-8; Isa_60:15-16; Isa_60:19-20; Isa_63:7-8; Isa_64:8; Jer_2:12-13; Jer_10:6; Jer_10:10; Jer_16:19; Jer_17:13-14; Jer_31:7-9; Jer_32:18-19; Jer_32:36; Jer_50:34; Lam_3:24; Eze_11:16; Eze_34:11-24; Dan_2:47; Dan_6:26; Hos_13:4; Joe_3:16; Mic_7:8; Nah_1:3; Nah_1:7; Hab_3:19; Zec_2:4-5; Zec_14:9; Mal_1:14; Mal_3:1-2; Mat_11:25; Mat_22:31-32; Mar_12:26-27; Luk_1:68; Luk_20:37-38; Joh_3:31-33; Joh_4:24; Joh_7:28; Joh_8:25-26; Joh_10:25-29; Rom_3:29; 1Co_1:25; 1Co_11:2-3; 1Co_14:33; 2Co_1:3; 2Co_3:14-17; Eph_3:14-15; 1Ti_1:1-2; 1Ti_1:17; 1Ti_2:3; Tit_2:13; Heb_3:4; Heb_12:23; Heb_12:29; Heb_13:6; 1Jn_1:5; 1Jn_3:20; 1Jn_4:4; 1Jn_4:8; 1Jn_4:16; 1Jn_5:20; Jud_1:25; Rev_4:8; Rev_4:11; Rev_15:3-4; Rev_16:5; Rev_18:8; Rev_21:21-23.

What The LORD GOD Is Not

Num_23:19; 1Sa_15:29; Mat_22:31-32; Mar_12:26-27; Luk_20:37-38; Act_17:29; 1Co_14:33.

Where The LORD GOD Is

Num_35:34; Deu_4:39; Jos_2:11; 1Ki_8:28-43; 1Ki_9:3; 2Ki_19:15; 2Ch_6:19-33; Psa_11:4; Psa_16:8; Psa_47:7-8; Psa_68:15-18; Psa_99:1-2; Psa_113:4-5; Psa_115:3; Psa_132:13-14; Psa_139:4-8; Ecc_5:2; Isa_8:16-18; Isa_33:5; Isa_37:16; Isa_40:22; Isa_57:15; Jer_23:24; Joe_3:17-21; Amo_9:6; Hab_2:20; Zec_8:3; Mat_6:9; Mat_10:32-33; Mat_18:10; Mat_18:19-22; Mat_23:9; Eph_6:9.

Where The LORD GOD Is Not

1Ki_19:11-12; Act_17:22-24.

Who The LORD GOD Dwells In

1Jn_4:16.

GOD

Introduction.—The sphere of the revelation of Jesus was limited to the Fatherhood of God (see Father), and all His other references to the Divine Being are more or less incidental. They involve conceptions which He shared with OT prophets, and to some extent also with contemporary Judaism; but the form which some of these conceptions take in His teaching, and the relative emphasis which He laid upon them, are modified by that truth which was central and fundamental in His own experience and thought of God. Jesus, in all His references to God, spoke after the manner of a prophet, and not after the manner of the Rabbis or the Christian theologian. He never sought to prove the existence or the personality of God. These were invariably assumed. He never communicated any speculative views regarding the nature or the attributes of God. All that He said stood in direct relation to right conduct.

The aim of the present article is to set forth briefly those views of God, expressed or implied in the words of Jesus, which may properly be considered apart from the Divine Fatherhood, and which are, to some extent, characteristic of Jesus.

1. God is one.—To Jesus, as to His people through many centuries, God was one. He did not modify this ancient belief. To the scribe who asked which commandment was greatest, Jesus quoted the familiar confession from Deut. (Deu 6:4 ff.) which begins with the words, ‘Jehovah our God is one Jehovah’ (Mar 12:29); and the author of the Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as addressing these words of prayer to the Father—‘This is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God’ (τὸν μόνον ἁληθινὸν θεόν, Joh 17:3).

Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit; and if there is any place at which He suggests a personal distinction in the Divine Being, it is here. It is necessary, therefore, to consider His words on this subject. His references to the Spirit in the oldest Gospels are extremely rare; and in only one instance do all the Synoptics agree in reporting the use of this term. This is the passage concerning blasphemy against the Spirit (Mar 3:29, Mat 12:31, Luk 12:10). There are three other^{* [Note: The Baptismal formula of Mat 28:19 is not included, for the evidence against its genuineness is regarded by the present writer as conclusive; and Luk 4:18 is a quotation.]} occasions on which, according to one or two of the Synoptics, Jesus spoke of the Spirit. (a) The first of these occasions was when He spoke words of encouragement to His disciples in anticipation of their future need of support when called before governors and kings. According to Matthew (Mat 10:20), He said to them, ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.’ In Luke we have two passages referring to the same, or at least very similar occasions; one of these speaks of the Holy Spirit (τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα), while in the other Jesus is represented as saying, ‘I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand’ (Luk 12:12; Luk 21:15). Mark has a similar word of Jesus, but puts it on a different occasion. The situation of the disciples is the same, and Jesus says, ‘It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit’ (Mar 13:11). The thought which all the accounts have in common is that of Divine assistance. The agent who assists is either the ‘Holy Spirit,’ the ‘Spirit of your Father,’ or Jesus Himself.

(b) Another reference by Jesus to the Spirit is found in His reply to those who accused Him of working in league with Beelzebul. Here He said, ‘If I by the Spirit of God cast out demons’ (Mat 12:28); or, according to Luke, ‘If I by the finger of God cast out demons’ (Mat 11:20).

(c) Finally, according to Mark (Mar 12:36), Jesus referred to the 110th Psalm as spoken in the Holy Spirit. Mt. has simply ἐν πνεύματι, and Lk. no reference to the Spirit.

Now the language of these passages does not appear to suggest a different view of the Spirit from that of the old prophets. If Jesus as a rule represented His disciples as dependent on the Father, and the Father as caring for them, and then in a single instance, when speaking still of the Divine aid, said, ‘the Spirit of your Father’ or the ‘Holy Spirit,’ we cannot suppose that He made any personal distinction between them. His word is an echo of such a passage as Isa 61:1 ‘The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me,’ and is in part a fulfilment of the promise in Joel (Joe 2:28) that the Spirit shall be poured out upon all flesh. The statement of Jesus regarding the 110th Psalm, that it was spoken in the Holy Spirit, is quite parallel to this word concerning His disciples. It shall be with them as it was with the author of this psalm. The Spirit of their Father will speak in them.

Again, when Jesus said, ‘If I by the Spirit of God [or the finger of God] cast out demons,’ it is manifest that His thought is that of God’s presence and aid. It is like the language of Micah when he said, ‘I am full of power by the Spirit of Jehovah’ (Mic 3:8). The Fourth Gospel expresses the same thought when it represents Jesus as saying, ‘The Father abiding in me doeth his works’ (Joh 14:10).

Finally, when Jesus warned the scribes and Pharisees concerning the irremissible sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it is obvious that we cannot draw any personal distinction between this Spirit and God. These men had attributed the manifestly good work of Jesus to the prince of bad spirits. Thus they had wilfully called good evil (cf. Isa 5:20). They had violated conscience; they had quenched, at least for the moment, this inner and fundamental voice of God. This manifestation of God within them is called the Spirit of God in accordance with OT usage, which ascribes a spirit to Jehovah, in and through which He reveals Himself to the spirit of man (e.g. Isa 42:1; Isa 63:11). See Unpardonable Sin.

The teaching of the Fourth Gospel (John 14-16) regarding the Spirit marks an advance on that of the Synoptics, both in quantity and in character; but this teaching, as it now stands, like the other discourses of John, cannot be attributed directly to Jesus. It appears to represent a stage of thought fully as late as that which we find in Mat 28:19. We need not, therefore, discuss it in this connexion, where we are concerned with the teaching of Jesus. And we conclude this paragraph with the statement that there is nothing in the narrative of the genuine teaching of Jesus which suggests a modification of the old prophetic conception of a pure monotheism.^{* [Note: The story of the experience of Jesus at His baptism is probably to be traced back to Himself. This speaks of a descent of the Spirit and a voice from God. It recalls Isa 61:1, and presupposes the same conceptions the Spirit.]}

2. God is holy.—The conception which Jesus had of the holiness of God is implied rather than expressed in His teaching; yet though not directly stated, it is fundamental, and marks an advance on the teaching of the OT. How fundamental this conception was in the teaching of Jesus may be illustrated from the Sermon on the Mount. According to this, the standard of the Kingdom of God called for a righteousness that exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Mat 5:20). The Law declared that a man should not kill, but Jesus taught that anger exposed one to the same danger of judgment (Mat 5:21 f.). The Law declared against adultery, but He declared against the lustful desire (Mat 5:27 f.). Now this profounder conception of sin, this attaching of the gravest penalties to the secret feeling of anger and to the unclean desire, implies a clearer and more ethical conception of the holiness of God.

Again, Jesus’ sense of the holiness of God is reflected when He says that it is the aim of His mission to call sinners (Mat 9:13, Mar 2:18 [Luk 5:32 adds, ‘to repentance’]); and His feeling is still more significantly seen in the Beatitude for the pure in heart (Mat 5:8). Finally, the intensity of His appreciation of God’s holiness may be measured by the severity of His judgment on impenitent sinners. One of such tenderness of heart as Jesus showed in all His relations to others—a tenderness which He believed was an attribute of God—could not have uttered such words of judgment as Mar 3:29; Mar 12:9 and Mat 25:46, unless He had had an open vision of the Divine purity.

It is obvious from this brief survey that, to the thought of Jesus, the holiness of God was a fundamental fact, and it is equally plain that His conception of this Divine attribute was profoundly ethical. Its demands could not be satisfied, as the scribes taught, by the performance of any number of statutes. Nothing but a righteous state of the heart could satisfy them. Jesus taught His disciples to ask for the pardon of their sins, not on the ground of any fulfilment of the Law, any good works of any sort, but simply on the ground, as far as the human side of the pardon is concerned, that they themselves have a forgiving spirit (Mat 6:12, Mar 11:25). The ethical character of Jesus’ conception of the holiness of God is seen also in His own relation to sinners; for it is clear that His thought of God’s relation to sinners was illustrated by His own attitude toward them. Now we are told that He came into personal contact even with the worst of men. He ate with publicans and received harlots, having no fear of defilement from them. He represented God under the figure of a father embracing a son who had wasted his substance in riotous living (Luke 15).

In the thought of Jesus, therefore, the holiness of God did not imply, as with the scribes, that He was far removed from sinful men, being Himself subject to defilement. His holiness is not ritual, but purely ethical. It is that quality or side of His being which makes it incumbent on all men to ‘hallow’ His name (Mat 6:9). It is that which defines His character with reference to sin. It is that attribute of God which renders it impossible to trace the origin of evil up to Him. Jesus everywhere assumes that evil originates either in the freewill of man (Mar 3:28-29), or with a power called the ‘devil’ (Mat 13:39) or ‘Satan’ (Luk 13:16). It cannot come from God, for He is the one absolutely good Being (Mar 10:18).

The conception of the holiness of God involved in the teaching of Jesus, and perfectly illustrated in His character, is thus seen to have been fundamental in importance and ethical in nature. It has parallels in the OT, as, for example, in Psa 51:6 and Hab 1:13; but the clearness and intensity with which it is expressed in the Gospels are unique.

3. God is near.—There is a third feature of Jesus’ thought of God which, though wholly incidental and subordinate when compared with His revelation of the Divine character, is nevertheless so conspicuous that it helps to mark off the Gospel from the writings of the Old Covenant, and far more noticeably from the views of contemporary Judaism. This is the conception of the nearness or presence of God. To a certain extent Jesus shared the thought of His countrymen, and used the current phraseology regarding God’s habitation. Thus He spoke of heaven as the throne of God, and the earth as His footstool (Mat 5:34; Mat 23:22). The idea of a Divine revelation clothed itself to His mind in the imagery of an open sky, the descent of the Spirit, and a voice out of heaven (Mar 1:10-11). But there is no special emphasis in the teaching of Jesus on the thought that heaven is the dwelling place of God in a peculiar sense. The emphasis is laid on another point, viz. the practical thought of God’s nearness. Though His throne is said to be in heaven, He is no ‘absentee’ God. On the contrary, He is personally present with men. One may meet Him in the inner chamber (Mat 6:6). He reveals the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven unto ‘babes’ (Mat 11:25). He worked in and through Jesus (Mat 12:28), and Jesus said that God would speak in His disciples (Mat 10:20). This statement may well be taken as suggesting the way in which Jesus generally conceived of God’s presence with men. It is an inner spiritual nearness, a fact of which the soul takes cognizance, and which is manifested to the world only through the life of the man who realizes it.

But God is present not only with those beings who are capable of communion with Him: He is present also in Nature. He arrays the lily in beauty (Mat 6:29), He cares for the birds (Mat 6:26), notes the fall of a sparrow (Mat 10:29), and is unceasingly active in works of mercy and kindness (Joh 5:17). How Jesus pictured to His mind this presence of God in the material world we cannot learn from the Gospels. His belief in this particular, as also in regard to God’s presence with men, was probably like that of the Psalmists and Prophets (see, e.g., Psa 23:4; Psa 139:7-12, Isa 40:11; Isa 66:13), though a more constant and marked element of His teaching. It was, doubtless, a consequence of His religious consciousness of God rather than a product of philosophic thought.

Literature.—See under art. Father.

George Holley Gilbert.

By: Emil G. Hirsch

The Supreme Being, regarded as the Creator, Author, and First Cause of the universe, the Ruler of the world and of the affairs of men, the Supreme Judge and Father, tempering justice with mercy, working out His purposes through chosen agents—individuals as well as nations—and communicating His will through prophets and other appointed channels.

—Biblical Data:

"God" is the rendering in the English versions of the Hebrew "El," "Eloah," and "Elohim." The existence of God is presupposed throughout the Bible, no attempt being anywhere made to demonstrate His reality. Philosophical skepticism belongs to a period of thought generally posterior to that covered by the Biblical books, Ecclesiastes and some of the Psalms (xiv., liii., xciv.) alone indicating in any degree in Biblical Israel a tendency toward Atheism. The controversies of the Earlier Prophets never treat of the fundamental problems of God's existence or non-existence; but their polemics are directed to prove that Israel, ready at all times to accept and worship one or the other god, is under the obligation to serve Yhwh and none other. Again, the manner of His worship is in dispute, but not His being. The following are the main Biblical teachings concerning God:

Relation to Nature.

God and the world are distinct. The processes of nature are caused by God. Nature declares the glory of God: it is His handiwork (Gen. i.; Ps. viii., xix.; Isa. xl. 25 et seq.). God is the Creator. As such, He is "in heaven above and upon the earth beneath" (Deut. iv. 39). His are the heavens, and His is the earth (Ps. lxxxix. 12 [A. V. 11]; compare Amos iv. 13). He created the world by the word of His mouth (Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9). Natural sequences are His work (Jer. v. 22, 24; Ps. lxxiv. 15-17). He maintains the order of nature (Ps. cxlvii. 8-9, 16-18; Neh. ix. 6). He does not need the offerings of men, because "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof" (Ps. xxiv. 1, 4, 7-13; compare Isa. i. 11; Jer. vii. 21-23; Micah vi. 6-8).

Nothing is affirmed of His substantial nature. The phrase "spirit of God" ("ruaḥ Elohim") merely describes the divine energy, and is not to be taken as equivalent to the phrase "God is a spirit," viz., an assertion concerning His incorporeality (Zech. iv. 6; Num. xiv. 22; Isa. xl. 13). He can not, however, be likened to any thing (Ex. xx. 4-5; Isa. xl. 18) or to any person (Jer. x. 6-7). No form is seen when God speaks (Deut. iv. 15). He rules supreme as the King of the nations (Jer. x. 6-7). His will comes to pass (Isa. viii. 9, 10; Leviticus 10, 11; Ps. xxxiii. 10-12, lxviii. 2-4). He is one, and none shares with Him His power or rulership (Deut. vi. 4; Isa. xliv. 6, xlvi. 10 [A. V. 9]). He is unchangeable, though he was the first and will be the last (Isa. xli. 4; Mal. iii. 6). All that is, is perishable: God is everlasting (Isa. xl. 7-8, 23-25; li. 12-13). Hence His help is always triumphant (Ps. xx. 8-9, xliv. 4, xlvi. 1-8). He is in all things, places, and times (Ps. cxxxix. 7-12). He is not, like man, subject to whim (Num. xxiii. 19; Deut. vii. 9). He is the Judge, searching the innermost parts of man's being, and knowing all his secrets (Jer. xvi. 17, xvii. 10, xxiii. 24; Ps. cxxxix. 1-4). His knowledge is too high for man (Ps. cxxxix. 6, 15, 16). God's wisdom, however, is the source of human understanding (Ps. xxxvi. 10). He is "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth" (Ex. xxxiv. 6-7). But He can not hold the sinner guiltless (ib.). He manifests His supreme lordship in the events of history (Deut. xxxii. 8-12; Ps. xxii. 28, 29; lxxviii. 2-7). He is the ever-ruling King (Jer. x. 10). He punishes the wicked (Nahum i. 2); He turns their way upside down (Ps. i. 6). Appearances to the contrary are illusive (Hab. i. 13, ii. 2; Jer. xii. 1-2; Ps. x. 13-14, xxxvii. 35-39, lii. 3-9, lxii. 11-13, xcii. 7-8; Job xxi. 7-9, xxvii. 8-11, xxxv. 14).

Relation to Man.

The Biblical theodicy culminates in the thought that the end will show the futility and deceptive nature of the prosperity of the wicked (Ps. lxxvii. 17). The mightiest nations do not prevail against God (Jer. xviii. 7-10, xxv. 30-31; Ps. vii. 8-9; xxxiii. 13, 19). He judges the world in righteousness (Ps. ix. 9, 16; lxxvi. 9-10; xcv. 10-13). I Chron. xxix. 11-12 may be said to be a succinct epitome of the Biblical doctrine concerning God's manifestations in nature and in history (compare I Sam. ii.). Yet God does not delight in the death of the sinner: He desires his return from his evil ways (Ezek. xviii. 21-22, xxxviii. 10-11). Fasting is not an adequate expression of repentance (Isa. lviii. 3-8; compare Jonah ii. 10; Joel ii. 13; Zech. vii. 5). God hath demanded of man "to do justly, and to love mercy"(Micah vi. 8); hence redress for wrongs done is the first step toward attaining God's forgiveness (Ezek. xxxiii. 15), the "forsaking of one's evil ways" (Lam. iii. 37-40).

It is characteristic of the Biblical conception of God that He is with those of contrite heart (Isa. lvii. 15). He loves the weak (Deut. x. 17-18). He is the father (Isa. lxiii. 16, lxiv. 7); and like a father He taketh pity on His children (Ps. ciii. 13; see Compassion). Therefore, love is due to Him on the part of His children (Deut. vi. 4-5). The demand to fear Him, in the light of the implications of the Hebrew original, is anything but in conflict with the insistence that the relations between God and man are marked by parental and filial love. The God of the Bible is not a despot, to be approached in fear. For "yir'ah" connotes an attitude in which confidence and love are included, while the recognition of superiority, not separation, is expressed (Nietzsche's "pathos of distance"). Reverence in the modern sense, not fear, is its approximate equivalent. They that confide in Him renew their strength (Isa. xl. 30-31). God is holy (compare Isa. vi. 3); this phrase sums up the ultimate contents of the Bible conception of God (see Fear of God).

Relation to Israel.

He is Israel's God. Not on account of any merits of its own (Deut. vii. 7-8, ix. 4-7), but because of God's special designs, because the fathers loved Him (Deut. x. 11-16), Israel was chosen by God (Ex. xix. 4-6; Deut. iv. 20, xxxii. 9; Isa. xli. 8-9, xliii. 21; Jer. ii. 2, and often elsewhere). Hence, in Israel's experience are illustrated God's power, love, and compassion, as, in fact, it is Israel's sole destiny to be the witness to God (Isa. xliv. 8). For Israel, therefore, God is a jealous God. He can not tolerate that Israel, appointed to be His portion (Deut. xxxii. 9), His servant (Isa. xliv. 21), His people joined unto Him for His name and glory and ornament (Jer. xiii. 11, A. V., "for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory"), should worship other gods. Israel's task is to be holy as He is holy (Lev. xix. 2; Deut. xxvi. 19). Israel itself does not fully recognize this. God sends prophets again and again to instruct and admonish His people (Jer. vii. 25, xi. 7, xxxv. 15; Isa. xxix. 13-14).

In Israel God's judgments are purposed to impress upon His people the duty placed upon it. Greater suffering He metes out to Israel (Lev. xxvi. 40; Deut. iv. 30-31; viii. 5, 19; xi. 16-17; xxxii. 15; Isa. i. 19-20, iv. 3-4, xlii. 24-xliii. 1, xlviii. 9-11; Jer. ii. 19, v. 18-19; Amos iii. 2), but He will not permit Israel to perish (Isa. xli. 10-14; xlv. 17; li. 7-8; liv. 10, 17; Jer. xxxi. 36). And Israel, brought to faithfulness, will be instrumental in winning the whole earth to God (Isa. ii. 2-4, xi. 9, xlv. 23, lxv. 25; Micah iv. 1-4; Jer. iii. 17; see Messiah).

God is Israel's lawgiver. His law is intended to make Israel holy. That Israel serve God, so as to win all people to the truth, is God's demand (Lev. xx. 26; Deut. iv. 6). God's unity is indicated in the one sanctuary. But legalism and sacerdotalism are withal not the ultimate (Ps. l. 7-13; I Sam. xv. 22: "to obey is better than sacrifice"; Isa. i. 11; Jer. vii. 21-23; Hosea vi. 6: "I desired love [A. V. "mercy"] and not sacrifice").

Nor is the law a scheme of salvation. Nowhere in the Old Testament is the doctrine taught that God must be satisfied (see Fall of Man; Sin). Sin is impotent against God, and righteousness does not benefit Him (Job xxxv. 6-8). God is omnipotent (Ps. x. 3-4). At one with Him, man is filled with joy and with a sense of serene security (Ps. xvi. 5-6, 8-9; xxvii. 1-4). Without this all else is sham (Ps. xlix. 7-13). Happy, therefore, the man who heeds God's instruction (Ps. xciv. 12; Prov. iii. 11-12). Sin never attains its aims (Ps. xxxiv. 22; Prov. xi. 19; I Sam. xxiv. 14; Job viii. 13-14, xv. 20-31). It is thus that God documents His supremacy; but unto man (and Israel) He gives freedom to choose between life and death (Deut. xxx. 15-20). He is near to them that revere Him (Ps. lxxxv. 9-14). Though His ways are not man's ways, and His thoughts not man's thoughts (Isa. Leviticus 8), yet to this one certainty man may cleave; namely, that God's word will come to pass and His purposes will be carried out (ib. verses 9, 10, 11).

The God of the Bible is not a national God, though in the fate of one people are mirrored the universal facts of His kingship and fatherhood, and the truth is emphasized that not by might, nor by power, but by God's spirit are the destinies of the world and of man ordered (Zech. iv. 6; Mal. i. 11; Ps. cxiii., cxv.). The God of the Bible is a person; i.e., a being self-conscious, with will and purpose, even though by searching man can not find Him out (Job xi. 7; Ps. xciv. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; Isa. xl. 28; Ps. cxlv. 3).

E. G. H.—In Post-Biblical Literature:

In the Apocrypha of Palestinian origin the Biblical teachings concerning God are virtually reaffirmed without material modifications. In some books anthropomorphic expressions are avoided altogether; in the others they are toned down. The "hand of God," for instance (Ecclus. [Sirach] xxxiii. 3), is in the parallel distich explained as "His might." The "eyes of God" symbolize His knowledge and providence (Baruch ii. 17); the "voice of God" is synonymous with His will (ib. ii. 22, iii. 4).

In the Palestinian Apocrypha.

His unity, postulating Him as the absolute, omni-present, and therefore as the omniscient, eternal, and living God, is accentuated; while in His relations to the world and its inhabitants He is manifest as the Creator, Ruler, the perfectly righteous Judge, requiting evil and rewarding good, yet, in His mercy, forgiving sin. To Him all nature is subject, while He executes His designs according to His inscrutable wisdom. The history of former generations is cited in proof of the contention that they who confide in Him have never been disappointed (Ecclus. [Sirach] ii. 10); for God is full of mercy, pardoning sins, and is the great Helper (ib. verse 11).

Good and evil proceed from God, as do life and death (ib. xi. 14). Yet sin is not caused by God, but by man's own choice (ib. xv. 11 et seq.). God is omnipresent. Though He is on high, He takes heed of men's ways (ib. xvi. 17, xvii. 15-16). Mountains and the ocean are in His power (ib. verses 18 et seq.).

Being the Creator, He planned the eternal order of nature (ib. verses 26 et seq.). He also fashioned man (ib. xvii. 1 et seq.). Whatever strength man has is from Him (ib. verse 3). The eyes of men are enabled by Him to see "the majesty of His glory," andtheir ears to hear "His glorious voice" (ib. verse 13). He liveth in all eternity and judgeth all things. None may search out His wondrous might (ib. xviii. 1-2), or describe His grace (ib. verse 3). To Him naught may be added, and from Him nothing may be taken away (ib. verse 6, xlii. 21). Even the "holy ones" are not competent to relate the marvels of His works (ib. xlii. 17). He announces that which was and that which is to be and all hidden things (ib. verses 19-20). He is one from all eternity (ib. verse 21). He is the Living God (ib. verse 23). Among all the varieties of things He has created nothing without purpose ( , ib. verse 24).

The "wisdom of God" is spoken of and exalted in the same strains as in the Biblical books (Prov. vii., viii.). All wisdom is from God and is with Him forever (Ecclus. [Sirach.] i. 1). It came forth from the mouth of the Most High (ib. xxiv. 3); but it was created before all things (ib. i. 4). It is subject to the will of Him who alone is "wise, and greatly to be feared," seated on His throne (ib. i. 8). God "poured it out over all His works" (ib. i. 7; comp. xxiv. 31). However close this description of wisdom may come to a personification, it is plain that it is free from any element which might be construed as involving a departure from the Biblical position regarding God's absolute unity.

In Alexandrian Apocrypha.

It is in the Alexandrian Apocrypha that modifications of the Biblical doctrine appear; but even here are to be found books whose theology is a reiteration of the Biblical teachings. The so-called Third Book of the Maccabees, in the prayer of the high priest Simon, invokes "God as the King of the Heavens, the Ruler of all creatures, the most Holy, the sole Governor, the Omnipotent," declaring Him to be "a just ruler," and appeals to the events of past days in support of the faith in God's supremacy and in Israel's appointment to glorify Him (III Macc. ii. 1-20) who is all-merciful and the maker of peace.

The third book of the "Oracula Sibyllina," also, reiterates with great emphasis and without equivocation the unity of God, who is alone in His superlative greatness. God is imperishable, everlasting, self-existent, alone subsisting from eternity to eternity. He alone really is: men are nothing. He, the omnipotent, is wholly invisible to the fleshly eye. Yet He dwells in the firmament (Sibyllines, i. 1, 7-17, 20, 32; ii. 1-3, 17, 36, 46). From this heavenly abode He exercises His creative power, and rules over the universe. He sustains all that is. He is "all-nourishing," the "leader of the cosmos," the constant ruler of all things. He is the "supreme Knower" (ib. i. 3, 4, 5, 8, 15, 17, 35; ii. 42). He is "the One God sending out rains, winds, earthquakes, lightnings, famines, pestilences, dismal sorrows, and so forth" (ib. i. 32-34). By these agencies He expresses His indignation at the doings of the wicked (ib. ii. 19-20); while the good are rewarded beyond their deserts (ib. ii. 1-8). God's indwelling in man (πᾶσι βροτοῖσιν ἐνών)"as the faculty of judgment" is also taught (ib. i. 18). This indwelling of God, which has been claimed as an indication of the book's leaning toward a modification of the transcendentalism of the Biblical idea of God, may perhaps rest on a faulty reading (comp. Drummond, "Philo Judæus," i. 173).

In the Septuagint, also, the treatment of anthropomorphic statements alone exhibits a progress beyond the earlier Biblical conceptions. For example, in Gen. vi. 6-7 "it repented the Lord" is softened into "He took it to heart"; Ex. xxiv. 9-10, "They [Moses, Aaron, and the others mentioned) saw the place where the God of Israel stood" is rendered "They saw the God of Israel"; Ex. xv. 3, instead of "The Lord is a man of war," has "The Lord is one who crushes wars"; Josh. iv. 24, "the power" for "the hand." In Isa. vi. 1, the "train of his [God's] robe" is changed into "his glory" (see Zeller, "Die Philosophie der Griechen," iii., part ii., 254). As the Targumim, so the Septuagint, on account of a more spiritualized conception of God, takes care to modify the earlier and grosser terminology; but even the phrase ὅ Θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων (Isa. xlii. 13) does not imply the recognition of powers self-existent though under the control of God. The doctrine of the unity of God is put forth as the central truth also in the Septuagint.

Hellenistic Influences.

Nor is this theology toned down in other Hellenistic writings. While in style and method under the influence of Greek thought, the fragments of Demetrius, Pseudo-Artapanus, Pseudo-Phocylides, Ezekielus' tragedy on Exodus, and the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees can not be said to put forth notions concerning God at variance with the Palestinian theology. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Letter of Aristeas, and the fragments of Aristobulus, however, do this. In the first of these three, Israel's God is pronounced to be the only God. He lives in solitary supremacy, responsible to Himself alone (Wisdom xii. 12-14). He is (τόν ὅντα ib. xiii. 1). He is the "eternal light" (ib. vii. 26). He is the Artificer (Τεχνίτης) who created or prepared (both verbs are used) the various things in nature (ib. xviii. 1-5). This uncertainty in the verb descriptive of God's part in creation suggests that the old Biblical conception of the Creator's functions is in this book attenuated to the bringing into order of formless primeval matter (comp. ib. xi. 17). Matter is compared to a lump of wax which, originally devoid of attributes, owes its qualities to divine agency (Drummond, l.c. p. 188).

But, while the cosmos is an expression and the result of the greatness, power, and beauty of God, He remains transcendent above it. Nevertheless, He continues to administer all things (Wisdom xii. 15, 18; xv. 1). It is His providence that acts as a pilot or rudder (ib. xiv. 3). In this is manifested His truth, justice, mercy, loving-kindness, and long-suffering (ib. xi. 23; xii. 15, 18; xv. 1). It is among His holy ones that His grace and mercy are conspicuous; but evil-doers are punished (iii. 9, 10). The pious are those who dwell with wisdom (vii. 28). God possesses immediate knowledge of men's secrets, of their speech, feelings, and thoughts (ib. i. 6). He foreknows but does not foreordain the future. Necessity and right (ἀνάγκη and δίκη) are both postulated. The former blinds the judgment of the impious. If they continue in their impenitence, they will be overtaken by their punishment(ib. i. 15; ii. 6-22; iii. 2-17; iv. 3-14; xii. 2, 10, 20; and more especially xix. 1-5). The avenging Right is, however, not hypostatized or personified to any great degree (ib. i. 8, xi. 20, xiv. 31, xviii. 11). God is not the creator of evil (ib. i. 12-14); therefore in evil He is confronted with a tendency that He can not tolerate. Hence He or His is the avenging justice.

God is neither unknown nor unknowable. The external universe reveals Him. It implies the existence of a primal source greater than it (ib. xiii. 1-9); and, again, through wisdom and "the spirit" sent from on high, God is found by them who do not disobey Him (ib. i. 2-4, ix. 13-17). Yet man can never attain unto perfect knowledge of the divine essence (see Gfrörer, cited by Drummond, l.c. p. 198). Notwithstanding God's transcendence, anthropopathic phraseology is introduced (Wisdom iv. 18, "God shall laugh"; "His right hand" and "arm," v. 16; "His hand," vii. 16, x. 20, xi. 17, xix. 8). This proves that the doctrine of intermediate agents is not fully developed in the book, though in its presentation of God's wisdom elements appear that root in this conception. Certainly the question had begun to force itself upon the writer's mind: How is it that God enthroned on high is yet omnipresent in the universe? Like the Stoics, the author assumes an all-penetrating divine principle which appears as the rational order of the cosmos and as the conscious reason in man. Hence God's spirit is all-pervasive (ib. i. 6-7). This spirit is, in a certain sense, distinct from God, an extension of the Divine Being, bringing God into relation with the phenomenal world. Still, this spirit is not a separate or subordinate person. "Wisdom" and this "spirit" are used interchangeably (ib. ix. 17); "wisdom is a spirit that is" a lover of mankind (ib. i. 4-6); wisdom is "a vapor of the power of God," a reflection of eternal light (ib. vii. 25-26).

"Wisdom" of God.

This wisdom has twenty-one attributes: it is "an understanding spirit, holy, alone in kind, manifold, subtile, freely moving, clear in utterance, unpolluted, distinct, unharmed, loving what is good, keen, unhindered, beneficent, loving toward man, steadfast, sure, free from care, all-powerful, all-surveying, and penetrating through all spirits that are quick of understanding, pure, most subtile" (ib. vii. 22-24). Wisdom is a person, the "assessor" at God's throne (ib. ix. 4); the chooser of God's works (ib. viii. 3-4). She was with God when He made the cosmos (ib. ix. 9). She is the artificer of all things (ib. vii. 21). As all this is elsewhere predicated of God also, it is plain that this "wisdom" is regarded only as an instrument, not as a delegate of the Divine. The Wisdom of Solomon speaks also of the "Logos" (ib. ii. 2-3, ix. 1-2, xvi. 12, xviii. 14-16); and this, taken in connection with its peculiar conception of wisdom, makes the book an important link in the chain leading from the absolute God-conception of Palestinian Judaism to the theory of the mediating agency of the Word (Άόγος, "Memra") in Philo. The Aristeas Letter does not present as clear a modification of the God-conception (but see Eleazar's statement therein, "there is only one God and 'His power' is through all things"). Aristobulus, in the Orphic verses, teaches that God is invisible (verse 20), but that through the mind He may be beheld (verses 11, 12). Maker and Ruler of the world, He is Himself the beginning, middle, and end (verses 8, 34, 35, 39). But wisdom existed before heaven and earth; God is the "molder of the cosmos" (verse 8)—statements which, by no means clear enough to form the basis of a conclusion, yet suggest also in Aristobulus' theology a departure from the doctrine of God's transcendence and His immediate control of all as the Creator ex nihilo.

Philo is the philosopher who boldly, though not always consistently, attempts to harmonize the supramundane existence and majesty of the one God with His being the Creator and Governor of all. Reverting to the Old Testament idiom, according to which "by the word of Yhwh were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. [xxxii.] 6)—which passage is also at the root of the Targumic use of Memra, (see Anthropomorphism)—and on the whole but not consistently assuming that matter was uncreated (see Creation), he introduces the Logos as the mediating agent between God on high and the phenomenal world.

Philo's Logos.

Philo is also the first Jewish writer who undertakes to prove the existence of God. His arguments are of two kinds: those drawn from nature, and those supplied by the intuitions of the soul. Man's mind, also invisible, occupies in him the same position as does that of God in the universe ("De Opificio Mundi," § 23). From this one arrives at a knowledge of God. The mind is the sovereign of the body. The cosmos must also have a king who holds it together and governs it justly, and who is the Supreme ("De Abrahamo," § 16; "De Migratione Abrahami," § 33). From a ship man forms the idea of a ship-builder. Similarly, from the cosmos he must conceive the notion of the Father and Creator, the great and excellent and all-knowing artist ("De Monarchia," i. 4; "De Præmiis et Pœnis," § 7). For a first and an efficient cause man must look outside of the material universe, which fails in the points of eternity and efficiency ("De Confusione Linguarum," §§ 21, 25; "De Somniis," i. 33). This cause is mind. But man has the gift of immortal thoughts ("De Eo Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur," § 24): these culminate in the apprehension of God; they press beyond the limits of the entire phenomenal world to the Unbegotten ("De Plantatione Noe," § 5). This intuition of God was the especial prerogative of the Prophets, of Abraham, and of Jacob.

The essence of God is unknown to man, whose conceptions are colored through the medium of his own nature. Anthropopathisms and anthropomorphisms are wicked. God is incorporeal. He is without any irrational affections of the soul. God is a free, self-determining mind. His benevolence is due not to any incapacity of His for evil, but to His free preference for the good (ib. § 20).

Man's personality lifts him above the rest of the creatures. In analogy therewith, Philo gives God the attributes of personality, which are not restrictive, but the very reverse (Drummond, "Philo Judæus," ii. 15). Efficiency is the property of God;susceptibility, that of the begotten ("De Cherubim," § 24). God, therefore, is not only the First Cause, but He is the still efficient ground of all that is and comes to pass. He never pauses in His creative activity ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 3). The feebleness of the human mind precludes the possibility of man's knowing God as He is in Himself (ib. iii. 73). God is without qualities (ib. i. 13). God is transcendent. He contains, but is not contained (περιέχων οὐ περιεχόμενος); yet He is also within the universe. He is omnipresent (comp. "De Confusione Linguarum," § 27, "De Posteritate Caini," § 5); still He is above the conditions of space and time ("De Posteritate Caini," § 5; "Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis," § 6). He is complete in Himself, and contains within His own being the sum of all conceivable good ("De Mutatione Nominum," § 4). He is perfect; He is omniscient ("De Eo Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiatur," § 42); He is omnipotent; He is free from evil and, therefore, can not be its source ("De Profugis," § 15); He is without passion as the most perfectly reasonable being, as the efficient and not the susceptible. God cares for the world and its parts (see Providence) ("De Opificio Mundi," § 61). He is the "Archon of the great city," "the pilot managing the universe with saving care" ("De Decem Oraculis," § 12).

It is in the development of his theory of the divine powers that Philo injects into his theology elements not altogether in concordance with antecedent Jewish thought. These intelligible and invisible powers, though subject to God, partake of His mystery and greatness. They are immaterial. They are uncircumscribed and infinite, independent of time, and unbegotten ("Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis," § 17). They are "most holy" ("Fragmenta," ii. 655), incapable of error ("De Confusione Linguarum," § 23). Among these powers, through which God works His ends, is the Logos. "God is the most generic Thing; and His Logos is second" ("De Allegoriis Legum," ii. 21). "This Logos is the divine seal of the entire cosmos" ("De Somniis," ii. 6). It is the archetypal idea with which all things were stamped ("De Mutatione Nominum," § 23). It is the law of and in all things, which is not corruptible ("De Ebrietate," § 35). It is the bond of the universe, filling a function analogous to that of the soul in man ("Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit," § 48). It is God's son (see Logos; Philo).

Vacillating though it was, the theory of the divine powers and the Logos, as elaborated by Philo, certainly introduced views into the theology of Judaism of far-reaching consequences in the development of the God-idea if not of the Synagogue at least of the Church. The absolute unity and transcendence of God were modified materially, though the Biblical notion of the likeness of man to God was in the system developed in a manner adopted again by the modern Jewish theologians (see below). Talmudic and medieval Judaism were only indirectly affected by this bold attempt to save the transmundane and supramundane implications of the God-concept and still find an explanation for the immanence of the divine in man and in the world. The Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon, for instance, echo without the least equivocation the theological constructions of the Biblical books (see ii. 15-18, 32-37); and the other apocalyptic writings (Enoch; Book of Jubilees; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) present no essentially new points of view or even any augmentations.

The Shema'.

—In Talmudic Literature:

The Hellenistic modifications of the Biblical God-concept were further developed in the propositions of the heretical sects, such as the Minim or Gnostics, and of the Judæo-Christians and Christians. To controvert their departures from the fundamental positions of Judaism, the Palestinian synagogue, as did all later Judaism with the exception of the cabalists (see Cabala), laid all the greater stress on the unity of God, and took all the greater precaution to purge the concept from any and all human and terrestrial similarities. The Shema' (Deut. vi. 4 et seq.) was invested with the importance of a confession of faith. Recited twice daily (Ber. i. 1), the concluding word "eḥad" was given especial prominence, emphatic and prolonged enunciation being recommended ("kol ha-ma'arik be-eḥad"; Ber. 19a). Audible enunciation was required for the whole sentence (Sifre, Deuteronomy 31 : "Mi-kan amru: ha-ḳore et shema' welohishmia' le-ozno lo yaẓa"). Upon Israel especially devolved the duty of proclaiming God's unity ("leyaḥed shemo beyoter"). The repetition of "Yhwh" in the verse is held to indicate that God is one both in the affairs of this world and in those of the world to come (Yalḳ., Deut. 833). "The Eternal is Israel's portion" (Lam. iii. 24, Hebr.) demonstrates Israel's duty in the Shema' to proclaim God's unity and imperishability over against the sun-, moon-, and star-worship of the heathen (Lam. R. iii. 24; comp. Deut. R. ii., end). The "eḥad" is also taken in the sense of "meyuḥad," i.e., unique, unlike any other being (Meg. 28). Two powers ("reshuyot"), therefore, can not be assumed, as Deut. xxxii. 39 proves (Tan., Yitro; Jellinek,"B. H." i. 110); and the opening sentence of the Decalogue confirms this (Mek., Yitro, v.; comp. Yalḳ., Ex. 286). In the historical events, though God's manifestations are varied and differ according to the occasion, one and the same God appears: at the Red Sea, a warrior; at Sinai, the author of the Decalogue; in the days of Daniel, an old, benignant man (Yalḳ. l.c.). God has neither father, nor son, nor brother (Deut. R. ii.).

One "Reshut."

Pains are taken to refute the arguments based on the grammatical plurals employed in Biblical texts when referring to God. "Elohim" does not designate a plurality of deities. The very context shows this, as the verbs in the predicate are in the singular. The phrase "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. i. 26) is proved by the subsequent statement, "so God created man in his own image" (ib. verse 27), to refer to one God only (Yer. Ber. ix.; Gen. R. viii., xix.). Nor, according to R. Gamaliel, is the use of both "bara" and "yaẓar," to connote God's creative action, evidence of the existence of two distinct divine powers (Gen. R. i.). The reason why in the beginning one man only was fashioned was to disprove the contention of those that believe in more than one personality in God (Sanh. 38a). God had neither associate nor helper (Sanh. 38b; Yer.Shab. vi. 8d; Eccl. R. iv. 8). The ever-recurrent principle throughout haggadic theological speculations is that there is only one "Reshut" ("Reshut aḥat hu" = "personality").

From this emphasis upon the unity and immutability of God, Weber, among others (see his "Jüdische Theologic," p. 153, Leipsic, 1897), has drawn the inference that the Jewish God was apprehended as the Absolute, persisting in and for Himself alone—supramundane and therefore extramundane also. Between Him and the world and man there is no affinity and no bond of union. This view, however, neglects to take into account the thousand and one observations and interpretations of the Rabbis in which the very reverse doctrine is put forth. The bond between this one God—supreme, and in no way similar to man—and His creatures is very close (comp. the discussion of the effect of the Shema' taken from Yer. Ber. in Yalḳ., Deut. 836). It is not that subsisting between a despot and his abject, helpless slaves, but that between a loving father and his children. The passages bearing on the point do not support Weber's arbitrary construction that the implications of the names "Elohim" as "middat hadin" (justice) and "Yhwh" as "middat ha-raḥamim" (mercy) merely convey the notion of a supreme despot who capriciously may or may not permit mercy to temper revengeful justice (Weber, l.c.). In the rabbinical as in the Biblical conception of God, His paternal pity and love are never obscured (see Compassion).

Nor is it true, as Weber puts it and many after him have repeated, that the Jewish conception of God lacks that "self-communicating love which . . . presupposes its own immanence in the other" Weber, l.c.). R. Johanan's parable of the king and his son certainly demonstrates the very reverse. "A king's son was made to carry a beam. The king, upon seeing this, commanded that the beam be laid on his own shoulders. So does God invite sinners to lay their sins upon Him" (Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxii. 6). The anti-Pauline point of the parable is patent. The convenient restriction of the term "abinu sheba-shamayim" (our father which art in heaven) to mean, when used in a Jewish prayer, "the father of the nation," while when found in a supposedly non-Jewish prayer (see Lord's Prayer) it is interpreted to express the filial relation of every human soul to the Father, rests on no proof. The Rabbis denationalized and individualized their conception of God as clearly as did the Jewish compilers of the Gospels. "God used the phrase 'I am Yhwh, thy God' advisedly because He was the God of every individual man, woman, or child" (thy God, not your God) (Yalḳ., Deut. 286).

In the quaint presentation of their views on God's providence, the haggadists strike this note as well: "God chooses His own. Him whose deeds He is pleased with, He brings near unto Himself" (Midr. Shemuel, viii.; Num. R. iii.). "God is busy making marriages." (see Deism; Lev. R. viii., lxviii.; Pesiḳ. 11b; Midr. Shemuel v.; Tan., Bemidbar, ed. Buber, 18). "God builds ladders for some to ascend [become rich], for others to descend [become poor]" (Tan., Maṭṭot and Ki Tissa, ed. Buber, and passages quoted in the foregoing sentence). "God does not provide for Israel alone, but for all lands: He does not guard Israel alone, but all men" (Sifre, Deut. 40). "None will wound as much as a finger here below unless this is the divine decree concerning him from above" (Ḥul. 7b). These passages, which might easily be indefinitely multiplied, are illustrative of the thought running through haggadic theology; and they amply demonstrate the fallacy of the view denying to the God-concept of rabbinical Judaism individualistic and denationalized elements.

In the Targumim.

The care with which anthropomorphisms are avoided in the Targumim is not due to dogmatic zeal in emphasizing the transcendental character of the Godhead, but to the endeavor not to use phraseology which might in the least degree create the presumption of God's corporeality. Hence the introduction of the particle "ke-'illu" (as it were) in the paraphrasing of passages that might suggest similarity between God and man's sensuous nature (Yer. Targ. to Gen. xviii. 8); the suppression altogether of verbs connoting physical action ("God descended," Gen. xi. 5, becomes "God revealed Himself"); the recourse to "ḳodam" (before), to guard against the humanizing of the Godhead. The Memra ("Word"; "Logos") and the Shekinah, the divine effulgent indwelling of God (see Names of God), are not expedients to bridge the chasm between the extramundane and supramundane God and the world of things and man, as Weber claims; they are not hypostases which by being introduced into the theology of the rabbinical Synagogue do violence to the strenuous emphasis on God's unity by which it is characterized; but they owe their introduction into the phraseology of the Targumim and Midrashim respectively to this anxiety to find and use terms distinctively indicative of God's superlative sublimity and exaltedness, above and differentiated from any terrestrial or human similitude. These two terms prove, if anything, the apprehension on the part of the haggadists of God's relations to the world as the one supreme, all-directing, omnipresent, and all-pervading Essence, the all-abiding, everactive and activizing Principle, unfolding Himself in time and space.

Equally one-sided is the view according to which the rabbinical conception of God is rigidly and narrowly legal or nomistic. Weber (l.c.) and many after him have in connection with this even employed the term "Judaized conception of God." In proof of the contention, after Bartolocci, Eisenmenger, and Bodenschatz, rabbinical passages have been adduced in which God is represented as "studying the Law" ('Ab. Zarah 3b; Yalḳ., Isa. 316; or, more particularly, the section concerning the red heifer, Num. R. xix., parashah "Parah Adummah"); as "teaching children" (Yalḳ., Isa. l.c.); as "weeping over the destruction of the Temple" (Yer. Ḥag. i. 5b; Yalḳ., Lam. 1000); as "roaring like a lion" and "playing with the Leviathan" (Yalḳ., Isa. l.c.); as "no longer on His throne, but having only 'arba' ammot shel halakah,' the four ells of the halakah in the world for His own" (Ber. 11a); as "being under the ban, 'ḥerem'" (Pirḳe R. El. xxxviii.); as "being Levitically unclean, owing to His havingburied Moses" (Sanh. 39a); as "praying" (Yalḳ., Ps. 873; Ber. 7a); as "laying tefillin and wearing a ṭallit" (Ber. 6a; R. H. 17b); as "blowing the shofar"; as "having a vow released according to the provisions of the Law" (Num. xxx. 2 et seq.; Ex. R. xliii.; Lev. R. xix.); and as "rising before a hoary head" (Lev. R. xxxv.). Upon examination, all these passages are seen to be homiletical extravagances, academic exercises, and mere displays of skill and versatility in the art of interpreting Biblical texts ("Schulweisheit"), and therefore of no greater importance as reflecting the religious consciousness of either their authors or the people at large than other extravagances marked as such by the prefacing of "kibbe-yakol" (if it is permitted to say so; "sit venia verbo"), or "ilmale miḳra katub e efshar le-omro" ('Er. 22a; Yer. Ber. 9d; Lev. R. xxxiv.).

The Law of God.

The exaltation of the Torah is said to have been both the purpose and the instrument of creation: it is preexistent (Gen. R. i.), the "daughter" of Yhwh (Tan., Ki Tissa, 28; ib. Peḳude, 4), and its study even engages God (B. M. 86a). Differentiated from the "kabod" of God, it was given to man on earth, while the "splendor" ( , also ) has its abode in the higher regions (Midr. Teh. to Ps. xc. 17, xci. 9). It is praised as the one panacea, healing the whole of man ('Er. 54a). This idea is not, as has been claimed by Weber and after him by others, evidence either of the nomistic character of the "Judaized" conception of God or of the absolute transcendence of God. In the first place, the term "Torah" in most of the passages adduced in proof does not connote the Law (Pentateuch). For it "religion" might be with greater exactness substituted (see Bacher, "Die Aelteste Terminologie der Jüdischen Schriftauslegung," s.v. ). In the second, if not a restatement of the doctrine of wisdom ("ḥokmah"; see above), these ecstasies concerning the Torah have a marked anti-Pauline character. The Torah is the "sam ḥayyim" (life-[salvation-] giving drug; Sifre, Deut. § 45; Ḳid. 30b; Yoma 72b; Lev. R. xvi.).

The following haggadic observations will illustrate the views formulated above:

God's omnipresence (with reference to Jer. xxiii. 24) is illustrated by two mirrors, the one convex, the other concave, magnifying and contracting respectively the image of the beholder (Gen. R. iv.). God's "mercy" will always assert itself if man repents (Pesiḳ. 164a). God's "justice" often intentionally refuses to take account of man's misdeeds (Gen. R. xxxvi.; Lev. R. v.). God requites men according to their own measure ("middah ke-neged middah"; Sanh. 90a, b; Tosef., Soṭah, iii.; Yer. Soṭah 17a, b); but the measure of good always exceeds that of evil and punishment ("middat ṭobah merubbah mi-middah pur'aniyyot"; Mek., Beshallaḥ, x. 49a). God forgives the sins of a whole community on account of the true repentance of even one man (Yoma 86b). "Ṭob" (the good) is God's main attribute (Yer. Ḥag. 77c; Eccl. R. vii. 8; Ruth R. iii. 16; comp. Matt. xix. 17). The anthropomorphic representation of God as suffering pain with men merely illustrates His goodness (Sanh. vi. 5). God fills the world; but the world does not fill or exhaust Him (Gen. R. lxviii.; Yalḳ., Hab. 563). God's "hand" is extended underneath the wings of the beings that carry the throne, to receive and take to Himself the sinners that return, and to save them from punishment (Pes. 119a). Man is in the clutches of anger; but God masters wrath (Gen. R. xlix.; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xciv. 1). God removes the "stumbling-block" (sin) (Pesiḳ. 165a; Yalḳ., Hosea, 532).

Talmudic Views.

God knows all. He is like an architect who, having built a palace, knows all the hiding-places therein, and from whom, therefore, the owner can not secrete anything (Gen. R. xxiv.). God is the architect of the world (Gen. R. i.); the "Torah" is the plan. God's signetring is truth, (the Alpha and Omega of the New Testament; Gen. R. lxxxi; Shab. 55a; Yoma 69b; Sanh. 64a; Yer. Tan. 18a; Deut. R. i.). All that confess "two God-heads" will ultimately come to grief (Deut. R. ii.). In a vast number of haggadic disquisitions on God, attention is called to the difference between the action of man and that of God, generally prefaced by "Come and see that 'shelo ke-middat basar wedam middat ha-Ḳodesh baruk hu'" (not like the motive and conduct of flesh and blood is God's manner). For instance, man selling a precious article will part with it in sorrow; not so God. He gave His Torah to Israel and rejoiced thereat (Ber. 5a). In others, again, God is likened to a king; and from this comparison conclusions are drawn (Gen. R. xxviii. and innumerable similar parables).

Sometimes attention is called to the difference between God and an earthly monarch. "When a king is praised, his ministers are praised with him, because they help him carry the burden of his government. Not so when God is praised. He alone is exalted, as He alone created the world" (Yalḳ., Deut. 835; Midr. Teh. to Ps. lxxxvi. 10; Gen. R. i. 3). God exalteth Himself above those that exalt themselves ("mitga'ah hu 'al ha-mitga'im; Ḥag. 13b; Mek., Beshallaḥ, 35b). In His hand is everything except the fear of Him (Ber. 33b; Meg. 25a; Niddah 16b).

Among the descriptive attributes, "mighty," "great," and "fearful" are mentioned. After Moses had formulated these (Deut. x. 17), and the last had been omitted by Jeremiah (xxxii. 18) and the first by Daniel (ix. 4), in view of the apparent victory of the heathen the "men of the Great Synagogue" (Neh. ix. 32) reinstituted the mention of all three, knowing that God's might consisted in showing indulgent long-suffering to the evil-minded, and that His "fearfulness" was demonstrated in Israel's wonderful survival. Hence their name "Great Synagogue" for having restored the crown of the divine attributes (Yoma 69b; Yer. Ber. 11c; Meg. 74c). These attributes may not be arbitrarily augmented; however many attributes man might use, he could not adequately express God's greatness (Ber. 33b; see Agnosticism); but man is bound to praise the Creator with his every breath (Gen. R. xiv.).

Stress is laid in the Talmudic theology on the resurrection of the dead. God is "meḥayyeh hametim," the one who restores the dead to life. The key to the resurrection is one of the three (or four) keys not given, save in very rare cases, to any one else, but is in the hands of God alone (Ta'an. 2a, b; Gen. R. lxxiii.; see Eschatology).

God and Israel.

Israel is God's people. This relation to Him can not be dissolved by Israel (Num. R. ii.). This is expressed in the definition of God's name as "ehyeh asher ehyeh." The individual has the liberty to profess God or not; but the community, if refractory, is coerced to acknowledge Him (Ex. R. iii. 14). As a king might fasten the key of his jewelcasketby a chain lest it be lost, so God linked His name with Israel lest the people should disappear (Yer. Ta'an. 65d). Israel's love for God, evidenced when in the desert, became a great treasure of divine grace, stored up for the days of Israel's troubles (Midr. Teh. to Ps. xxxvi. 11). Upon Israel's fidelity to God even the earth's fertility is dependent (Lev. R. xlv.). God's punishments are therefore very severe for disloyal Israel, though in His grace He provides the cure always before the blow (Meg. 13b). As a father prefers himself to discipline his son rather than to have another beat him, so God Himself is Israel's judge (Midr. Teh. to Ps. lxxviii. 41). God is toward Israel, however, like that king who, incensed at his son's conduct, swore to hurl a stone at him. In order not to break his oath, but being anxious not to destroy his child, he broke the stone into pieces, which one after another he threw at him (ib. to Ps. vi. 4; comp. Lev. R. xxxii.). Israel's disloyalty to God involves in its consequences even the other peoples (after Haggai i. 10; Midr. Teh. to Ps. iv. 8; comp. Matt. xv. 26; Mark vii. 27; Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 146).

The prayer-book of the Synagogue is the precipitate of the teachings concerning God held by the Rabbis. An analysis of its contents reveals that God was adored as the Creator, the Preserver of the world ("Yoẓer Or," the first benediction before the Shema'). He is the Great, the Mighty, the Fearful, the Highest, the Loving, the All-Sustaining, Reviving the Dead (in the Shemoneh 'Esreh), the King, Helper, Deliverer, the Support of the Weak, the Healer of the Sick. He sets free the captives, faithful even to them that sleep in the dust. He is holy. Knowledge and understanding are from Him, a manifestation of His grace ("Attah Ḥonen la-Adam"; Meg. 17b; the "Birkat Ḥokmah," Ber. 33). He forgives sin ("Ha-Marbeh li-Saloaḥ"). In His mercy He sends relief to those that suffer ("Birkat ha-Ḥolim"; 'Ab Zarah, 8a; comp. Meg. 17b). To Israel He continually shows His love and abundant grace ("Ahabah Rabbah" and "Ahabat 'Olam," the second benediction before the Shema'; Ber. 11b). Man's physical perfection is God's work ("Asher Yaẓar"; Ber. 60b). In the prayer "Modim" (the "Hoda'ah" [Meg. 18; Ber. 29, 34; Shab. 24; Soṭah 68b; Sifre, Deut. 949]; see Articles of Faith), God's immutability is accentuated, as well as His providential care of the life and soul of every man. He is "ha-ṭob," the good one whose mercies are boundless; while in the version given in the Siddur of Rab Amram and the Maḥzor of Rome the statement is added that "God has not abandoned Israel." God is also hailed as the maker of peace. The thought of God's unity, it is needless to remark, dominates throughout. The "'Alenu," with which, according to the Kol Bo (§§ 11 and 77; Ṭur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, § 133), every service must conclude, is a résumé of the implications of Israel's conception of God. He is the Lord of the universe; the Creator. Israel by His grace was called to know Him as the King of Kings, the Holy One. He alone is God. It concludes with the fervent prayer for the coming of the day when idolatry shall be no more, but God shall be acknowledged as the one and only God.

E. G. H.Motekallamin and Motazilites. —In Philosophical Literature:

The rise of Karaism marks an epoch in Jewish philosophical thought concerning God. The ensuing controversies induced Jewish Rabbinite thinkers to turn their attention to the speculative problems involved in the Jewish conception of God. Mohammedan theology, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which came to it by way of Syria through the Christian Nestorians, had developed various schools, among them the Motekallamin or schoolmen, occupying a middle position between the orthodox believers in the dogmas of the Koran and the Free-thinkers or Philosophers. According to Shahrastani (ed. Cureton, German transl. by Haarbrücker), they were the defenders of the fundamental truths of the Koran. They did not appeal solely to the wording of the book, but formulated a rational system, that of the Kalam (hence their name, = Hebrew "Medabberim" = "loquentes"), in which through speculation the positions of the Koran were demonstrated as logically and intellectually necessary.

An offshoot from the Motekallamin were the Motazilites, who differed from the former in their doctrines concerning the divine attributes. Designating themselves as the proclaimers of the unity of God, they contended that the divine attributes were in no way to be regarded as essential; they thus emphasized God's absolute unity, which was regarded by them even as numerical. Over and against them the Ash'ariya urged deterministic views in opposition to the ascription of freedom to man, and pleaded for the reality of the divine attributes. These three schools were in so far orthodox as they all regarded the Koran as the source of truth and did not intend to abandon its fundamental authority. The Philosophers alone, though in externals observant of the religious ritual, ventured to take their stand on points other than those fixed by the text of the Koran; and they did not care whether their conclusions agreed with or differed from the positions of current theology.

Jewish philosophers in the Middle Ages (900-1300) display, on the whole, the methods and intentions of these orthodox Mohammedan schools. The same problems engage their interest. The attributes of God—His unity, His prescience, the freedom of human action—are the perplexities which they attempt to solve. That the teachings of the Bible and the theology of the Synagogue are true, they assume at the very outset. It is their ambition to show that these fundamental truths are rational, in conformity with the postulates of reason. Aristotelians for the most part, they virtually adopt the propositions of Al-Kindi, Alfarabi, and Al-Ghazali, as far as they are adherents of the Kalam; while those who are not resort to the Neoplatonic elements contained in Arabic Aristotelianism to sharpen their weapons. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Roshd (Averroes), also, must be remembered among the tutors of the Jewish Aristotelians.

Saadia.

The first of the Jewish writers to treat of the Jewish faith from the philosophical point of view was Saadia, the great anti-Karaite (see his controversies with Anan, Nahawandi, Ibn Sakawai, andBen Jeroham), in his famous work "Kitab al-Amanat wal-I'tiḳadat" (Hebrew, "Sefer Emunot we-De'ot"). He shows his familiarity with the positions of the Motazilites as well as with Greek philosophy and even with Christian theology. His purpose in composing the treatise was to set forth the harmony between the revealed truths of Judaism and the reason of man. In its controversial chapters he attacks the theology of Christianity with greater vehemence than that of Islam (see Geiger, "Wiss. Zeit. Jüd. Theol." i. 192). His philosophical point of view has rightly been characterized as eclectic, though strongly influenced by Aristotelianism. He prefaces his presentation of the God-concept with a discussion of the theory of human knowledge, which latter, according to him, proceeds from the perception of the grossly sensual elements common to men and animals. But when a man perceives an object, merely the accidents come to his vision.

"Sefer Emunot we-De'ot."

By comparison, however, he learns to know the quantity of bodies, thus forming the notion of space; while through the observation of motion he arrives at the perception of time ("Sefer Emunot we-De'ot," ed. Amsterdam, ii.). In this way man, through continued reflection, attains to ever finer and higher degrees of knowledge, discovering the relation of cause to effect. Many men, says Saadia, reject the existence of God on the ground that the knowledge of Him is too subtle and too abstract. But this is easily met by the assertion of the graduation of knowledge, which in its ascent always reaches finer degrees, and develops into the faculty of apprehending the less concrete and more abstract.

The final cause some philosophers have held to be material, an atom. But in going one degree higher, and in assuming the existence of a creator, man must know him as the highest; that is to say, God is the noblest but also the most subtile goal of speculative reflection. Many represent God as corporeal, because they do not push their ascending knowledge far enough beyond the corporeal to the abstract and incorporeal. The Creator being the originator of all bodies, He of necessity must be apprehended as supramundane, supercorporeal. Those that ascribe to God motion and rest, wrath and goodness, also apperceive Him as corporeal. The correct conception culminates in the representation of God as free from all accidents (ib.). If this conception be too abstract, and is to be replaced by one more material and concrete, reflection is forced to recede. The final cause must be, by the very postulates of reason, an abstract being. God-perception is thus the rise from the sensual to the supersensual and highest limits of thought.

But the Creator has revealed Himself to His Prophets as the One, the Living, the Almighty, the All-Wise, the Incomparable. It is the philosopher's part to investigate the reality of these attributes, and to justify them before the tribunal of reason (ib. ii. 24b, 25a). The unity of God includes His being absolutely one, as well as His uniqueness, and is necessarily postulated by the reflection that He is the Creator of all. For if He were not one. He would be many; and multiplicity is characteristic of corporeality. Therefore, as the highest thinking rejects His corporeality, He must be one. Again, human reason postulates one creator, since for creation a creator is indispensable; but, as one creator satisfies all the implications of this concept, reason has no call to assume two or more. If there were more than one creator, proof would have to be adduced for the existence of every one; but such proof could not be taken from creation, to account for which one creator suffices. That Scripture uses two names for God is merely due to linguistic idiomatic peculiarities, as "Jerubbaal" is also named "Gideon."

The Living God.

God is living because He, the Creator of the world, can not be thought of as without life (i.e., self-consciousness and knowledge of His deeds). His omnipotence is self-evident, since He is the Creator of the all: since creation is perfectly adjusted to its ends, God must be all-wise. These three attributes human reason discovers "at one stroke" ("pit'om," "beli maḥshabah," "mebi'ah aḥat"; ib. ii. 26a). Human speech, however, is so constituted as not to be able to express the three in one word. God's being is simple, not complex, every single attribute connoting Him in His entirety. Abstract and subtle though God is, He is not inactive. The illustration of this is the soul and its directive function over the body. Knowledge is still more subtile than the soul; and the same is again exemplified in the four elements. Water percolates through earth; light dominates water; the sphere of fire surrounds all other spheres and through its motion regulates the position of the planets in the universe. The motion of the spheres is caused by the command of the Creator, who, more subtile than any of the elements, is more powerful than aught else.

Still, Saadia concedes that no attribute may in strict construction be ascribed to God (ib. ii. 28b). God has also created the concept attribute; and created things can not belong to the essence of the Creator. Man may only predicate God's existence ("yeshut"). Biblical expressions are metaphorical. The errors concerning God are set forth in ten categories. Some have thought God to be a substance; some have ascribed to Him quantity; others quiddity (ποιόν in Aristotle); others have assigned to Him relations and dependency (πρός τι). The Eternal can not be in relation to or dependent upon anything created. He was before creation was. God is in no space (ποῦ in Aristotle). He is timeless (ποτέ). God can not be said to possess (ἔχειν): all is His. He lacks nothing. Possession, however, includes lack as its negative. God is incorporeal; therefore, He can not be apprehended as conditioned by status (κεῖσϑαι). Nor does God work (ποιεῖν). In the common sense of the term, work implies motion; and motion, in the subject, can not be in God. His will suffices to achieve His purposes; and, moreover, in work matter is an element, and place and time are factors—all considerations inapplicable to God.

Nor does God suffer (πάσχειν). Even God's seeing is not analogous to human sight, which is an effect by some exterior object. Saadia controverts trinitarianism more especially, as well as Dualism. Heis most emphatic in rejecting the corporeality of God, His incarnation, involved in the Christian doctrine. For his views concerning creation see Jew. Encyc. iv. 339, s.v. Creation.

But according to Saadia, man is the ultimate object of creation ("Emunot we-De'ot," iv. 45a). How is human freedom reconcilable with God's omnipotence and omniscience? That the will of man is free Saadia can not doubt. It is the doctrine of Scripture and of tradition, confirmed by human experience and postulated by reason. Without it how could God punish evil-doers? But if God does not will the evil, how may it exist and be found in this world of reality? All things terrestrial are adjusted with a view to man; they are by divine precept for the sake of man declared to be good or evil; and it is thus man that lends them their character. God's omniscience Saadia declares to be not necessarily causal. If man sins, God may know it beforehand; but He is not the cause of the sinful disposition or act.

Solomon ibn Gabirol.

Ibn Gabirol's theology is more profound than that of Saadia. In his "Meḳor Ḥayyim," he shows himself to be a follower of Plotinus, an adherent of the doctrine of emanation; yet, notwithstanding this pantheistic assumption, he recognizes the domination of a supreme omnipotent will, a free, personal God. He views the cognition of the final cause as the end and goal of all knowledge. "Being" includes: (1) form and matter; (2) primal substance, the cause (God); and (3) will, the mediator between the other two. Between God the Absolute and the world of phenomena, mediating agents are assumed. Like (God) can not communicate with unlike (the world); but mediating beings having something of both may bring them into relation. God is on the uppermost rung of the ladder of being; He is the beginning and cause of all. But the substance of the corporeal world is the lowest and last of all things created. The first is essentially different from the last; otherwise, the first might be the last, and vice versa. God is absolute unity; the corporeal world, absolute multiplicity and variety. Motion of the world is in time; and time is included in and is less than eternity. The Absolute is above eternity; it is infinitude. Hence there must be a mediating something between the supereternal and the subeternal. Man is the microcosm ("'olam ha-ḳaṭon"), a reflection of the macrocosm. The mind ("sekel") does not immediately connect itself with the body, but through the lower energies of the soul. In like manner in the macrocosm the highest simple substance may only join itself to the substance of the categories through the mediation of spiritual substances. Like only begets like. Hence, the first Creator could have produced simple substances only, not the sensual visible world which is totally unlike Him.

Between the First Cause and the world Gabirol places five mediators ("emẓa'ot"): (1) God's will ("ha-raẓon"); (2) general matter and form: (3)the universal mind ("sekel ha-kelali"); (4) the three world-souls ("nefashot"), vegetative, animal, and thinking souls; and (5) nature ("ha-ṭeba'"), the mover of the corporeal world.

The Divine Will.

The divine will has a considerable part in this system. It is the divine power which creates form, calls forth matter, and binds them together. It pervades all, from the highest to the lowest, just as the soul pervades the body ("Meḳor Ḥayyim," v. 60). God may be apprehended as will and as knowledge; the former operating in secret, invisibly; the latter realizing itself openly. From will emanates form, but from the oversubstance matter. Will, again, is nothing else than the totality comprehending all forms in indivisible unity. Matter without form is void of reality; it is non-existent; form is the element which confers existence on the non-existent. Matter without form is never actual ("be-fo'al"), but only potential ("be-koaḥ"). Form appears in the moment of creation, and the creative power is will; therefore, the will is the producer of form.

Upon this metaphysical corner-stone Ibn Gabirol bases his theological positions, which may be summed up as follows:

God is absolute unity. Form and matter are ideas in Him. Attributes, in strict construction, may not be predicated of Him; will and wisdom are identical with His being. Only through the things which have emanated from God may man learn and comprehend aught of God. Between God and the world is a chasm bridged only by mediatorial beings. The first of these is will or the creative word. It is the divine power activated and energized at a definite point of time. Creation is an act of the divine will. Through processes of successive emanations, the absolute One evolves multiplicity. Love and yearning for the first fountain whence issued this stream of widening emanations are in all beings the beginning of motion. They are yearning for divine perfection and omnipotence.

Ibn Gabirol may rightly be styled the Jewish speculative exponent of a system bordering on theosophy, certainly approaching obscurity and the mystic elimination of individuality in favor of an all-encompassing all-Divinity (pantheism). His system is, however, only a side-track from the main line of Jewish theological thought.

Baḥya ibn Paḳuda.

Baḥya ben Joseph ibn Paḳuda, in the treatise introducing his exposition of the "Duties of the Heart" ("Ḥobot ha-Lebabot," chapter "Ha-Yiḥud"), reverts in the main to the method of Saadia. According to Baḥya, only the prophet and the wise can serve God in truth. All others revere in God something utterly out of consonance with the exalted, sublime conception of God (ib. § 2). It is therefore every one's duty to arrive at a proper conception of God's unity by means of speculative reflection, and to be thus enabled to differentiate true unity ("eḥad ha-emet") from pseudo-unity ("eḥad ha-'ober"). In consequence Baḥya develops the following seven demonstrative arguments in support of God's unity:

(1) The universe is like a pyramid sloping upward from a very broad base toward the apex; or it resembles an infinite series of numbers, of which the first is one, and the last comprises so many figures as to baffle all efforts to form a conception of it. The individual beings in the world are numerically infinite; when these individuals are classified in groups according to species, etc., the number of these groups becomes smaller. Thus by proceeding in his classifications to always more comprehensivegroups, man reduces the number ever more and more until he arrives at the number five, i.e., four elements plus motion. These, again, are really two only: matter and form. Their common principle, more comprehensive than either, must thus be smaller than two, i.e., One.

(2) The harmony and concordance prevailing in creation necessitate the apprehension of the world as the work of one artist and creator.

(3) Without a creator there could be no creation. Thus reason and logic compel the assumption of a creator; but to assume more than one creator is irrational and illogical.

Proofs of Unity.

(4) If one believes in the existence of more than one God, one of two alternatives is suggested: (a) One God was potent enough to create the all; why, then, other gods? They are superfluous. (b) One God alone had not the power; then God was limited in power, and a being so limited is not God, but presupposes another being through which He Himself was called into existence.

(5) The unity of God is involved in the very conception of Him. If there were more gods than one, this dilemma would be presented: (a) These many gods are of one essence; then, according to the law of absolute identity, they are identical and therefore only one. Or (b) these gods are differentiated by differences of essential qualities: then they are not gods; for God, to be God, must be absolute and simple (non-composite) being.

(6) God connotes being without accidence, i.e., qualities not involved in being. Plurality is quantity, and, therefore, accidence. Hence plurality may not be predicated of God.

(7) Inversely, the concept unity posits the unity of God. Unity, according to Euclid, is that through which a thing becomes numerically one. Unity, therefore, precedes the number one. Two gods would thus postulate before the number one the existence of unity. In all these demonstrations Baḥya follows the evidential argumentations of the Arabic schoolmen, the Motekallamin. In reference to God's attributes, Baḥya is of those who contend that attributes predicated of God connote in truth only negatives (excluding their opposites), never positives, (ib. § 10).

Judah ha-Levi.

This view is shared also by Judah ha-Levi, the author of the "Cuzari," probably the most popular exposition of the contents of Israel's religion, though, as Grätz rightly remarks ("Geschichte," vi. 157), little calculated to influence thinkers. He regards Creation as an act of divine will ("Cuzari," ii. 50). God is eternal; but the world is not. He ranges the divine attributes into three classes: (1) practical, (2) relative, and (3) negative. The practical are those predicated of God on the ground of deeds which, though not immediately, yet perhaps through the intervention of natural secondary causes, were wrought by God. God is in this sense recognized as gracious, full of compassion, jealous, and avenging.

Relative attributes are those that arise from the relations of man, the worshiper, to God, the one worshiped. God is holy, sublime, and to be praised; but though man in this wise expresses his thoughts concerning God, God's essence is not thereby described and is not taken out of His unity ("me-aḥaduto").

The third class seemingly express positive qualities, but in reality negative their contraries. God is living. This does not mean that He moves and feels, but that He is not unmoved or without life. Life and death belong to the corporeal world. God is beyond this distinction. This applies also to His unity; it excludes merely the notion that He is more than one. His unity, however, transcends the unity of human conceptual construction. Man's "one" is one of many, a part of a whole. In this sense God can not be called "One." Even so, in strict accuracy, God may not be termed "the first." He is without beginning. And this is also true of the designation of God as "the last." Anthropopathic expressions are used; but they result from the human ward impression of His works. "God's will" is a term connoting the cause of all lying beyond the sphere of the visible things. Concerning Ha-Levi's interpretation of the names of God see Names of God.

Controverts Fatalism.

In discussing the question of God's providential government and man's freedom Ha-Levi first controverts Fatalism; and he does this by showing that even the fatalist believes in possibilities. Human will, says he, is the secondary cause between man and the purpose to be accomplished. God is the First Cause: how then can there be room for human freedom? But will is a secondary cause, and is not under compulsion on the part of the first cause. The freedom of choice is thus that of man. God's omnipotence is not impugned thereby. Finally, all points back to God as the first cause of this freedom. In this freedom is involved God's omnipotence. Otherwise it might fail to be available. The knowledge of God is not a cause. God's prescience is not causal in reference to man's doings. God knows what man will do; still it is not He that causes man's action. To sum up his positions, Judah ha-Levi posits: (a) The existence of a first cause, i.e., a wise Creator always working under purpose, whose work is perfect. It is due to man's lack of understanding that this perfection is not seen by him in all things. (b) There are secondary causes, not independent, however, but instrumentalities. (c) God gave matter its adequate form. (d) There are degrees in creation. The sentient beings occupy higher positions than those without feelings. Man is the highest. Israel as the confessor of the one God outranks the polytheistic heathen. (e) Man is free to choose between good and evil, and is responsible for his choice.

Abraham ibn Daud.

Abraham ibn Daud, in his "Emunah Ramah," virtually traverses the same ground as his predecessors; but in reference to God's prescience he takes a very free attitude (ib. p. 96). He distinguishes two kinds of possibilities: (1) The subjective, where the uncertainty lies in the subject himself. This subjective possibility is not in God. (2) The objective, planned and willed by God Himself. While under the first is the ignorance of one livingin one place concerning the doings of those in another, under the second falls the possibility of man's being good or bad. God knows beforehand of this possibility, but not of the actual choice. The later author RaLBaG advances the same theory in his "Milḥamot ha-Shem" (iii. 2). Ibn Daud also argues against the ascription of positive attributes to God ("Emunah Ramah," ii. 3).

Moses ben Maimon's "Moreh Nebukim" ("Dalalat al-Ḥa'irin") is the most important contribution to Jewish philosophical thought on God. According to him, philosophy recognizes the existence and perfection of God. God's existence is proved by the world, the effect whence he draws the inference of God's existence, the cause. The whole universe is only one individual, the parts of which are interdependent. The sublunar world is dependent upon the forces proceeding from the spheres, so that the universe is a macrocosm ("Moreh," ii. 1), and thus the effect of one cause.

Maimonides.

Two gods or causes can not be assumed, for they would have to be distinct in their community: but God is absolute; therefore He can not be composite. The corporeal alone is numerical. God as incorporeal can not be multiple ("Yad," Yesode ha-Torah, i. 7). But may God be said to be one? Unity is accidence, as is multiplicity. "God is one" connotes a negative, i.e., God is not many ("Moreh," i. 57). Of God it is possible only to say that He is, but not what He is (ib.; "hayuto bi-lebad lo mahuto"; in Arabic "anniyyah" = ὅτι ἔστι [quoddiàas]). All attributes have a negative implication, even existence. God's knowledge is absolute (ib. iii. 19). God's knowledge is never new knowledge. There is nothing that He does not know. In His knowledge He comprehends all, even infinitude (ib. iii. 20). God's knowledge is not analogous to man's. Evil is merely negation or privation (ib. iii. 8). God is not its author; for God sends only the positive. All that is, save God, is only of possible existence; but God is the necessarily existent (ib. i. 57). In Him there is no distinction between essence ("'eẓem") and existence ("ha-meẓi'ut"), which distinction is in all other existing things. For this reason God is incorporeal, one, exalted above space and time, and most perfect (ib. ii., Preface, 18, 21, 23, 24).

By the successors of Maimonides, Albo, Ralbag (Levi ben Gershon), and Crescas, no important modifications were introduced. Albo contends that only God may be designated as one, even numerical oneness being not exclusive connotation of unity ("'Iḳḳarim," ii. 9, 10; comp. Ibn Ẓaddiḳ, "'Olam Ḳaṭon," p. 49: "eḥad ha-mispar eno ka-eḥad ha-elahut"). He, too, emphasizes God's incorporeality, unity, timelessness, perfection, etc. ("'Iḳḳarim," ii. 6).

Crescas pleads for the recognition of positive attributes in God. He concedes that the unity of God can not be demonstrated by speculation, but that it rests on the "Shema'" alone. It may be noticed that Aaron ben Elijah ("'Eẓ ha-Ḥayyim," ch. lxxi.) also argues in favor of positive attributes, though he regards them in the light of homonyms.

The precipitate of these philosophical speculations may be said to have been the creed of Maimonides (see Articles of Faith). It confesses that God is the Creator, Governor of all. He alone "does, has been and will be doing." God is One; but His unity has no analogy. He alone is God, who was, is, and will be. He is incorporeal. In corporeal things there is no similitude to Him. He is the first and the last. Stress is also laid on the thought that none shares divinity with Him. This creed is virtually contained in the Adon 'Olam and the Yigdal.

The cabalists (see Cabala) were not so careful as Maimonides and others to refrain from anthropomorphic and anthropopathic extravagances and ascriptions (see Shi'ur Ḳomah). Nevertheless their efforts to make of the incorporeality of God a dogma met with opposition in orthodox circles. Against Maimonides ("Yad," Teshubah, iii. 7), denying to the believers in God's corporeality a share in the world to come, Abraham ben David of Posquières raised a fervent protest. Moses Taku is another protestant ("Oẓar Neḥmad," iii. 25; comp. Abraham Maimuni, "Milḥamot," p. 25).

Bibliography:

Schmiedl, Studien über Jüdische Religionsphilosophie, Vienna, 1869;

P. J. Muller, De Godsleer der Middeleeuwsche Joden, Groningen, 1898;

D. Kaufmann, Attributenlehre, Leipsic, 1880;

Guttmann, Die Religionsphilosophie des Saadia;

idem, Die Religionsphilosophie Abraham Ibn Dauds;

M. Joël, Zur Gesch. der Jüdischen Religionsphilosophie, Leipsic, 1872;

Munk, Mélanges.

—The Modern View:

On the whole, the modern Jewish view reproduces that of the Biblical books, save that the anthropomorphic and anthropopathic terminology is recognized as due to the insufficiency of human language to express the super-human. The influence of modern philosophers (Kant and Hegel) upon some sections of Jewish thought has been considerable. The intellectual elements in the so-called demonstrations of God's existence and the weakness of the argument have been fully recognized. The Maimonidean position, that man can not know God in Himself ( ), has in consequence been strengthened (see Agnosticism). The human heart (the practical reason in the Kantian sense) is the first source of knowledge of God (see Samuel Hirsch, "Catechismus," s.v. "Die Lehre"). The experience of man and the history of Israel bear witness to God's existence, who is apprehended by man as the Living, Personal, Eternal, All-Sustaining, the Source of all life, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the Father of all, the Righteous Judge, in His mercy forgiving sins, embracing all in His love. He is both transcendental and immanent. Every human soul shares to a certain degree in the essence of the divine. In thus positing the divinity of the human soul, Judaism bridges the chasm between the transcendental and the immanent elements of its conception of God. Pantheism is rejected as one-sided; and so is the view, falsely imputed to Judaism, which has found its expression in the absolute God of Islam.

The implications of the Jewish God-idea may be described as "pan-monotheism," or "ethical monotheism." In this conception of God, Israel is called to the duty, which confers no prerogatives not also within the reach of others, of illustrating in life the godliness of the truly human, through its own"holiness"; and of leading men to the knowledge of the one eternal, holy God (see Deism; Evolution).

Bibliography:

Samuel Hirsch, Die Religionsphilosophie der Juden, Leipsic, 1843;

Formstecher, Die Religion des Geistes;

see also Catechism;

Rülf, Der Einheitsgedanke.

—Critical View:

Biblical historiography presents the theory that God revealed Himself successively to Adam, Noah, Abraham and his descendants, and finally to Moses. Monotheism was thus made known to the human race in general and to Israel in particular from the very beginning. Not ignorance but perverseness led to the recognition of other gods, necessitating the sending of the Prophets to reemphasize the teachings of Moses and the facts of the earlier revelation. Contrary to this view, the modern critical school regards monotheism as the final outcome of a long process of religious evolution, basing its hypothesis upon certain data discovered in the Biblical books as well as upon the analogy presented by Israel's historical development to that of other Semitic groups, notably, in certain stages thereof, of the Arabs (Wellhausen, "Skizzen und Vorarbeiten," iii. 164; Nöldeke, in "Z. D. M. G." 1887, p. 719).

Polytheistic Leanings of the Semites.

The primitive religion of Israel and the God-concept therein attained reflected the common primitive Semitic religious ideas, which, though modified in Biblical times, and even largely eliminated, have left their traces in the theological doctrines of the Israel of later days. Renan's theory, formulated in his "Precis et Système Comparé des Langues Semitiques" (1859), ascribing to the Semites a monotheistic instinct, has been abandoned because it was found to be in conflict with facts. As far as epigraphic material, traditions, and folk-lore throw light on the question, the Semites are shown to be of polytheistic leanings. Astral in character, primitive Semitic religion deified the sun, the moon, and the other heavenly bodies. The storm-clouds, the thunder-storms, and the forces of nature making for fertility or the reverse were viewed as deities. As long as the Semites were shepherds, the sun and the other celestial phenomena connected with the day were regarded as malevolent and destructive; while the moon and stars, which lit up the night—the time when the grass of the pasture was revived—were looked upon as benevolent. In the conception of Yhwh found in the poetry of the Bible, speaking the language of former mythology and theology, the element is still dominant which, associating Him with the devastating cloud or the withering, consuming fire, virtually accentuates His destructive, fearful nature (Wellhausen, l.c. iii. 77, 170; Baethgen, "Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte," p. 9, Berlin, 1888; Smend, "Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte," p. 19, Leipsic, 1893).

The intense tribal consciousness of the Semites, however, wielded from a very early period a decisive influence in the direction of associating with each tribe, sept, or clan a definite god, which the tribe or clan recognized as its own, to the exclusion of others. For the tribe thought itself descended from its god, which it met and entertained at the sacrificial meal. With this god it maintained the blood covenant. Spencer's theory, that ancestral animism is the first link in the chain of religious evolution, can not be supported by the data of Semitic religions. Ancestral animism as in vogue among the Semites, and the "cult of the dead" (see Witch of Endor) in Israel point rather to individual private conception than to a tribal institution. In the development of the Israelitish God-idea it was not a determining factor (Goldziher, "Le Culte des Ancêtres et des Morts chez les Arabes," in "Revue de l'Histoire des Religions," x. 332; Oort, in "Theologisch Tijdschrift," 1881, p. 350; Stade, "Geschichte des Volkes Israel," i. 387).

Characteristic, however, of the Semitic religions is the designation of the tribal or clan deity as "adon" (lord), "melek" (king), "ba'al" (owner, fructifier). The meaning of "el," which is the common Semitic term, is not certain. It has been held to connote strength (in which case God would = "the strong"), leadership ("the first"), and brilliancy (Sprenger, in his "Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad," in which God ="sun"). It has also been connected with "elah," the sacred tree (Ed. Meyer, in Roscher's "Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie," s.v. "El"; and Smend, l.c. p. 26, note 1). Equally puzzling is the use of the plural "Elohim" in Hebrew ( in Phenician; comp. Ethiopic "amlak"). The interpretation that it is a "pluralis majestatis" with the value of an abstract idea ("the Godhead"), assumes too high a degree of grammatical and philosophical reflection and intention to be applicable to primitive conditions. Traces of an original polytheism might be embodied in it, were it not for the fact that the religion of Israel is the outgrowth of tribal and national monolatry rather than of polytheism.

Tribal Gods.

Each tribe in Israel had its tribal god (see, for instance, Dan; Gad; Asher). Nevertheless from a very remote period these tribes recognized their affinity to one another by the fact that above their own tribal god they acknowledged allegiance to Yhwh. This Yhwh was the Lord, the Master, the Ruler. His will was regarded as supreme. He revealed Himself in fire or lightning.

In Ex. vi. 2 Yhwh is identified with El-Shaddai, the god of the Patriarchs. What the latter name means is still in doubt (see Nöldeke in "Z. D. M. G." 1886, p. 735; 1888, p. 480). Modern authorities have argued from the statement in Exodus that Yhwh was not known among the Hebrews before Moses, and have therefore insisted that the name at least, if not the god, was of foreign origin. Delitzsch's alleged discovery of the name "Yhwh" on Babylonian tablets has yet to be verified. Moses is held to have identified a Midianite-Kenite deity with the patriarchal El-Shaddai. However this may have been, the fact remains that from the time of the Exodus onward Israel regarded itself as the people of Yhwh, whose seat was Sinai, where he manifested Himself amidst thunder and lightning in His unapproachable majesty, and whence He went forth to aid His people (Judges v. 4; Deut. xxxiii. 2). Itwas Yhwh who had brought judgment on the gods of Egypt, and by this act of His superior power had renewed the covenant relation which the fathers of old had maintained with Him.

From the very outset the character of Yhwh must have been of an order conducive to the subsequent development of monotheistic and ethical connotations associated with the name and the idea. In this connection it is noteworthy that the notion of sex, so pernicious in other Semitic cults, was from the outset inoperative in the worship of Yhwh. As Israel's God, He could not but be jealous and intolerant of other gods beside Him, to whom Israel would pay honor and render homage. Enthroned in the midst of fire, He was unapproachable ("ḳodesh"); the sacrificial elements in His cult were of a correspondingly simple, pastoral nature. The jealousy of Yhwh was germinal of His unity; and the simplicity and austerity of His original desert worship form the basis of the moralization of the later theology.

Change of Social Conditions.

With the invasion of the land, Israel changed from a pastoral into an agricultural people. The shepherd cult of the desert god came into contact and conflict with the agricultural deities and cults of the Canaanites. Yhwh was partly worshiped under Canaanitish forms, and partly replaced by the Canaanitish deities (Baalim, etc.). But Yhwh would not relinquish His claim on Israel. He remained the judge and lawgiver and ruler and king of the people He had brought out from Egypt. The Nazarites and the Prophets arose in Israel, emphasizing by their life and habits as well as by their enthusiastic and indignant protest the contrast of Israel with the peoples of the land, and of its religion with theirs (comp. the Yhwh of Elijah; He is "Ha-Elohim"). With Canaanitish cults were connected immoralities as well as social injustice. By contrast with these the moral nature of Yhwh came to be accentuated.

During the first centuries of Israel's occupation of Palestine the stress in religious life was laid on Israel's fidelity to Yhwh, who was Israel's only God, and whose service was to be different from that offered unto the Baalim. The question of God's unity was not in the center of dispute. Yhwh was Israel's only God. Other peoples might have other gods, but Israel's God had always shown His superiority over these. Nor was umbrage taken at this time at the representations of Yhwh by figures, though simplicity still remained the dominant note in His cult. A mere stone or rock served for an altar (Judges vi. 20, xiii. 10; I Sam. vi. 14); and natural pillars (holy trees," maẓebot") were more frequent than artificial ones (see Smend, l.c. pp. 40 et seq.). The Ephod was perhaps the only original oracular implement of the Yhwh cult. Teraphim belonged apparently to domestic worship, and were tolerated under the ascendency of the Yhwh national religion. "Massekah" was forbidden (Ex. xxxiv. 17), but not "pesel"; hence idols seem not to have been objected to so long as Yhwh's exclusive supremacy was not called into doubt. The Ark was regarded as the visible assurance of Yhwh's presence among His people. Human sacrifices, affected in the Canaanitish Moloch cult, were especially abhorred; and the lascivious rites, drunkenness, and unchastity demanded by the Baalim and their consorts were declared to be abominations in the sight of Yhwh.

The God of the Prophets.

These conceptions of God, which, by comparison with those entertained by other peoples, were of an exalted character, even in these early centuries, were enlarged, deepened, refined, and spiritualized by the Prophets in proportion as historical events, both internal and external, induced a widening of their mental horizon and a deepening of their moral perceptions. First among these is Amos. He speaks as the messenger of the God who rules all nations, but who, having known Israel alone among them, will punish His people all the more severely. Assyria will accomplish God's primitive purpose. In Amos' theology the first step is taken beyond national henotheism. Monotheism begins through him to find its vocabulary. This God, who will punish Israel as He does the other nations, can not condone social injustice or religious (sexual) degradation (Amos iv.). The ethical implications of Yhwh's religion are thus placed in the foreground. Hosea introduces the thought of love as the cardinal feature in the relations of Israel and God. He spiritualizes the function of Israel as the exponent of divine purposes. Yhwh punishes; but His love is bound ultimately to awaken a responsive love by which infidelity will be eliminated and overcome.

Isaiah lays stress on God's holiness: the "ḳodesh," unapproachable God, is now "ḳadosh," holy (see Baudissin, "Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Alten Testament," in "Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgesch."). It is Israel's duty as God's people to be cleansed from sin by eschewing evil and by learning to do good. Only by striving after this, and not by playing at diplomacy, can the "wrath of God" be stayed and Jerusalem be saved. The remnant indeed will survive. Isaiah's conception of God thus again marks an advance beyond that of his predecessors. God will ultimately rule as the arbiter among the nations. Peace will be established, and beasts as well as men will cease to shed blood.

Jeremiah and his contemporaries, however, draw near the summit of monotheistic interpretations of the Divine. The cultus is centralized; Deuteronomic humanitarianism is recognized as the kernel of the God-idea. Israel and Palestine are kept apart from the rest of the world. Yhwh ceases to be localized. Much greater emphasis than was insisted on even by Isaiah is now laid on the moral as distinct from the sacrificial involutions of the God-idea.

The prophets of the Exile continue to clarify the God-concept of Israel. For them God is One; He is Universal. He is Creator of the All. He can not be represented by image. The broken heart is His abiding-place. Weak Israel is His servant ("'ebed"). He desires the return of the sinner. His intentions come to pass, though man's thoughts can not grasp them.

Post-Exilic Conception.

After the Exile a double tendency in the conceptions of God is easily established. First, He is Israel's Lawgiver; Israel shall be holy. Secondly,He is all mankind's Father. In the Psalms the latter note predominates. Though the post-exilic congregation is under the domination of national sacerdotalism (represented by P), in the Wisdom literature the universal and ethical implications of Israel's God-belief came to the forefront. In the later books of the Biblical canon the effort is clearly traceable to remove from God all human attributes and passions (see Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism). The critical school admits in the final result what the traditional view assumes as the starting-point. The God whom Israel, through the events of its history, under the teachings of its men of genius, the Prophets, finally learned to proclaim, is One, the Ruler and Creator of all, the Judge who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity, whose witness Israel is, whose true service is love and justice, whose purposes come and have come to pass.

Bibliography:

Kuenen, The Religion of Israel (Eng. transl. of Godsdienst van Israel, Haarlem, 1869-70);

idem, National Religions and Universal Religion (Hibbert Lectures, 1882);

Knappert, The Religion of Israel;

Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten, Bonn, 1875;

Wilhelm Vatke, Die Religion des A. T. Berlin, 1835;

Ewald, Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott, Göttingen, 1871-76;

Wellhausen, Prolegomenazur Gesch. Israels, 3d ed., 1886;

idem, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, i.-vi., 1882-1903;

Baudissin, Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgesch. Leipsic, 1876, 1878;

W. Robertson Smith, Rel. of Sem. Edinburgh, 1885;

Ed. König, Grundprobleme der Alttest. Religionsgesch. 1885;

idem, Der Offenbarungsbegriff, etc.;

Friedrich Baethgen, Beiträge zur Semit. Religionsgesch. Berlin, 1888;

Smend, Lehrbuch der Alttestamentlichen Religionsgesch. 1893;

Budde, Vorlesungen über die Vorexilische Religion Israels, 1901;

Kayser-Dillmann, Alt. Test. Theologie.

GOD.—The object of this article is to give a brief sketch of the history of belief in God as gathered from the Bible. The existence of God is everywhere assumed in the sacred volume; it will not therefore be necessary here to consider the arguments adduced to show that the belief in God’s existence is reasonable. It is true that in Psa 14:1; Psa 53:1 the ‘fool’ (i.e. the ungodly man) says that there is no God; but the meaning doubtless is, not that the existence of God is denied, but that the ‘fool’ alleges that God does not concern Himself with man (see Psa 10:4).

1. Divine revelation gradual.—God ‘spake,’ i.e. revealed Himself, ‘by divers portions and in divers manners’ (Heb 1:1). The world only gradually acquired the knowledge of God which we now possess; and it is therefore a gross mistake to look for our ideas and standards of responsibility in the early ages of mankind. The world was educated ‘precept upon precept, line upon line’ (Isa 28:10); and it is noteworthy that even when the gospel age arrived, our Lord did not in a moment reveal all truth, but accommodated His teaching to the capacity of the people (Mar 4:33); the chosen disciples themselves did not grasp the fulness of that teaching until Pentecost (Joh 16:12 f.). The fact of the very slow growth of conceptions of God is made much clearer by our increased knowledge with respect to the composition of the OT; now that we have learnt, for example, that the Mosaic code is to be dated, as a whole, centuries later than Moses, and that the patriarchal narratives were written down, as we have them, in the time of the Kings, and are coloured by the ideas of that time, we see that the idea that Israel had much the same conception of God in the age of the Patriarchs as in that of the Prophets is quite untenable, and that the fuller conception was a matter of slow growth. The fact of the composite character of the Pentateuch, however, makes it very difficult for us to find out exactly what were the conceptions about God in patriarchal and in Mosaic times; and it is impossible to be dogmatic in speaking of them. We can deal only with probabilities gathered from various indications in the literature, especially from the survival of old customs.

2. Names of God in OT.—It will be convenient to gather together the principal OT names of God before considering the conceptions of successive ages. The names will to some extent be a guide to us.

(a) Elohim; the ordinary Hebrew name for God, a plural word of doubtful origin and meaning. It is used, as an ordinary plural, of heathen gods, or of supernatural beings (1Sa 28:13), or even of earthly judges (Psa 82:1; Psa 82:5, cf. Joh 10:34); but when used of the One God, it takes a singular verb. As so used, it has been thought to be a relic of pre-historic polytheism, but more probably it is a ‘plural of majesty,’ such as is common in Hebrew, or else it denotes the fulness of God. The singular Eloah is rare except in Job; it is found in poetry and in late prose.

(b) El, common to Semitic tribes, a name of doubtful meaning, but usually interpreted as ‘the Strong One’ or as ‘the Ruler.’ It is probably not connected philologically with Elohim (Driver, Genesis, p. 404). It is used often in poetry and in proper names; in prose rarely, except as part of a compound title like El Shaddai, or with an epithet or descriptive word attached; as ‘God of Bethel,’ El-Bethel (Gen 31:13); ‘a jealous God,’ El qannâ’ (Exo 20:5).

(c) El Shaddai.—The meaning of Shaddai is uncertain; the name has been derived from a root meaning ‘to overthrow,’ and would then mean ‘the Destroyer’; or from a root meaning ‘to pour,’ and would then mean ‘the Rain-giver’; or it has been interpreted as ‘my Mountain’ or ‘my Lord.’ Traditionally it is rendered ‘God Almighty,’ and there is perhaps a reference to this sense of the name in the words ‘He that is mighty’ of Luk 1:49. According to the Priestly writer (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), the name was characteristic of the patriarchal age (Exo 6:3, cf. Gen 17:1; Gen 28:3). ‘Shaddai’ alone is used often in OT as a poetical name of God (Num 24:4 etc.), and is rendered ‘the Almighty.’

(d) El Elyon, ‘God Most High,’ found in Gen 14:18 ff. (a passage derived from a ‘special source’ of the Pentateuch, i.e. not from J [Note: Jahwist.] , E [Note: Elohist.] , or P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), and thought by Driver (Genesis, p. 165) perhaps to have been originally the name of a Canaanite deity, but applied to the true God. ‘Elyon’ is also found alone, as in Psa 82:5 (so tr. [Note: translate or translation.] into Greek, Luk 1:32; Luk 1:35; Luk 1:76; Luk 6:35), and with ‘Elohim’ in Psa 57:2, in close connexion with ‘El’ and with ‘Shaddai’ in Num 24:15, and with ‘Jahweh’ in Psa 7:17; Psa 18:13 etc. That ‘El Elyon’ was a commonly used name is made probable by the fact that it is found in an Aramaic translation in Dan 3:26; Dan 4:2; Dan 5:18-21 and in a Greek translation in 1Es 6:31 etc., Mar 5:7, Act 16:17, and so in Heb 7:1, where it is taken direct from Gen 14:18 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] .

(e) Adonai (= ‘Lord’), a title, common in the prophets, expressing dependence, as of a servant on his master, or of a wife on her husband (Ottley, BL² p. 192 f.).

(f) Jehovah, properly Yahweh (usually written Jahweh), perhaps a pre-historic name. Prof. H. Guthe (EBi [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] ii. art. ‘Israel,’ § 4) thinks that it is of primitive antiquity and cannot be explained; that it tells us nothing about the nature of the Godhead. This is probably true of the name in pre-Mosaic times; that it was then in existence was certainly the opinion of the Jahwist writer (Gen 4:25, J [Note: Jahwist.] ), and is proved by its occurrence in proper names, e.g. in ‘Jochebed,’ the name of Moses’ mother (Exo 6:20, P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ). What it originally signified is uncertain; the root from which it is derived might mean ‘to blow’ or ‘to breathe,’ or ‘to fall,’ or ‘to be.’ Further, the name might have been derived from the causative ‘to make to be,’ and in that case might signify ‘Creator.’ But, as Driver remarks (Genesis, p. 409), the important thing for us to know is not what the name meant originally, but what it came actually to denote to the Israelites. And there can be no doubt that from Moses’ time onwards it was derived from the ‘imperfect’ tense of the verb ‘to be,’ and was understood to mean ‘He who is wont to be,’ or else ‘He who will be.’ This is the explanation given in Exo 3:10 ff.; when God Himself speaks, He uses the first person, and the name becomes ‘I am’ or ‘I will be.’ It denotes, then, Existence; yet it is understood as expressing active and self-manifesting Existence (Driver, p. 408). It is almost equivalent to ‘He who has life in Himself’ (cf. Joh 5:26). It became the common name of God in post-Mosaic times, and was the specially personal designation.

We have to consider whether the name was used by the patriarchs. The Jahwist writer (J [Note: Jahwist.] ) uses it constantly in his narrative of the early ages; and Gen 4:26 (see above) clearly exhibits more than a mere anachronistic use of a name common in the writer’s age. On the other hand, the Priestly writer (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) was of opinion that the patriarchs had not used the name, but had known God as ‘El Shaddai’ (Exo 6:2 f.); for it is putting force upon language to suppose that P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] meant only that the patriarchs did not understand the full meaning of the name ‘Jahweh,’ although they used it. P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] is consistent in not using the name ‘Jahweh until the Exodus. So the author of Job, who lays his scene in the patriarchal age, makes the characters of the dialogue use Shaddai,’ etc., and only once (12:9) ‘Jahweh’ (Driver, p. 185). We have thus contradictory authorities. Driver (p. xix.) suggests that though the name was not absolutely new in Moses’ time, it was current only in a limited circle, as is seen from its absence in the composition of patriarchal proper names.

‘Jehovah’ is a modern and hybrid form, dating only from a.d. 1518. The name ‘Jahweh’ was so sacred that it was not, in later Jewish times, pronounced at all, perhaps owing to an over-literal interpretation of the Third Commandment. In reading ‘Adonai’ was substituted for it; hence the vowels of that name were in MSS attached to the consonants of ‘Jahweh’ for a guide to the reader, and the result, when the MSS are read as written (as they were never meant by Jewish scribes to be read), is ‘Jehovah.’ Thus this modern form has the consonants of one word and the vowels of another. The Hellenistic Jews, in Greek, cubstituted ‘Kyrios’ (Lord) for the sacred name, and it is thus rendered in LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and NT. This explains why in EV [Note: English Version.] ‘the Lord’ is the usual rendering of ‘Jahweh.’ The expression ‘Tetragrammaton’ is used for the four consonants of the sacred name, YHWH, which appears in Greek capital letters as Pipi, owing to the similarity of the Greek capital p to the Hebrew h, and the Greek capital i to the Hebrew y and w [thus, Heb. יהוה = Gr. ׀ח׀ה].

(g) Jah is an apocopated form of Jahweh, and appears in poetry (e.g. Psa 68:4, Exo 15:2) in the word ‘Hallelujah’ and in proper names. For Jah Jahweh see Isa 11:2; Isa 26:4.

(h) Jahweh Tsĕbâôth (‘Sabaoth’ of Rom 9:29 and Jas 5:4), in Ev ‘Lord of hosts’ (wh. see), appears frequently in the prophetical and post-exilic literature (Isa 1:9; Isa 6:3, Psa 84:1 etc.). This name seems originally to have referred to God’s presence with the armies of Israel in the times of the monarchy; as fuller conceptions of God became prevalent, the name received an ampler meaning. Jahweh was known as God, not only of the armies of Israel, but of all the hosts of heaven and of the forces of nature (Cheyne, Aids to Devout Study of Criticism, p. 284).

We notice, lastly, that ‘Jahweh’ and ‘Elohim’ are joined together in Gen 2:4 to Gen 3:22; Gen 9:26, Exo 9:30, and elsewhere. Jahweh is identified with the Creator of the Universe (Ottley, BL p. 195). We have the same conjunction, with ‘Sabaoth’ added (‘Lord God of hosts’), in Amo 5:27. ‘Adonai’ with ‘Sabaoth’ is not uncommon.

3. Pre-Mosaic conceptions of God.—We are now in a position to consider the growth of the revelation of God in successive ages; and special reference may here be made to Kautzsch’s elaborate monograph on the ‘Religion of Israel’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , Ext. vol. pp. 612–734, for a careful discussion of OT conceptions of God. With regard to those of pre-Mosaic times there is much room for doubt. The descriptions written so many centuries later are necessarily coloured by the ideas of the author’s age, and we have to depend largely on the survival of old customs in historical times—customs which had often acquired a new meaning, or of which the original meaning was forgotten. Certainly pre-Mosaic Israel conceived of God as attached to certain places or pillars or trees or springs, as we see in Gen 12:6; Gen 13:18; Gen 14:7; Gen 35:7, Jos 24:26 etc. It has been conjectured that the stone circle, Gilgal (Jos 4:2-8; Jos 4:20 ff.), was a heathen sanctuary converted to the religion of Jahweh. A. B. Davidson (Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ii. 201) truly remarks on the difficulty in primitive times of realizing deity apart from a local abode; later on, the Ark relieved the difficulty without representing Jahweh under any form, for His presence was attached to it (but see below, § 4).—Traces of ‘Totemism,’ or belief in the blood relationship of a tribe and a natural object, such as an animal, treated as the protector of the tribe, have been found in the worship of Jahweh under the form of a molten bull (1Ki 12:28; but this was doubtless derived from the Canaanites), and in the avoidance of unclean animals. Traces of ‘Animism,’ or belief in the activity of the spirits of one’s dead relations, and its consequence ‘Ancestor-worship,’ have been found in the mourning customs of Israel, such as cutting the hair, wounding the flesh, wearing sackcloth, funeral feasts, reverence for tombs, and the levirate marriage, and in the name elohim (i.e. supernatural beings) given to Samuel’s spirit and (probably) other spirits seen by the witch of Endor (1Sa 28:13). Kautzsch thinks that these results are not proved, and that the belief in demoniacal powers explains the mourning customs without its being necessary to suppose that Animism had developed into Ancestor-worship.—Polytheism has been traced in the plural ‘Elohim’ (see 2 above), in the teraphim or household gods (Gen 31:30, 1Sa 19:13; 1Sa 19:16: found in temples, Jdg 17:5; Jdg 18:14; cf. Hos 3:4); and patriarchal names, such as Abraham, Sarah, have been taken for the titles of pre-historic divinities. Undoubtedly Israel was in danger of worshipping foreign gods, but there is no trace of a Hebrew polytheism (Kautzsch). It will be seen that the results are almost entirely negative; and we must remain in doubt as to the patriarchal conception of God. It seems clear, however, that communion of the worshipper with God was considered to be effected by sacrifice.

4. Post-Mosaic conceptions of God.—The age of the Exodus was undoubtedly a great crisis in the theological education of Israel. Moses proclaimed Jahweh as the God of Israel, supreme among gods, alone to be worshipped by the people whom He had made His own, and with whom He had entered into covenant. But the realization of the truth that there is none other God but Jahweh came by slow degrees only; henotheism, which taught that Jahweh alone was to be worshipped by Israel, while the heathen deities were real but inferior gods, gave place only slowly to a true monotheism in the popular religion. The old name Micah (= ‘Who is like Jahweh?’, Jdg 17:1) is one indication of this line of thought. The religion of the Canaanites was a nature-worship; their deities were personified forces of nature, though called ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’ (Baal, Baalah) of the place where they were venerated (Guthe, EBi [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] ii. art. ‘Israel,’ § 6); and when left to themselves the Israelites gravitated towards nature-worship. The great need of the early post-Mosaic age, then, was to develop the idea of personality. The defective idea of individuality is seen, for example, in the putting of Achan’s household to death (Jos 7:24 f.), and in the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites. (The defect appears much later, in an Oriental nation, in Dan 6:24, and is constantly observed by travellers in the East to this day.) Jahweh, therefore, is proclaimed as a personal God; and for this reason all the older writers freely use anthropomorphisms. They speak of God’s arm, mouth, lips, eyes; He is said to move (Gen 3:8; Gen 11:6; Gen 18:1 f.), to wrestle (Gen 32:24 ff.). Similarly He is said to ‘repent’ of an action (Gen 6:6, Exo 32:14; but see 1Sa 15:29.), to be grieved, angry, jealous, and gracious, to love and to hate; in these ways the intelligence, activity, and power of God are emphasized. As a personal God He enters into covenant with Israel, protecting, ruling, guiding them, giving them victory. The wars and victories of Israel are those of Jahweh (Num 21:14, Jdg 5:23).

The question of images in the early post-Mosaic period is a difficult one. Did Moses tolerate images of Jahweh? On the one hand, it seems certain that the Decalogue in some form or other comes from Moses; the conquest of Canaan is inexplicable unless Israel had some primary laws of moral conduct (Ottley, BL p. 172 f.). But, on the other hand, the Second Commandment need not have formed part of the original Decalogue; and there is a very general opinion that the making of images of Jahweh was thought unobjectionable up to the 8th cent. b.c., though Kautzsch believes that images of wood and stone were preferred to metal ones because of the Canaanitish associations of the latter (Exo 34:17, but see Jdg 17:3); he thinks also that the fact of the Ark being the shrine of Jahweh and representing His presence points to its having contained an image of Jahweh (but see § 3 above), and that the ephod was originally an image of Jahweh (Jdg 8:26 f.), though the word was afterwards used for a gold or silver casing of an image, and so in later times for a sort of waistcoat. In our uncertainty as to the date of the various sources of the Hexateuch it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion about this matter; and Moses, like the later prophets, may have preached a high doctrine which popular opinion did not endorse. To this view Barnes (Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , art. ‘Israel,’ ii. 509) seems to incline. At least the fact remains that images of Jahweh were actually used for many generations after Moses.

5. The conceptions of the Prophetic age.—This age is marked by a growth, perhaps a very gradual growth, towards a true monotheism. More spiritual conceptions of God are taught; images of Jahweh are denounced; God is unrestricted in space and time (e.g. 1Ki 8:27), and is enthroned in heaven. He is holy (Isa 6:3)—separate from sinners (cf. Heb 7:26), for this seems to be the sense of the Hebrew word; the idea is as old as 1Sa 6:20. He is the ‘Holy One of Israel’ (Isa 1:4 and often). He is Almighty, present everywhere (Jer 23:24), and full of love.—The prophets, though they taught more spiritual ideas about God, still used anthropomorphisms: thus, Isaiah saw Jahweh on His throne (Isa 6:1), though this was only in a vision.—The growth of true monotheistic ideas may be traced in such passages as Deu 4:35; Deu 4:39; Deu 6:4; Deu 10:14, 1Ki 8:60, Isa 37:16, Joe 2:27; it culminates in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:10 ‘Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me’; Isa 44:6 ‘I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God’; so Isa 45:5). The same idea is expressed by the teaching that Jahweh rules not only His people but all nations, as in the numerous passages in Deutero-Isaiah about the Gentiles, in Jer 10:7, often in Ezekiel (e.g. Jer 35:4; Jer 35:9; Jer 35:15 of Edom), Mal 1:5; Mal 1:11; Mal 1:14, and elsewhere. The earlier prophets had recognized Jahweh as Creator (though Kautzsch thinks that several passages like Amo 4:13 are later glosses); but Deutero-Isaiah emphasizes this attribute more than any of his brethren (Isa 40:12; Isa 40:22; Isa 40:28; Isa 41:4; Isa 42:5; Isa 44:24; Isa 45:12; Isa 45:18; Isa 48:13).

We may here make a short digression to discuss whether the heathen deities, though believed by the later Jews, and afterwards by the Christians, to be no gods, were yet thought to have a real existence, or whether they were considered to be simply non-existent, creatures of the imagination only. In Isa 14:12 (the Babylonian king likened to false divinities?) and Isa 24:21 the heathen gods seem to be identified with the fallen angels (see Whitehouse, in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] i. 592); so perhaps in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 46:1 f.). In later times they are often identified with demons. In Eth. Enoch (19:1) Uriel speaks of the evil angels leading men astray into sacrificing to demons as to gods (see Charles’s note; and also xcix. 7). And the idea was common in Christian times; it has been attributed to St. Paul (1Co 10:20; though 1Co 8:5 f. points the other way, whether these verses are the Apostle’s own words or are a quotation from the letter of the Corinthians). Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 9, 64, etc.), Tatian (Add. to the Greeks, 8), and Irenæus (Hær. iii. 6:3), while denying that the heathen deities are really gods, make them to have a real existence and to be demons; Athenagoras (Apol. 18, 28), Clement of Alexandria (Exh. to the Greeks, 2f.), and Tertullian (Apol. 10) make them to be mere men or beasts deified by superstition, or combine both ideas.

6. Post-exilic conceptions of God.—In the period from the Exile to Christ, a certain deterioration in the spiritual conception of God is visible. It is true that there was no longer any danger of idolatry, and that this age was marked by an uncompromising monotheism. Yet there was a tendency greatly to exaggerate God’s transcendence, to make Him self-centred and self-absorbed, and to widen the gulf between Him and the world (Sanday, in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ii. 206). This tendency began even at the Exile, and accounts for the discontinuance of anthropomorphic language. In the Priest’s Code (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) this language is avoided as much as possible. And later, when the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] was translated, the alterations made to avoid anthropomorphisms are very significant. Thus in Exo 15:3 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] the name ‘Man of war’ (of Jahweh) disappears; in Exo 19:3 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] Moses went up not ‘to Elohim,’ but ‘to the mount of God’; in Exo 24:10 the words ‘they saw Elohim of Israel’ become ‘they saw the place where the God of Israel stood.’ So in the Targums man is described as being created in the image of the angels, and many other anthropomorphisms are removed.—The same tendency is seen in the almost constant use of ‘Elohim’ rather than of ‘Jahweh’ in the later books of OT. The tendency, only faintly marked in the later canonical books, is much more evident as time went on. Side by side with it is to be noticed the exaltation of the Law, and the inconsistent conception of God as subject to His own Law. In the Talmud He is represented as a great Rabbi, studying the Law, and keeping the Sabbath (Gilbert, in Hastings’ DCG [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] i. 582).

Yet there were preparations for the full teaching of the gospel with regard to distinctions in the Godhead. The old narratives of the Theophanies, of the mysterious ‘Angel of the Lord’ who appeared at one time to be God and at another to be distinct from Him, would prepare men’s minds in some degree for the Incarnation, by suggesting a personal unveiling of God (see Liddon, BL ii. i. β); even the common use of the plural name ‘Elohim,’ whatever its original significance (see § 2 above), would necessarily prepare them for the doctrine of distinctions in the Godhead, as would the quasi-personification of ‘the Word’ and ‘Wisdom’, as in Proverbs, Job, Wisdom, Sirach, and in the later Jewish writers, who not only personified but deified them (Scott, in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , Ext. vol. p. 308). Above all, the quasi-personification of the ‘Spirit of God’ in the prophetical books (esp. Isa 48:16; Isa 63:10) and in the Psalms (esp. Psa 51:11), and the expectation of a superhuman King Messiah, would tend in the same direction.

7. Christian development of the doctrine of God.—We may first deal with the development in the conception of God’s fatherhood. As contrasted with the OT, the NT emphasizes the universal fatherhood and love of God. The previous ages had scarcely risen above a conception of God as Father of Israel, and in a special sense of Messiah (Psa 2:7); they had thought of God only as ruling the Gentiles and bringing them into subjection. Our Lord taught, on the other hand, that God is Father of all and loving to all; He is kind even ‘toward the unthankful and evil’ (Luk 6:35, cf. Mat 5:45). Jesus therefore used the name ‘Father’ more frequently than any other. Yet He Himself bears to the Father a unique relationship; the Voice at the Baptism and at the Transfiguration would otherwise have no meaning (Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7 and || Mt. Lk.). Jesus never speaks to His disciples of the Father as ‘our Father’; He calls Him absolutely ‘the Father’ (seldom in Synoptics, Mat 11:27; Mat 24:36 [RV [Note: Revised Version.] ] Mat 28:19 [see §8], Mar 13:32, Luk 10:22, passim in Jn.), or ‘my Father’ (very frequently in all the Gospels, also in Rev 2:27; Rev 3:5), or else ‘my Father and your Father’ (Joh 20:17). The use of ‘his Father’ in Mar 8:38 and || Mt. Lk. is similar. This unique relationship is the point of the saying that God sent His only-begotten Son to save the world (Joh 3:16 f., 1Jn 4:9)—a saying which shows also the universal fatherhood of God, for salvation is offered to all men (so Joh 12:32). The passage Mat 11:27 (= Luk 10:22) is important as being ‘among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists,’ and as containing ‘the whole of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel’ (Plummer, ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ‘St Luke,’ p. 282; for the latest criticism on it see Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gosp. p. 223 f.). It marks the unique relation in which Jesus stands to the Father.—We have, then, in the NT three senses in which God is Father. (a) He is the Father of Jesus Christ. (b) He is the Father of all His creatures (cf. Act 17:28, Jas 1:17 f., Heb 12:9), of Gentiles as well as of Jews; Mar 7:27 implies that, though the Jews were to be fed first, the Gentiles were also to be fed. He is the Father of all the Jews, as well as of the disciples of Jesus; the words ‘One is your Father’ were spoken to the multitudes also (Mat 23:1; Mat 23:9). (c) But in a very special sense He is Father of the disciples, who are taught to pray ‘Our Father’ (Mat 6:9; in the shorter version of Luk 11:2 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , ‘Father’), and who call on Him as Father (1Pe 1:17 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). For Pauline passages which teach this triple fatherhood see art, Paul the Apostle, iii. 1. The meaning of the doctrine of the universal fatherhood is that God is love (1Jn 4:6), and that He manifests His love by sending His Son into the world to save it (see above).

8. Distinctions in the Godhead.—We should not expect to find the nomenclature of Christian theology in the NT. The writings contained therein are not a manual of theology; and the object of the technical terms invented or adopted by the Church was to explain the doctrine of the Bible in a form intelligible to the Christian learner. They do not mark a development of doctrine in times subsequent to the Gospel age. The use of the words ‘Persons’ and ‘Trinity’ affords an example of this. They were adopted in order to express the teaching of the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead; that Jesus is no mere man, but that He came down from heaven to take our nature upon Him; that He and the Father are one thing (Joh 10:30, see below), and yet are distinct (Mar 13:32); that the Spirit is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Son (Rom 8:9, see below). At the same time Christian theology takes care that we should not conceive of the Three Persons as of three individuals. The meaning of the word ‘Trinity’ is, in the language of the Quicunque vult, that ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.’

The present writer must profoundly dissent from the view that Jesus’ teaching about God showed but little advance on that of the prophets, and that the ‘Trinitarian’ idea as found in the Fourth Gospel and in Mat 28:19 was a development of a later age, say of the very end of the 1st century. Confessedly a great and marvellous development took place. To whom are we to assign it, if not to our Lord? Had a great teacher, or a school of teachers, arisen, who could of themselves produce such an absolute revolution in thought, how is it that contemporary writers and posterity alike put them completely in the background, and gave to Jesus the place of the Great Teacher of the world? This can be accounted for only by the revolution of thought being the work of Jesus Himself. An examination of the literature will lead us to the same conclusion.

(a) We begin with St. Paul, as our earliest authority. The ‘Apostolic benediction’ (2Co 13:14) which, as Dr. Sanday remarks (Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ii. 213), has no dogmatic object and expounds no new doctrine—indeed expounds no doctrine at all—unequivocally groups together Jesus Christ, God [the Father], and the Holy Ghost as the source of blessing, and in that remarkable order. It is inconceivable that St. Paul would have done this had he looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, or even as a created angel, and on the Holy Ghost only as an influence of the Father. But how did he arrive at this triple grouping, which is strictly consistent with his doctrine elsewhere? We cannot think that he invented it; and it is only natural to suppose that he founded it upon some words of our Lord.

(b) The command to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Mat 28:19), if spoken by our Lord,—whatever the exact meaning of the words, whether as a formula to be used, or as expressing the result of Christian baptism—would amply account for St. Paul’s benediction in 2Co 13:14. But it has been strenuously denied that these words are authentic, or, if they are authentic, that they are our Lord’s own utterance. We must carefully distinguish these two allegations. First, it is denied that they are part of the First Gospel. It has been maintained by Mr. Conybeare that they are an interpolation of the 2nd cent., and that the original text had: ‘Make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them,’ etc. All extant manuscripts and versions have our present text (the Old Syriac is wanting here); but in several passages of Eusebius (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 260–340) which refer to the verse, the words about baptism are not mentioned, and in some of them the words ‘in my name’ are added. The allegation is carefully and impartially examined by Bp. Chase in JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] vi. 483 ff., and is judged by him to be baseless. As a matter of fact, nothing is more common in ancient writers than to omit, in referring to a Scripture passage, any words which are not relevant to their argument. Dean Robinson (JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] vii. 186), who controverts Bp. Chase’s interpretation of the baptismal command, is yet entirely satisfied with his defence of its authenticity. Secondly, it is denied that the words in question were spoken by our Lord; it is said that they belong to that later stage of thought to which the Fourth Gospel is ascribed. As a matter of fact, it is urged, the earliest baptisms were not into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in the name of Jesus Christ, or into the name of the Lord Jesus, or into Christ Jesus, or into Christ (Act 2:38; Act 8:16; Act 10:48; Act 19:5, Rom 6:3, Gal 3:27). Now it is not necessary to maintain that in any of these places a formula of baptism is prescribed or mentioned. The reverse is perhaps more probable (see Chase, l.c.). The phrases in Acts need mean only that converts were united to Jesus or that they became Christians (cf. 1Co 10:2); the phrase in Mat 28:19 may mean that disciples were to be united to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by baptism, without any formula being enjoined; or if we take what seems to be the less probable interpretation (that of Dean Robinson), that ‘in the name’ means ‘by the authority of,’ a similar result holds good. We need not even hold that Mat 28:19 represents our Lord’s ipsissima verba. But that it faithfully represents our Lord’s teaching seems to follow from the use of the benediction in 2Co 13:14 (above), and from the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the sole form of baptizing that we read of was that of Mat 28:19, as in Didache 7 (the words quoted exactly, though in § 9 Christians are said to have been baptized into the name of the Lord), in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61 (he does not quote the actual words, but paraphrases, and at the end of the same chapter says that ‘he who is illuminated is washed in the name of Jesus Christ’), and in Tertullian, adv. Prax. 26 (paraphrase), de Bapt. 13 (exactly), de Prœscr. Hær. 20 (paraphrase). Thus the second generation of Christians must have understood the words to be our Lord’s. But the same doctrine is found also in numerous other passages of the NT, and we may now proceed briefly to compare some of them with Mat 28:19, prefacing the investigation with the remark that the suspected words in that verse occur in the most Jewish of the Gospels, where such teaching is improbable unless it comes from our Lord (so Scott in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , Ext. vol. p. 313).

(c) That the Fourth Gospel is full of the doctrine of ‘Father, Son, and Spirit’ is allowed by all (see esp. Joh 14:1-31; Joh 15:1-27; Joh 16:1-33). The Son and the Spirit are both Paracletes, sent by the Father; the Spirit is sent by the Father and also by Jesus; Jesus has all things whatsoever the Father has; the Spirit takes the things of Jesus and declares them unto us. In Joh 10:30 our Lord says: ‘I and the Father are one thing’ (the numeral is neuter), i.e. one essence—the words cannot fall short of this (Westcott, in loc.). But the same doctrine is found in all parts of the NT. Our Lord is the only-begotten Son (see § 7 above), who was pre-existent, and was David’s Lord in heaven before He came to earth (Mat 22:45: this is the force of the argument). He claims to judge the world and to bestow glory (Mat 25:34, Luk 22:69; cf. 2Co 5:10), to forgive sins and to bestow the power of binding and loosing (Mar 2:5; Mar 2:10, Mat 28:18; Mat 18:18; cf. Joh 20:23); He invites sinners to come to Him (Mat 11:28; cf. Mat 10:37, Luk 14:26); He is the teacher of the world (Mat 11:29); He casts out devils as Son of God, and gives authority to His disciples to cast them out (Mar 3:11 f., Mar 3:15). The claims of Jesus are as tremendous, and (In the great example of humility) at first sight as surprising, in the Synoptics as in Jn. (Liddon, BL v. iv.). Similarly, in the Pauline Epistles the Apostle clearly teaches that Jesus is God (see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 3, 4). In them God the Father and Jesus Christ are constantly joined together (just as Father, Son, and Spirit are joined in the Apostolic benediction), e.g. in 1Co 1:3; 1Co 8:6. So in 1Pe 1:2 we have the triple conjunction—‘the foreknowledge of God the Father,’ ‘the sanctification of the Spirit,’ ‘the blood of Jesus Christ.’ The same conjunction is found in Jud 1:20 f. ‘Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life’; cf. also 1Co 12:3-6, Rom 8:14-17 etc.

The Holy Spirit is represented in the NT as a Person, not as a mere Divine influence. The close resemblance between the Lukan and the Johannine accounts of the promise of the Spirit is very noteworthy. St. Luke tells us of ‘the promise of my Father,’ and of the command to tarry in the city until the Apostles were ‘clothed with power from on high’ (Luk 24:49); this is interpreted in Act 1:5 as a baptism with the Holy Ghost, and one of the chief themes of Acts is the bestowal of the Holy Ghost to give life to the Church (Act 2:4; Act 2:33; Act 8:15 ff; Act 19:2 ff. etc.). This is closely parallel to the promise of the Paraclete in Joh 14:1-31; Joh 15:1-27; Joh 16:1-33. Both the First and the Third Evangelists ascribe the conception of Jesus to the action of the Holy Ghost (Mat 1:18; Mat 1:20, Luk 1:35, where ‘the Most High’ is the Father, cf. Luk 6:35 f.). At the baptism of Jesus, the Father and the Spirit are both manifested, the appearance of the dove being an indication that the Spirit is distinct from the Father. The Spirit can be sinned against (Mar 3:29 and || Mt. Lk.); through Him Jesus is filled with Divine grace for the ministry (Luk 4:1; Luk 4:14; Luk 4:18), and casts out devils (Mat 12:28; cf. Luk 11:20 ‘the finger of God’). The Spirit inspired David (Mar 12:36). So in St. Paul’s Epistles He intercedes, is grieved, is given to us, gives life (see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 6). And the distinctions in the Godhead are emphasized by His being called the ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘Spirit of Christ’ in the same verse (Rom 8:9). That He is the Spirit of Jesus appears also from Act 16:7 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , 2Co 3:17, Gal 4:6, Php 1:19, 1Pe 1:11.

This very brief epitome must here suffice. It is perhaps enough to show that the revelation which Jesus Christ made caused an immeasurable enlargement of the world’s conception of God. Our Lord teaches that God is One, and at the same time that He is no mere Monad, but Triune. Cf. art. Trinity.

A. J. Maclean.

(Anglo-Saxon: god; ultimately from Sanskrit hu, to invoke, or hu, to sacrifice to)

There is nothing better on this subject than the following passage from Cardinal Newman’s "Idea of a University," discourse III:

"I mean then by the Supreme Being, one who is simply self-dependent, and the only Being who is such; moreover, that He is without beginning or Eternal, and the only Eternal; that in consequence He has lived a whole eternity by Himself; and hence that He is all-sufficient, sufficient for His own blessedness, and all-blessed, and ever-blessed. Further, I mean a Being, who, having these prerogatives, has the Supreme Good, or rather is the Supreme Good, or has all the attributes of Good in infinite intenseness; all wisdom, all truth, all justice, all love, all holiness, all beautifulness; who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; ineffably one, absolutely perfect; and such, that what we do not know and cannot even imagine of Him, is far more wonderful than what we do and can. I mean One who is sovereign over His own will and actions, though always according to the eternal Rule of right and wrong, which is Himself. I mean, moreover, that He created all things out of nothing, and preserves them every moment, and could destroy them as easily as He made them; and that, in consequence, He is separated from them by an abyss, and is incommunicable in all His attributes. And further, He has stamped upon all things, in the hour of their creation, their respective natures, and has given them their work and mission and their length of days, greater or less, in their appointed place. I mean, too, that He is ever present with His works, one by one, and confronts every thing He has made by His particular and most loving Providence, and manifests Himself to each according to its needs; and has on rational beings imprinted the moral law, and given them power to obey it, imposing on them the duty of worship and service, searching and scanning them through and through with His omniscient eye, and putting before them a present trial and a judgment to come."

Etymology of the Word "God" Discusses the root-meaning of the name "God", which is derived from Gothic and Sanskrit roots.Existence of God Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting, and has never won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can Polytheism ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher. But there are several varieties of what may be described as virtual Atheism which cannot be dismissed so quickly.Nature and Attributes of God In this article, we proceed by deductive analysis to examine the nature and attributes of God to the extent required by our limited philosophical scope. We will treat accordingly of the infinity, unity, and simplicity of God, adding some remarks on Divine personality.Relation of God to the Universe The world is essentially dependent on God, and this dependence implies (1) that God is the Creator of the world -- the producer of its whole substance; and (2) that its continuance in being at every moment is due to His sustaining power.The Blessed Trinity The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three truly distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.-----------------------------------The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VICopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

god (אלהים, ’ĕlōhı̄m, אל, ’ēl, עליון, ‛elyōn, שׁדּי, shaddāy, יהוה, yahweh; Θεός, theós):

I.    Introduction to the General Idea

1.    The Idea in Experience and in Thought

2.    Definition of the Idea

3.    The Knowledge of God

4.    Ethnic Ideas of God

(1)    Animism

(2)    Fetishism

(3)    Idolatry

(4)    Polytheism

(5)    Henotheism

(6)    Pantheism

(7)    Deism

(8)    Semitic Monolatry

(9)    Monotheism

II.    The Idea of God in the Old Testament

1.    The Course of Its Development

2.    Forms of Its Manifestation

(1)    The Face or Countenance of God

(2)    The Voice and Word of God

(3)    The Glory of God

(4)    The Angel of God

(5)    The Spirit of God

(6)    The Name of God

(7)    Occasional Forms

3.    The Names of God

(1)    Generic

(2)    Attributive

(3)    Yahweh (Jehovah)

4.    Pre-prophetic Conceptions of God

(1)    Yahweh Alone Is the God of Israel

(a)    His Early Worship

(b)    Popular Religion

(c)    Polytheistic Tendencies

(i)    Coordination

(ii)    Assimilation

(iii)    Disintegration

(d)    No Hebrew Goddesses

(e)    Human Sacrifices

(2)    Nature and Character of Yahweh

(a)    A God of War

(b)    His Relation to Nature

(3)    Most Distinctive Characteristics of Yahweh

(a)    Personality

(b)    Law and Judgment

5.    The Idea of God in the Prophetic Period

(1)    Righteousness

(2)    Holiness

(3)    Universality

(4)    Unity

(5)    Creator and Lord

(6)    Compassion and Love

6.    The Idea of God in Post-exilic Judaism

(1)    New Conditions

(2)    Divine Attributes

(3)    Surviving Limitations

(a)    Disappearing Anthropomorphism

(b)    Localization

(c)    Favoritism

(d)    Ceremonial Legalism

(4)    Tendencies to Abstractness

(a)    Transcendence

(b)    Skepticism

(c)    Immanence

(5)    Logos, Memra), and Angels

III.    The Idea of God in the New Testament

1.    Dependence on the Old Testament

2.    Gentile Influence

3.    Absence of Theistic Proofs

4.    Fatherhood of God

(1)    In the Teaching of Jesus Christ

(a) Its Relation to Himself

(b) To Believers

(c) To All Men

(2)    In Apostolic Teaching

(a) Father of Jesus Christ

(b) Our Father

(c) Universal Father

5.    God Is King

(1)    The Kingdom of God

(2)    Its King

(a) God

(b) Christ

(c) Their Relation

(3)    Apostolic Teaching

6.    Moral Attributes

(1)    Personality

(2)    Love

(3)    Righteousness and Holiness

7.    Metaphysical Attributes

8.    The Unity of God

(1)    The Divinity of Christ

(2)    The Holy Spirit

(3)    The Church’s Problem

Literature

I. Introduction to the General Idea

1. The Idea in Experience and in Thought

Religion gives the idea of God, theology construes and organizes its content, and philosophy establishes its relation to the whole of man’s experience. The logical order of treating it might appear to be, first, to establish its truth by philosophical proofs; secondly, to develop its content into theological propositions; and finally, to observe its development and action in religion. Such has been the more usual order of treatment. But the actual history of the idea has been quite the reverse. Men had the idea of God, and it had proved a creative factor in history, long before reflection upon it issued in its systematic expression as a doctrine. Moreover, men had enunciated the doctrine before they attempted or even felt any need to define its relation to reality. And the logic of history is the truer philosophy. To arrive at the truth of any idea, man must begin with some portion of experience, define its content, relate it to the whole of experience, and so determine its degree of reality.

Religion is as universal as man, and every religion involves some idea of God. Of the various philosophical ideas of God, each has its counterpart and antecedent in some actual religion. Pantheism is the philosophy of the religious consciousness of India. Deism had prevailed for centuries as an actual attitude of men to God, in China, in Judaism and in Islam, before it found expression as a rational theory in the philosophy of the 18th century. Theism is but the attempt to define in general terms the Christian conception of God, and of His relation to the world. If pluralism claims a place among the systems of philosophy, it can appeal to the religious consciousness of that large portion of mankind that has hitherto adhered to polytheism.

But all religions do not issue in speculative reconstructions of their content. It is true in a sense that all religion is an unconscious philosophy, because it is the reaction of the whole mind, including the intellect, upon the world of its experience, and, therefore, every idea of God involves some kind of an explanation of the world. But conscious reflection upon their own content emerges only in a few of the more highly developed religions. Brahmanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only religions that have produced great systems of thought, exhibiting their content in a speculative and rational form. The religions of Greece and Rome were unable to survive the reflective period. They produced no theology which could ally itself to a philosophy, and Greek philosophy was from the beginning to a great extent the denial and supersession of Greek religion.

Biblical literature nearly all represents the spontaneous experience of religion, and contains comparatively little reflection upon that experience. In the Old Testament it is only in Second Isaiah, in the Wisdom literature and in a few Psalms that the human mind may be seen turning back upon itself to ask the meaning of its practical feelings and beliefs. Even here nothing appears of the nature of a philosophy of Theism or of religion, no theology, no organic definition and no ideal reconstruction of the idea of God. It never occurred to any Old Testament writer to offer a proof of the existence of God, or that anyone should need it. Their concern was to bring men to a right relation with God, and they propounded right views of God only in so far as it was necessary for their practical purpose. Even the fool who “hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa 14:1; Psa 53:1), and the wicked nations “that forget God” (Psa 9:17) are no theoretical atheists, but wicked and corrupt men, who, in conduct and life, neglect or reject the presence of God.

The New Testament contains more theology, more reflection upon the inward content of the idea of God, and upon its cosmic significance; but here also, no system appears, no coherent and rounded-off doctrine, still less any philosophical construction of the idea on the basis of experience as a whole. The task of exhibiting the Biblical idea of God is, therefore, not that of setting together a number of texts, or of writing the history of a theology, but rather of interpreting the central factor in the life of the Hebrew and Christian communities.

2. Definition of the Idea

Logically and historically the Biblical idea stands related to a number of other ideas. Attempts have been made to find a definition of so general a nature as to comprehend them all. The older theologians assumed the Christian standpoint, and put into their definitions the conclusions of Christian doctrine and philosophy. Thus, Melanchthon: “God is a spiritual essence, intelligent, eternal, true, good, pure, just, merciful, most free and of infinite power and wisdom.” Thomasius more briefly defines God as “the absolute personality.” These definitions take no account of the existence of lower religions and ideas of God, nor do they convey much of the concreteness and nearness of God revealed in Christ. A similar recent definition, put forward, however, avowedly of the Christian conception, is that of Professor W. N. Clarke: “God is the personal Spirit, perfectly good, who in holy love creates, sustains and orders all” (Outline of Christian Theology, 66). The rise of comparative religion has shown that “while all religions involve a conscious relation to a being called God, the Divine Being is in different religions conceived in the most different ways; as one and as many, as natural and as spiritual, as like to and manifested in almost every object in the heavens above or earth beneath, in mountains and trees, in animals and men; or, on the contrary, as being incapable of being represented by any finite image whatsoever; and, again, as the God of a family, of a nation, or of humanity” (E. Caird, Evolution of Religion, I, 62). Attempts have therefore been made to find a new kind of definition, such as would include under one category all the ideas of God possessed by the human race. A typical instance of this kind of definition is that of Professor W. Adams Brown: “A god in the religious sense is an unseen being, real or supposed, to whom an individual or a social group is united by voluntary ties of reverence and service” (Christian Theology in Outline, 30). Many similar definitions are given: “A supersensible being or beings” (Lotze, Asia Minor Fairbairn); “a higher power” (Allan Menzies); “spiritual beings” (E.B. Tylor); “a power not ourselves making for righteousness” (Matthew Arnold). This class of definition suffers from a twofold defect. It says too much to include the ideas of the lower religions, and too little to suggest those of the higher. It is not all gods that are “unseen” or “supersensible,” or “making for righteousness,” but all these qualities may be shared by other beings than gods, and they do not connote that which is essential in the higher ideas of God. Dr. E. Caird, looking for a definition in a germinative principle of the genesis of religion, defines God “as the unity which is presupposed in the difference of the self and not-self, and within which they act and re-act on each other” (op. cit., I, 40, 64). This principle admittedly finds its full realization only in the highest religion, and it may be doubted whether it does justice to the transcendent personality and the love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. In the lower religions it appears only in fragmentary forms, and it can only be detected in them at all after it has been revealed in the absolute religion. Although this definition may be neither adequate nor true, its method recognizes that there can be only one true idea and definition of God, and yet that all other ideas are more or less true elements of it and approximations to it. The Biblical idea does not stand alone like an island in mid-ocean, but is rather the center of light which radiates out in other religions with varying degrees of purity.

It is not the purpose of this article to deal with the problem of the philosophy of religion, but to give an account of the idea of God at certain stages of its development, and within a limited area of thought. The absence of a final definition will present no practical difficulty, because the denotation of the term God is clear enough; it includes everything that is or has been an object of worship; it is its connotation that remains a problem for speculation.

3. The Knowledge of God

A third class of definition demands some attention, because it raises a new question, that of the knowledge or truth of any idea whatsoever. Herbert Spencer’s definition may be taken as representative: God is the unknown and unknowable cause of the universe, “an inscrutable power manifested to us through all phenomena” (First Principles, V, 31). This means that there can be no definition of the idea of God, because we can have no idea of Him, no knowledge “in the strict sense of knowing.” For the present purpose it might suffice for an answer that ideas of God actually exist; that they can be defined and are more definable, because fuller and more complex, the higher they rise in the scale of religions; that they can be gathered from the folklore and traditions of the lower races, and from the sacred books and creeds of the higher religions. But Spencer’s view means that, in so far as the ideas are definable, they are not true. The more we define, the more fictitious becomes our subject-matter. While nothing is more certain than that God exists, His being is to human thought utterly mysterious and inscrutable. The variety of ideas might seem to support this view. But variety of ideas has been held of every subject that is known, as witness the progress of science. The variety proves nothing.

And the complete abstraction of thought from existence cannot be maintained. Spencer himself does not succeed in doing it. He says a great many things about the “unknowable” which implies an extensive knowledge of Him. The traditional proofs of the “existence” of God have misled the Agnostics. But existence is meaningless except for thought, and a noumenon or first cause that lies hidden in impenetrable mystery behind phenomena cannot be conceived even as a fiction. Spencer’s idea of the Infinite and Absolute are contradictory and unthinkable. An Infinite that stood outside all that is known would not be infinite, and an Absolute out of all relation could not even be imagined. If there is any truth at all in the idea of the Absolute, it must be true to human experience and thought; and the true Infinite must include within itself every possible and actual perfection. In truth, every idea of God that has lived in religion refutes Agnosticism, because they all qualify and interpret experience, and the only question is as to the degree of their adequacy and truth.

A brief enumeration of the leading ideas of God that have lived in religion will serve to place the Biblical idea in its true perspective.

4. Ethnic Ideas of God

(1) Animism

Animism is the name of a theory which explains the lowest (and perhaps the earliest) forms of religion, and also the principle of all religion, as the belief in the universal presence of spiritual beings which “are held to affect or control the events of the material world, and man’s life here and hereafter; and, it being considered that they hold intercourse with men, and receive pleasure or displeasure from human actions, the belief in their existence leads naturally, and, it might almost be said, inevitably, sooner or later, to active reverence and propitiation” (E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, I, 426-27). According to this view, the world is full of disembodied spirits, regarded as similar to man’s soul, and any or all of these may be treated as gods.

(2) Fetishism

Fetishism is sometimes used in a general sense for “the view that the fruits of the earth and things in general are divine, or animated by powerful spirits” (J.G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 234); or it may be used in a more particular sense of the belief that spirits “take up their abode, either temporarily or permanently, in some object.... and this object, as endowed with higher power, is then worshipped” (Tiele, Outlines of the History of Religion, 9).

(3) Idolatry

Idolatry is a term of still more definite significance. It means that the object is at least selected, as being the permanent habitation or symbol of the deity; and, generally, it is marked by some degree of human workmanship, designed to enable it the more adequately to represent the deity. It is not to be supposed that men ever worship mere “stocks and stones,” but they address their worship to objects, whether fetishes or idols, as being the abodes or images of their god. It is a natural and common idea that the spirit has a form similar to the visible object in which it dwells. Paul reflected the heathen idea accurately when he said, “We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man” (Act 17:29).

(4) Polytheism

The belief in many gods, and the worship of them, is an attitude of soul compatible with Animism, Fetishism, and Idolatry, or it may be independent of them all. The term Polytheism is more usually employed to designate the worship of a limited number of well-defined deities, whether regarded as pure disembodied spirits, or as residing in the greater objects of Nature, such as planets or mountains, or as symbolized by images “graven by art and device of man.” In ancient Greece or modern India the great gods are well defined, named and numerable, and it is clearly understood that, though they may be symbolized by images, they dwell apart in a spiritual realm above the rest of the world.

(5) Henotheism

There is, however, a tendency, both in individuals and in communities, even where many gods are believed to exist, to set one god above the others, and consequently to confine worship to that god alone. “The monotheistic tendency exists among all peoples, after they have reached a certain level of culture. There is a difference in the degree in which this tendency is emphasized, but whether we turn to Babylonia, Egypt, India, China, or Greece, there are distinct traces of a trend toward concentrating the varied manifestations of Divine powers in a single source” (Jastrow, The Study of Religion, 76). This attitude of mind has been called Henotheism or Monolatry - the worship of one God combined with the belief in the existence of many. This tendency may be governed by metaphysical, or by ethical and personal motives, either by the monistic demands of reason, or by personal attachment to one political or moral rule.

(6) Pantheism

Where the former principle predominates, Polytheism merges into Pantheism, as is the case in India, where Brahma is not only the supreme, but the sole, being, and all other gods are but forms of his manifestation. But, in India, the vanquished gods have had a very complete revenge upon their vanquisher, for Brahma has become so abstract and remote that worship is mainly given to the other gods, who are forms of his manifestation. Monolatry has been reversed, and modern Hinduism were better described as the belief in one God accompanied by the worship of many.

(7) Deism

The monistic tendency, by a less thorough application of it, may take the opposite turn toward Deism, and yet produce similar religious conditions. The Supreme Being, who is the ultimate reality and power of the universe, may be conceived in so vague and abstract a manner, may be so remote from the world, that it becomes a practical necessity to interpose between Him and men a number of subordinate and nearer beings as objects of worship. In ancient Greece, Necessity, in China, Tien or Heaven, were the Supreme Beings; but a multiplicity of lower gods were the actual objects of worship. The angels of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Islam and the saints of Romanism illustrate the same tendency. Pantheism and Deism, though they have had considerable vogue as philosophical theories, have proved unstable and impossible as religions, for they have invariably reverted to some kind of polytheism and idolatry, which seems to indicate that they are false processes of the monistic tendency.

(8) Semitic Monolatry

The monistic tendency of reason may enlist in its aid many minor causes, such as tribal isolation or national aggrandizement. It is held that many Sere tribes were monolatrists for either or both of these reasons; but the exigencies of intertribal relations in war and commerce soon neutralized their effects, and merged the tribal gods into a territorial pantheon.

(9) Monotheism

Monotheism, ethical and personal: One further principle may combine with Monism so as to bring about a stable Monotheism, that is the conception of God as standing in moral relations with man. Whenever man reflects upon conduct as moral, he recognizes that there can be only one moral standard and authority, and when God is identified with that moral authority, He inevitably comes to be recognized as supreme and unique. The belief in the existence of other beings called gods may survive for a while; but they are divested of all the attributes of deity when they are seen to be inferior or opposed to the God who rules in conscience. Not only are they not worshipped, but their worship by others comes to be regarded as immoral and wicked. The ethical factor in the monistic conception of God safeguards it from diverging into Pantheism or Deism and thus reverting into Polytheism. For the ethical idea of God necessarily involves His personality, His transcendence as distinct from the world and above it, and also His intimate and permanent relation with man. If He rules in conscience, He can neither be merged in dead nature or abstract being, nor be removed beyond the heavens and the angel host. A thoroughly moralized conception of God emerges first in the Old Testament where it is the prevailing type of thought.

II. The Idea of God in the Old Testament

1. Course of Its Development

Any attempt to write the whole history of the idea of God in the Old Testament would require a preliminary study of the literary and historical character of the documents, which lies beyond the scope of this article and the province of the writer. Yet the Old Testament contains no systematic statement of the doctrine of God, or even a series of statements that need only to be collected into a consistent conception. The Old Testament is the record of a rich and varied life, extending over more than a thousand years, and the ideas that ruled and inspired that life must be largely inferred from the deeds and institutions in which it was realized; nor was it stationary or all at one level. Nothing is more obvious than that revelation in the Old Testament has been progressive, and that the idea of God it conveys has undergone a development. Certain well-marked stages of the development can be easily recognized, without entering upon any detailed criticism. There can be no serious question that the age of the Exodus, as centering around the personality of Moses, witnessed an important new departure in Hebrew religion. The most ancient traditions declare (perhaps not unanimously) that God was then first known to Israel under the personal name Jehovah (Yahweh (YHWH) is the correct form of the word, Jehovah being a composite of the consonants of Yahweh and the vowels of ’ădhōnāy, or lord. Yahweh is retained here as the more familiar form). The Hebrew people came to regard Him as their Deliverer from Egypt, as their war god who assured them the conquest of Canaan, and He, therefore, became their king, who ruled over their destinies in their new heritage. But the settlement of Yahweh in Canaan, like that of His people, was challenged by the native gods and their peoples. In the 9th century we see the war against Yahweh carried into His own camp, and Baal-worship attempting to set itself up within Israel. His prophets therefore assert the sole right of Yahweh to the worship of His people, and the great prophets of the 8th century base that right upon His moral transcendence. Thus they at once reveal new depths of His moral nature, and set His uniqueness and supremacy on higher grounds. During the exile and afterward, Israel’s outlook broadens by contact with the greater world, and it draws out the logical implications of ethical monotheism into a theology at once more universalistic and abstract. Three fairly well-defined periods thus emerge, corresponding to three stages in the development of the Old Testament idea of God: the pre-prophetic period governed by the Mosaic conception, the prophetic period during which ethical monotheism is firmly established, and the post-exilic period with the rise of abstract monotheism. But even in taking these large and obvious divisions, it is necessary to bear in mind the philosopher’s maxim, that “things are not cut off with a hatchet.” The most characteristic ideas of each period may be described within their period; but it should not be assumed that they are altogether absent from other periods; and, in particular, it should not be supposed that ideas, and the life they represent, did not exist before they emerged in the clear witness of history. Mosaism had undoubtedly its antecedents in the life of Israel; but any attempt to define them leads straight into a very morass of conjectures and hypotheses, archaeological, critical and philosophical; and any results that are thus obtained are contributions to comparative religion rather than to theology.

2. Forms of the Manifestation of God

Religious experience must always have had an inward and subjective aspect, but it is a long and difficult process to translate the objective language of ordinary life for the uses of subjective experience. “Men look outward before they look inward.” Hence, we find that men express their consciousness of God in the earliest periods in language borrowed from the visible and objective world. It does not follow that they thought of God in a sensuous way, because they speak of Him in the language of the senses, which alone was available for them. On the other hand, thought is never entirely independent of language, and the degree in which men using sensuous language may think of spiritual facts varies with different persons.

(1) The Face or Countenance of God

The face or countenance (pānı̄m) of God is a natural expression for His presence. The place where God is seen is called Peniel, the face of God (Gen 32:30). The face of Yahweh is His people’s blessing (Num 6:25). With His face (the Revised Version (British and American) “presence”) He brought Israel out of Egypt, and His face (the Revised Version (British and American) “presence”) goes with them to Canaan (Exo 33:14). To be alienated from God is to be hid from His face (Gen 4:14), or God hides His face (Deu 31:17, Deu 31:18; Deu 32:20). In contrast with this idea it is said elsewhere that man cannot see the face of God and live (Exo 33:20; compare Deu 5:24; Jdg 6:22; Jdg 13:22). In these later passages, “face” stands for the entire being of God, as distinguished from what man may know of Him. This phrase and its cognates enshrine also that fear of God, which shrinks from His majesty even while approaching Him, which enters into all worship.

(2) The Voice and Word of God

The voice (ḳōl) and word (dābhār) of God are forms under which His communion with man is conceived from the earliest days to the latest. The idea ranges from that of inarticulate utterance (1Ki 19:12) to the declaration of the entire law of conduct (Deu 5:22-24), to the message of the prophet (Isa 2:1; Jer 1:2), and the personification of the whole counsel and action of God (Psa 105:19; Psa 147:18, Psa 147:19; Hos 6:5; Isa 40:8).

(3) The Glory of God

The glory (kābhōdh) of God is both a peculiar physical phenomenon and the manifestation of God in His works and providence. In certain passages in Exodus, ascribed to the Priestly Code, the glory is a bright light, “like devouring fire” (Exo 24:17); it fills and consecrates the tabernacle (Exo 29:43; Exo 40:34, Exo 40:35); and it is reflected as beams of light in the face of Moses (Exo 34:29). In Ezekiel, it is a frequent term for the prophet’s vision, a brightness like the appearance of a rainbow (Eze 1:28; Eze 10:4; Eze 43:2). In another place, it is identified with all the manifested goodness of God and is accompanied with the proclamation of His name (Exo 33:17-23). Two passages in Isa seem to combine under this term the idea of a physical manifestation with that of God’s effectual presence in the world (Eze 3:8; Eze 6:3). God’s presence in creation and history is often expressed in the Psalms as His glory (Psa 19:1; Psa 57:5, Psa 57:11; Psa 63:2; Psa 97:6). Many scholars hold that the idea is found in Isa in its earliest form, and that the physical meaning is quite late. It would, however, be contrary to all analogy, if such phenomena as rainbow and lightning had not first impressed-the primitive mind as manifestations of God. See GLORY.

(4) The Angel of God

The angel (mal’ākh) of God or of Yahweh is a frequent mode of God’s manifestation of Himself in human form, and for occasional purposes. It is a primitive conception, and its exact relation to God, or its likeness to man, is nowhere fixed. In many passages, it is assumed that God and His angel are the same being, and the names are used synonymously (as in Gen 16:7; Gen 22:15, Gen 22:16; Exo 3:2, Exo 3:4; Jdg 2:4, Jdg 2:5); in other passages the idea blurs into varying degrees of differentiation (Gen 18; Gen 24:40; Exo 23:21; Exo 33:2, Exo 33:3; Jdg 13:8, Jdg 13:9). But everywhere, it fully represents God as speaking or acting for the time being; and it is to be distinguished from the subordinate and intermediate beings of later angelology. Its identification with the Messiah and the Logos is only true in the sense that these later terms are more definite expressions of the idea of revelation, which the angel represented for primitive thought.

(5) The Spirit of God

The spirit (rū^aḥ) of God in the earlier period is a form of His activity, as it moves warrior and prophet to act and to speak (Jdg 6:34; Jdg 13:25; 1Sa 10:10), and it is in the prophetic period that it becomes the organ of the communication of God’s thoughts to men. See HOLY SPIRIT.

(6) The Name of God

The name (shēm) of God is the most comprehensive and frequent expression in the Old Testament for His self-manifestation, for His person as it may be known to men. The name is something visible or audible which represents God to men, and which, therefore, may be said to do His deeds, and to stand in His place, in relation to men. God reveals Himself by making known or proclaiming His name (Exo 6:3; Exo 33:19; Exo 34:5, Exo 34:6). His servants derive their authority from His name (Exo 3:13, Exo 3:15; 1Sa 17:45). To worship God is to call upon His name (Gen 12:8; Gen 13:4; Gen 21:33; Gen 26:25; 1Ki 18:24-26), to fear it (Deu 28:58), to praise it (2Sa 22:50; Psa 7:17; Psa 54:6), to glorify it (Psa 86:9). It is wickedness to take God’s name in vain (Exo 20:7), or to profane and blaspheme it (Lev 8:21; Lev 24:16). God’s dwelling-place is the place where He chooses “to cause his name to dwell” (2Sa 7:13; 1Ki 3:2; 1Ki 5:3, 1Ki 5:5; 1Ki 8:16-19; 1Ki 18:32; Deu 12:11, Deu 12:21). God’s name defends His people (Psa 20:1; Isa 30:27). For His name’s sake He will not forsake them (1Sa 12:22), and if they perish, His name cannot remain (Jos 7:9). God is known by different names, as expressing various forms of His self-manifestation (Gen 16:13; Gen 17:1; Exo 3:6; Exo 34:6). The name even confers its revelation-value upon the angel (Exo 23:20-23). All God’s names are, therefore, significant for the revelation of His being.

(7) Occasional Forms

In addition to these more or less fixed forms, God also appears in a variety of exceptional or occasional forms. In Num 12:6-8, it is said that Moses, unlike others, used to see the form (t^emūnāh) of Yahweh. Fire smoke and cloud are frequent forms or symbols of God’s presence (e.g. Gen 15:17; Exo 3:2-4; Exo 19:18; Exo 24:17),and notably “the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night” (Exo 13:21 f). According to later ideas, the cloud rested upon the tabernacle (Exo 40:34), and in it God appeared upon the ark (Lev 16:2). Extraordinary occurrences or miracles are, in the early period, frequent signs of the power of God (Ex 7ff; 1 Ki 17ff).

The questions of the objectivity of any or all of these forms, and of their relation to the whole Divine essence raise large problems. Old Testament thought had advanced beyond the naïve identification of God with natural phenomena, but we should not read into its figurative language the metaphysical distinctions of a Greek-Christian theology.

3. The Names of God

All the names of God were originally significant of His character, but the derivations, and therefore the original meanings, of several have been lost, and new meanings have been sought for them.

(1) Generic

One of the oldest and most widely distributed terms for Deity known to the human race is ’Ēl, with its derivations ’Ēlı̄m, ’Ĕlōhı̄m, and ’Ĕlō^aȟ. Like theos, Deus and God, it is a generic term, including every member of the class deity. It may even denote a position of honor and authority among men. Moses was ’Ĕlōhı̄m to Pharaoh (Exo 7:1) and to Aaron (Exo 4:16; compare Jdg 5:8; 1Sa 2:25; Exo 21:5, Exo 21:6; Exo 22:7; Psa 58:11; Psa 82:1). It is, therefore, a general term expressing majesty and authority, and it only came to be used as a proper name for Israel’s God in the later period of abstract monotheism when the old proper name Yahweh was held to be too sacred to be uttered. The meaning of the root ’Ēl, and the exact relation to it, and to one another, of ’Ĕlōhı̄m and ’Ĕlō^ah, lie in complete obscurity. By far the most frequent form used by Old Testament writers is the plural ’Ĕlōhı̄m, but they use it regularly with singular verbs and adjectives to denote a singular idea. Several explanations have been offered of this usage of a plural term to denote a singular idea - that it expresses the fullness and manifoldness of the Divine nature, or that it is a plural of majesty used in the manner of royal persons, or even that it is an early intimation of the Trinity; other cognate expressions are found in Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22; 1Ki 22:19 f; Isa 6:8. These theories are, perhaps, too ingenious to have occurred to the early Hebrew mind, and a more likely explanation is, that they are survivals in language of a polytheistic stage of thought. In the Old Testament they signify only the general notion of Deity.

(2) Attributive

To distinguish the God of Israel as supreme from others of the class ’Ĕlōhı̄m, certain qualifying appellations are often added. ’Ēl ‛Elyōn designates the God of Israel as the highest, the most high, among the ’Ĕlōhı̄m (Gen 14:18-20); so do Yahweh ‛Elyōn (Psa 7:17) and ‛Elyōn alone, often in Psalms and in Isa 14:14.

’Ēl Shaddāy, or Shaddāy alone, is a similar term which on the strength of some tradition is translated “God Almighty”; but its derivation and meaning are quite unknown. According to Exo 6:3 it was the usual name for God in patriarchal times, but other traditions in the Pentateuch seem to have no knowledge of this.

Another way of designating God was by His relation to His worshippers, as God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 24:12; Exo 3:6), of Shem (Gen 9:26), of the Hebrews (Exo 3:18), and of Israel (Gen 33:20).

Other names used to express the power and majesty of God are cūr, “Rock” (Deu 32:18; Isa 30:29), ’ăbhı̄r (construct from ’ābhı̄r), “the Strong One” (Gen 49:24; Isa 1:24; Psa 132:2); melekh, “King”; ’ādhōn, “lord,” and ’ădhōnāy, “my lord” (Exo 23:17; Isa 10:16, Isa 10:33; Gen 18:27; Isa 6:1). Also ba‛al, “proprietor” or “master,” may be inferred as a designation once in use, from its appearance in such Hebrew proper names as Jerubbaal and Ishbaal. The last three names describe God as a Master to whom man stands in the relation of a servant, and they tended to fall into disuse as the necessity arose to differentiate the worship of Yahweh from that of the gods of surrounding nations.

A term of uncertain meaning is Yahweh or ’Ĕlōhı̄m c^ebhā’ōth, “Yahweh” or “God of hosts.” In Hebrew usage “host” might mean an army of men, or the stars and the angels - which, apart or in conjunction, made up the host of heaven. God of Hosts in early times meant the war god who led the armies of Israel (1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 7:8). In 1Sa 17:45 this title stands in parallelism with “the God of the armies of Israel.” So all Israel is called the host of Yahweh (Exo 12:41). In the Prophets, where the term has become a regular appellation, it stands in relation to every form of the power and majesty, physical and moral, of God (e.g. Isa 2:12; Isa 6:3, Isa 6:5; Isa 10:23, Isa 10:33). It stands in parallelism with Isaiah’s peculiar title, the Holy One of Israel (Isa 5:16, Isa 5:24). It has, therefore, been thought that it refers to the host of heaven. In the Prophets it is practically a proper name. Its original meaning may well have been forgotten or dropped, but it does not follow that a new special significance was attached to the word “hosts.” The general meaning of the whole term is well expressed by the Septuagint translation, kúrios pantokrátōr, “Lord Omnipotent.”

(3) Yahweh (Jehovah)

This is the personal proper name par excellence of Israel’s God, even as Chemosh was that of the god of Moab, and Dagon that of the god of the Philistines. The original meaning and derivation of the word are unknown. The variety of modern theories shows that, etymologically, several derivations are possible, but that the meanings attached to any one of them have to be imported and imposed upon the word. They add nothing to our knowledge. The Hebrews themselves connected the word with hāyāh, “to be.” In Exo 3:14 Yahweh is explained as equivalent to ’ehyeh, which is a short form of ’ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh, translated in the Revised Version (British and American) “I am that I am.” This has been supposed to mean “self-existence,” and to represent God as the Absolute. Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Hebrew mind at any time. And the imperfect ’ehyeh is more accurately translated “I will be what I will be,” a Semitic idiom meaning, “I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise,” a familiar Old Testament idea (compare Isa 7:4, Isa 7:9; Psa 23:1-6).

This name was in use from the earliest historical times till after the exile. It is found in the most ancient literature. According to Exo 3:13 f, and especially Exo 6:2, Exo 6:3, it was first introduced by Moses, and was the medium of a new revelation of the God of their fathers to the children of Israel. But in parts of Genesis it is represented as being in use from the earliest times. Theories that derive it from Egypt or Assyria, or that would connect it etymologically with Jove or Zeus, are supported by no evidence. We have to be content either to say that Yahweh was the tribal God of Israel from time immemorial, or to accept a theory that is practically identical with that of Exodus - that it was adopted through Moses from the Midianite tribe into which he married. The Kenites, the tribe of Midianites related to Moses, dwelt in the neighborhood of Sinai, and attached themselves to Israel (Jdg 1:16; Jdg 4:11). A few passages suggest that Sinai was the original home of Yahweh (Jdg 5:4, Jdg 5:5; Deu 33:2). But there is no direct evidence bearing upon the origin of the worship of Yahweh: to us He is known only as the God of Israel.

4. Pre-Prophetic Conceptions of Yahweh

(1) Yahweh Alone was the God of Israel

Hebrew theology consists essentially of the doctrine of Yahweh and its implications. The teachers and leaders of the people at all times worship and enjoin the worship of Yahweh alone. “It stands out as a prominent and incontrovertible fact, that down to the reign of Ahab ... no prominent man in Israel, with the doubtful exception of Solomon, known by name and held up for condemnation, worshipped any other god but Yahweh. In every national and tribal crisis, in all times of danger and of war, it is Yahweh and Yahweh alone who is invoked to give victory and deliverance” (Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures (3), 21). This is more evident in what is, without doubt, very early literature, even than in later writings (e.g. Jdg 5; Dt 33; 1 Sam 4 through 6). The isolation of the desert was more favorable to the integrity of Yahweh’s sole worship than the neighborhood of powerful peoples who worshipped many other gods. Yet that early religion of Yahweh can be called monotheistic only in the light of the end it realized, for in the course of its development it had to overcome many limitations.

(A) His Early Worship

The early worship of Yahweh did not exclude belief in the existence of other gods. As other nations believed in the existence of Yahweh (1Sa 4:8; 2Ki 17:27), so Israel did not doubt the reality of other gods (Jdg 11:24; Num 21:29; Mic 4:5). This limitation involved two others: Yahweh is the God of Israel only; with them alone He makes a COVENANT (which see) (Gen 15:18; Exo 6:4, Exo 6:5; 2Ki 17:34, 2Ki 17:35), and their worship only He seeks (Deu 4:32-37; Deu 32:9; Amo 3:2). Therefore, He works, and can be worshipped only within a certain geographical area. He may have been associated with His original home in Sinai long after the settlement in Canaan (Jdg 5:4; Deu 33:2; 1Ki 19:8, 1Ki 19:9), but gradually His home and that of His people became identical (1Sa 26:19; Hos 9:3; Isa 14:2, Isa 14:25). Even after the deportation of the ten tribes, Canaan remains Yahweh’s land (2Ki 17:24-28). Early Israelites are, therefore, more properly described as Monolatrists or Henotheists than as Monotheists. It is characteristic of the religion of Israel (in contrast with, e.g. Greek thought) that it arrived at absolute Monotheism along the line of moral and religious experience, rather than that of rational inference. Even while they shared the common Semitic belief in the reality of other gods, Yahweh alone had for them “the value of God.”

(B) Popular Religion

It is necessary to distinguish between the teaching of the religious leaders and the belief and practice of the people generally. The presence of a higher religion never wholly excludes superstitious practices. The use of Teraphim (Gen 31:30; 1Sa 19:13, 1Sa 19:16; Hos 3:4), Ephod (Jdg 18:17-20; 1Sa 23:6, 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7), Urim and Thummim (1Sa 28:6; 1Sa 14:40, Septuagint), for the purposes of magic and divination, to obtain oracles from Yahweh, was quite common in Israel. Necromancy was practiced early and late (1Sa 28:7; Isa 8:19; Deu 18:10. 11 ). Sorcery and witchcraft were not unknown, but were condemned by the religious leaders (1Sa 28:3). The burial places of ancestors were held in great veneration (Gen 35:20; Gen 50:13; Jos 24:30). But these facts do not prove that Hebrew religion was animistic and polytheistic, any more than similar phenomena in Christian lands would justify such an inference about Christianity.

(C) Polytheistic Tendencies

Yet the worship of Yahweh maintained and developed its monotheistic principle only by overcoming several hostile tendencies. The Baal-worship of the Canaanites and the cults of other neighboring tribes proved a strong attraction to the mass of Israelites (Jdg 2:13; Jdg 3:7; Jdg 8:33; Jdg 10:10; 1Sa 8:8; 1Sa 12:10; 1Ki 11:5, 1Ki 11:33; Hos 2:5, Hos 2:17; Ezek 20; Exo 20:5; Exo 22:20; Exo 34:16, Exo 34:17). Under the conditions of life in Canaan, the sole worship of Yahweh was in danger of modification by three tendencies, coördination, assimilation, and disintegration.

(i) Coordination

When the people had settled down in peaceful relations with their neighbors, and began to have commercial and diplomatic transactions with them, it was inevitable that they should render their neighbor’s gods some degree of reverence and worship. Courtesy and friendship demanded as much (compare 2Ki 5:18). When Solomon had contracted many foreign alliances by marriage, he was also bound to admit foreign worship into Jerusalem (1Ki 11:5). But Ahab was the first king who tried to set up the worship of Baal, side by side with that of Yahweh, as the national religion (1Ki 18:19). Elijah’s stand and Jehu’s revolution gave its death blow to Baal-worship and vindicated the sole right of Yahweh to Israel’s allegiance. The prophet was defending the old religion and Ahab was the innovator; but the conflict and its issue brought the monotheistic principle to a new and higher level. The supreme temptation and the choice transformed what had been a natural monolatry into a conscious and moral adherence to Yahweh alone (1Ki 18:21, 1Ki 18:39).

(ii) Assimilation

But to repudiate the name of Baal was not necessarily to be rid of the influence of Baal-worship. The ideas of the heathen religions survived in a more subtle way in the worship of Yahweh Himself. The change from the nomad life of the desert to the agricultural conditions of Canaan involved some change in religion. Yahweh, the God of flocks and wars, had to be recognized as the God of the vintage and the harvest. That this development occurred is manifest in the character of the great religious festivals. “Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep ... and the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors, which thou sowest in the field: and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when thou gatherest in thy labors out of the field” (Exo 23:14-16). The second and the third obviously, and the first probably, were agricultural feasts, which could have no meaning in the desert. Israel and Yahweh together took possession of Canaan. To doubt that would be to admit the claims of the Baal-worship; but to assert it also involved some danger, because it was to assert certain similarities between Yahweh and the Baalim. When those similarities were embodied in the national festivals, they loomed very large in the eyes and minds of the mass of the people (W.R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, 49-57). The danger was that Israel should regard Yahweh, like the Baals of the country, as a Nature-god, and, by local necessity, a national god, who gave His people the produce of the land and, protected them from their enemies, and in return received frown them such gifts and sacrifices as corresponded to His nature. From the appearance in Israel, and among Yahweh worshippers, of such names as Jerub-baal, Esh-baal (son of Saul) and Beeliada (son of David, 1Ch 14:7), it has been inferred that Yahweh was called Baal, and there is ample evidence that His worship was assimilated to that of the Canaanite Baalim. The bulls raised by Jeroboam (1Ki 12:26) were symbols of Yahweh, and in Judah the Canaanite worship was imitated down to the time of Asa (1Ki 14:22-24; 1Ki 15:12, 1Ki 15:13). Against this tendency above all, the great prophets of the 8th century contended. Israel worshipped Yahweh as if He were one of the Baalim, and Hosea calls it Baal-worship (Hos 2:8, Hos 2:12, Hos 2:13; compare Amo 2:8; Isa 1:10-15).

(iii) Disintegration

And where Yahweh was conceived as one of the Baalim or Masters of the land, He became, like them, subject to disintegration into a number of local deities. This was probably the gravamen of Jeroboam’s sin in the eyes of the “Deuteronomic” historian. In setting up separate sanctuaries, he divided the worship, and, in effect, the godhead of Yahweh. The localization and naturalization of Yahweh, as well as His assimilation to the Baals, all went together, so that we read that even in Judah the number of gods was according to its cities (Jer 2:28; Jer 11:13). The vindication of Yahweh’s moral supremacy and spiritual unity demanded, among other things, the unification of His worship in Jerusalem (2 Ki 23).

(D) No Hebrew Goddesses

In one respect the religion of Yahweh successfully resisted the influence of the heathen cults. At no time was Yahweh associated with a goddess. Although the corrupt sensual practices that formed a large part of heathen worship also entered into Israel’s worship (see ASHERAH), it never penetrated so far as to modify in this respect the idea of Yahweh.

(E) Human Sacrifices

It is a difficult question how far human sacrifices at any time found place in the worship of Yahweh. The outstanding instance is that of Jephthah’s daughter, which, though not condemned, is certainly regarded as exceptional (Jdg 11:30-40). Perhaps it is rightly regarded as a unique survival. Then the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, while reminiscent of an older practice, represents a more advanced view. Human sacrifice though not demanded, is not abhorrent to Yahweh (Gen 22). A further stage is represented where Ahaz’ sacrifice of his son is condemned as an “abomination of the nations” (2Ki 16:3). The sacrifice of children is emphatically condemned by the prophets as a late and foreign innovation which Yahweh had not commanded (Jer 7:31; Eze 16:20). Other cases, such as the execution of the chiefs of Shittim (Num 25:4), and of Saul’s sons “before Yahweh” (2Sa 21:9), and the ḥērem or ban, by which whole communities were devoted to destruction (Jdg 21:10; 1 Sam 15), while they show a very inadequate idea of the sacredness of human life, are not sacrifices, nor were they demanded by Yahweh’s worship. They were survivals of savage customs connected with tribal unity, which the higher morality of Yahweh’s religion had not yet abolished.

(2) The Nature and Character of Yahweh

The nature and character of Yahweh are manifested in His activities. The Old Testament makes no statements about the essence of God; we are left to infer it from His action in Nature and history and from His dealing with man.

(A) A God of War

In this period, His activity is predominantly martial. As Israel’s Deliverer from Egypt, “Yahweh is a man of war” (Exo 15:3). An ancient account of Israel’s journey to Canaan is called “the book of the Wars of Yahweh” (Num 21:14). By conquest in war He gave His people their land (Jdg 5; 2Sa 5:24; Deu 33:27). He is, therefore, more concerned with men and nations, with the moral, than with the physical world.

(B) His Relation to Nature

Even His activity in Nature is first connected with His martial character. Earth, stars and rivers come to His battle (Jdg 5:4, Jdg 5:20, Jdg 5:21). The forces of Nature do the bidding of Israel’s Deliverer from Egypt (Ex 8-10; Exo 14:21). He causes sun and moon to stand while He delivers up the Amorites (Jos 10:12). Later, He employs the forces of Nature to chastise His people for infidelity and sin (2Sa 24:15; 1Ki 17:1). Amos declares that His moral rule extends to other nations and that it determines their destinies. In harmony with this idea, great catastrophes like the Deluge (Gen 7) and the overthrow of the Cities of the Plain (Gen 19) are ascribed to His moral will. In the same pragmatic manner the oldest creation narrative describes Him creating man, and as much of the world as He needed (Gen 2), but as yet the idea of a universal cause had not emerged, because the idea of a universe had not been formed. He acts as one of great, but limited, power and knowledge (Gen 11:5-8; Gen 18:20). The more universal conception of Gen 1 belongs to the same stratum of thought as Second Isa. At every stage of the Old Testament the metaphysical perfections of Yahweh follow as an inference from His ethical preeminence.

(3) The Most Distinctive Characteristic of Yahweh

The most distinctive characteristic of Yahweh, which finally rendered Him and His religion absolutely unique, was the moral factor. In saying that Yahweh was a moral God, it is meant that He acted by free choice, in conformity with ends which He set to Himself, and which He also imposed upon His worshippers as their law of conduct.

(A) Personality

The most essential condition of a moral nature is found in His vivid personality, which at every stage of His self-revelation shines forth with an intensity that might be called aggressive. Divine personality and spirituality are never expressly asserted or defined in the Old Testament; but nowhere in the history of religion are they more clearly asserted. The modes of their expression are, however, qualified by anthropomorphisms, by limitations, moral and physical. Yahweh’s jealousy (Exo 20:5; Deu 5:9; Deu 6:15), His wrath and anger (Exo 32:10-12; Deu 7:4) and His inviolable holiness (Exo 19:21, Exo 19:22; 1Sa 6:19; 2Sa 6:7) appear sometimes to be irrational and immoral; but they are the assertion of His individual nature, of His self-consciousness as He distinguishes Himself from all else, in the moral language of the time, and are the conditions of His having any moral nature whatsoever. Likewise, He dwells in a place and moves from it (Jdg 5:5); men may see Him in visible form (Exo 24:10; Num 12:8); He is always represented as having organs like those of the human body, arms, hands, feet, mouth, eyes and ears. By such sensuous and figurative language alone was it possible for a personal God to make Himself known to men.

(B) Law and Judgment

The content of Yahweh’s moral nature as revealed in the Old Testament developed with the growth of moral ideas. Though His activity is most prominently martial, it is most permanently judicial, and is exercised through judges, priests and prophets. Ṭōrāh and mishpāṭ, “law” and “judgment,” from the time of Moses onward, stand, the one for a body of customs that should determine men’s relations to one another, and the other for the decision of individual cases in accordance with those customs, and both were regarded as issuing from Yahweh. The people came to Moses “to inquire of God” when they had a matter in dispute, and he “judged between a man and his neighbor, and made them know the statutes of God, and his laws” (Exo 18:15, Exo 18:16). The judges appear mostly as leaders in war; but it is clear, as their name indicates, that they also gave judgments as between the people (Jdg 3:10; Jdg 4:4; Jdg 10:2, Jdg 10:3; 1Sa 7:16). The earliest literary prophets assume the existence of a law which priest and prophet had neglected to administer rightly (Hos 4:6; Hos 8:1, Hos 8:12; Amo 2:4). This implied that Yahweh was thought of as actuated and acting by a consistent moral principle, which He also imposed on His people. Their morality may have varied much at different periods, but there is no reason to doubt that the Decalogue, and the moral teaching it involved, emanated substantially from Moses. “He taught them that Yahveh, if a stern, and often wrathful, Deity, was also a God of justice and purity. Linking the moral life to the religious idea, he may have taught them too that murder and theft, adultery and false witness, were abhorred and forbidden by their God” (Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures³, 49). The moral teaching of the Old Testament effected the transition from the national and collective to the individual and personal relation with Yahweh. The most fundamental defect of Hebrew morality was that its application was confined within Israel itself and did little to determine the relation of the Israelites to people of other nations; and this limitation was bound up with Henotheism, the idea that Yahweh was God of Israel alone. “The consequence of this national conception of Yahweh was that there was no religious and moral bond regulating the conduct of the Hebrews with men of other nations. Conduct which between fellow-Hebrews was offensive in Yahweh’s eyes was inoffensive when practiced by a Hebrew toward one who was not a Hebrew (Deu 23:19 f) ..... In the latter case they were governed purely by considerations of expediency. This ethical limitation is the real explanation of the ’spoiling of the Egyptians’” (Exo 11:2, Exo 11:3) (G. Buchanan Gray, The Divine Discipline of Israel, 46, 48).

The first line of advance in the teaching of the prophets was to expand and deepen the moral demands of Yahweh. So they removed at once the ethical and theological limitations of the earlier view. But they were conscious that they were only developing elements already latent in the character and law of Yahweh.

5. The Idea of God in the Prophetic Period

Two conditions called forth and determined the message of the 8th-century prophets - the degradation of morality and religion at home and the growing danger to Israel and Judah from the all-victorious Assyrian. With one voice the prophets declare and condemn the moral and social iniquity of Israel and Judah (Hos 4:1; Amo 4:1; Isa 1:21-23). The worship of Yahweh had been assimilated to the heathen religions around (Amo 2:8; Hos 3:1; Isa 30:22). A time of prosperity had produced luxury, license and an easy security, depending upon the external bonds and ceremonies of religion. In the threatening attitude of Assyria, the prophets see the complement of Israel’s unfaithfulness and sin, this the cause and that the instruments of Yahweh’s anger (Isa 10:5, Isa 10:6).

(1) Righteousness

These circumstances forced into first prominence the righteousness of Yahweh. It was an original attribute that had appeared even in His most martial acts (Jdg 5:4; 1Sa 12:7). But the prophet’s interpretation of Israel’s history revealed its content on a larger scale. Yahweh was not like the gods of the heathen, bound to the purposes and fortunes of His people. Their relation was not a natural bond, but a covenant of grace which He freely bestowed upon them, and He demanded as its condition, loyalty to Himself and obedience to His law. Impending calamities were not, as the naturalistic conception implied, due to the impotence of Yahweh against the Assyrian gods (Isa 31:1), but the judgment of God, whereby He applied impartially to the conduct of His people a standard of righteousness, which He both had in Himself and declared in judgment upon them. The prophets did not at first so much transform the idea of righteousness, as assert its application as between the people and Yahweh. But in doing that they also rejected the external views of its realization. It consists not in unlimited gifts or in the costliest oblations. “What doth Yahweh require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Mic 6:8). And it tends to become of universal application. Yahweh will deal as a righteous judge with all nations, including Israel, and Israel as the covenant people bears the greater responsibility (Am 1 through 3). And a righteous judge that metes out even justice to all nations will deal similarly with individuals. The ministry of the prophets produced a vivid consciousness of the personal and individual relation of men to God. The prophets themselves were not members of a class, no order or school or profession, but men impelled by an inner and individual call of God, often against their inclination, to proclaim an unpopular message (Amo 7:14, Amo 7:15; Isa 6:1-13; Jer 1:6-9; Eze 3:14). Jeremiah and Ezekiel in terms denounced the old idea of collective responsibility (Jer 31:29; Ezek 18). Thus in the prophets’ application of the idea of righteousness to their time, two of the limitations adhering to the idea of God, at least in popular religion hitherto, were transcended. Yahweh’s rule is no longer limited to Israel, nor concerned only with the nation as a collective whole, but He deals impartially with every individual and nation alike. Other limitations also disappear. His anger and wrath, that once appeared irrational and unjust, now become the intensity of His righteousness. Nor is it merely forensic and retributive righteousness. It is rather a moral end, a chief good, which He may realize by loving-kindness and mercy and forgiveness as much as by punishment. Hebrew thought knows no opposition between God’s righteousness and His goodness, between justice and mercy. The covenant of righteousness is like the relation of husband to wife, of father to child, one of loving-kindness and everlasting love (Hos 3:1; Hos 11:4; Isa 1:18; Isa 30:18; Mic 7:18; Isa 43:4; Isa 54:8; Jer 31:3, Jer 31:34; Jer 9:24). The stirring events which showed Yahweh’s independence of Israel revealed the fullness of grace that was always latent in His relation to His people (Gen 33:11; 2Sa 24:14). It was enshrined in the Decalogue (Exo 20:6), and proclaimed with incomparable grandeur in what may be the most ancient Mosaic tradition: “Yah, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exo 34:6, Exo 34:7).

(2) Holiness

The holiness of Yahweh in the Prophets came to have a meaning closely akin to His righteousness. As an idea more distinctly religious and more exclusively applied to God, it was subject to greater changes of meaning with the development or degradation of religion. It was applied to anything withdrawn from common use to the service of religion - utensils, places, seasons, animals and men. Originally it was so far from the moral meaning it now has that it was used of the “sacred” prostitutes who ministered to the licentiousness of Canaanitish worship (Deu 23:18). Whether or not the root-idea of the word was “separateness,” there is no doubt that it is applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament to express his separateness from men and his sublimity above them. It was not always a moral quality in Yahweh; for He might be unapproachable because of His mere power and terror (1Sa 6:20; Isa 8:13). But in the Prophets, and especially in Isa, it acquires a distinctly moral meaning. In his vision Isaiah hears Yahweh proclaimed as “holy, holy, holy,” and he is filled with the sense of his own sin and of that of Israel (Isa 6:1-13; compare Isa 1:4; Amo 2:7). But even here the term conveys more than moral perfection. Yahweh is already “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy” (Isa 57:15). It expresses the full Divinity of Yahweh in His uniqueness and self-existence (1Sa 2:2; Amo 4:2; Hos 11:9). It would therefore seem to stand in antithesis to righteousness, as expressing those qualities of God, metaphysical and moral, by which He is distinguished and separated from men, while righteousness involves those moral activities and relations which man may share with God. But in the Prophets, God’s entire being is moral and His whole activity is righteous. The meanings of the terms, though not identical, coincide; God’s holiness is realized in righteousness. “God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness” (Isa 5:16). So Isaiah’s peculiar phrase, “the Holy One of Israel,” brings God in His most exalted being into a relation of knowledge and moral reciprocity with Israel.

(3) Universality

The moralizing of righteousness and holiness universalized Deity. - From Amos downward Yahweh’s moral rule, and therefore His absolute power, were recognized as extending over all the nations surrounding Israel, and the great world-power of Assyria is but the rod of His anger and the instrument of His righteousness (Am 1 through 2; Isa 10:5; Isa 13:5; Isa 19:1). Idolatrous and polytheistic worship of all kinds are condemned. The full inference of Monotheism was only a gradual process, even with the prophets. It is not clear that the 8th-century prophets all denied the existence of other gods, though Isaiah’s term for them, ’ĕlı̄lı̄m (“things of nought,” “no-gods”), points in that direction. At least the monotheistic process had set in. And Yahweh’s control over other nations was not exercised merely from Israel’s point of view. The issue of the judgment upon the two great powers of Egypt and Assyria was to be their conversion to the religion of Yahweh (Isa 19:24, Isa 19:25; compare Isa 2:2-4 = Mic 4:1-3). Yet Hebrew universalism never went beyond the idea that all nations should find their share in Yahweh through Israel (Zec 8:23). The nations from the ends of the earth shall come to Yahweh and declare that their fathers’ gods were “lies, even vanity and things wherein there is no profit” (Jer 16:19). It is stated categorically that “Yahweh he is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else” (Deu 4:39).

(4) Unity

The unity of God was the leading idea of Josiah’s reformation. Jerusalem was cleansed of every accretion of Baal-worship and of other heathen religions that had established themselves by the side of the worship of Yahweh (2Ki 23:4-8, 2Ki 23:10-14). The semi-heathen worship of Yahweh in many local shrines, which tended to disintegrate His unity, was swept away (2Ki 23:8, 2Ki 23:9). The reform was extended to the Northern Kingdom (2Ki 23:15-20), so that Jerusalem should be the sole habitation of Yahweh on earth, and His worship there alone should be the symbol of unity to the whole Hebrew race.

But the monotheistic doctrine is first fully and consciously stated in Second Isa. There is no God but Yahweh: other gods are merely graven images, and their worshippers commit the absurdity of worshipping the work of their own hands (Isa 42:8; Isa 44:8-20). Yahweh manifests His deity in His absolute sovereignty of the world, both of Nature and history. The prophet had seen the rise and fall of Assyria, the coming of Cyrus, the deportation and return of Judah’s exiles, as incidents in the training of Israel for her world-mission to be “a light of the Gentiles” and Yahweh’s “salvation unto the end of the earth” (Isa 42:1-7; Isa 49:1-6). Israel’s world-mission, and the ordering of historical movements to the grand final purpose of universal salvation (Isa 45:23), is the philosophy of history complementary to the doctrine of God’s unity and universal sovereignty.

(5) Creator and Lord

A further inference is that He is Creator and Lord of the physical universe. Israel’s call and mission is from Yahweh who “created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein” (Isa 42:5; compare Isa 40:12, Isa 40:26; Isa 44:24; Isa 45:18; Gen 1). All the essential factors of Monotheism are here at last exhibited, not in abstract metaphysical terms, but as practical motives of religious life. His counsel and action are His own (Isa 40:13) Nothing is hid from Him; and the future like the past is known to Him (Isa 40:27; Isa 42:9; Isa 44:8; Isa 48:6). Notwithstanding His special association with the temple in Jerusalem, He is “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity”; the heaven is His throne, and no house or place can contain Him (Isa 57:15; Isa 66:1). No force of history or Nature can withstand His purpose (Isa 41:17-20; Isa 42:13; Isa 43:13). He is “the First and the Last,” an “Everlasting God” (Isa 40:28; Isa 41:4; Isa 48:12). Nothing can be likened to Him or compared with Him (Isa 46:5). As the heavens are higher than the earth, so His thoughts and ways transcend those of men (Isa 55:8, Isa 55:9). But anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions still abound. Eyes, mouth, ears, nostrils, hands, arms and face are His; He is a man of war (Isa 42:13; Isa 63:1); He cries like a travailing woman (Isa 42:14), and feeds His flock like a shepherd (Isa 40:11). Thus, alone could the prophet express His full concrete Divinity.

(6) His Compassion and Love

His compassion and love are expressed in a variety of ways that lead up directly to the new testament doctrine of divine fatherhood. He folds Israel in his arms as a shepherd his lambs (Isa 40:11). Her scattered children are his sons and daughters whom he redeems and restores (Isa 43:5-7). In wrath for a moment he hides his face, but his mercy and kindness are everlasting (Isa 54:8). Greater than a mother’s tenderness is Yahweh’s love for Israel (Isa 49:15; Isa 66:13). “It would be easy to find in the prophet proof-texts for everything which theology asserts regarding God, with the exception perhaps that he is a spirit, by which is meant that he is a particular kind of substance” (A.B. Davidson in Skinner, Isa, ii, xxix). But in truth the spirituality and personality of God are more adequately expressed in the living human language of the prophet than in the dead abstractions of metaphysics

6. Idea of God in Post-Exilic Judaism

Monotheism appears in this period as established beyond question, and in the double sense that Yahweh the God of Israel is one Being, and that beside Him there is no other God. He alone is God of all the earth, and all other beings stand at an infinite distance from Him (Psa 18:31; Psa 24:1; Psa 115:3). The generic name God is frequently applied to Him, and the tendency appears to avoid the particular and proper name Yahweh (see especially Psalms 73 through 89; Job; Ecclesiastes).

(1) New Conditions

Nothing essentially new appears, but the teaching of the prophets is developed under new influences. And what then was enforced by the few has now become the creed of the many. The teaching of the prophets had been enforced by the experiences of the exile. Israel had been punished for her sins of idolatry, and the faithful among the exiles had learned that Yahweh’s rule extended over many lands and nations. The foreign influences had been more favorable to Monotheism. The gods of Canaan and even of Assyria and Babylonia had been overthrown, and their peoples had given place to the Persians, who, in the religion of Zarathushtra, had advanced nearer to a pure Monotheism than any Gentile race had done; for although they posited two principles of being, the Good and the Evil, they worshipped only Ahura-Mazda, the Good. When Persia gave way to Greece, the more cultured Greek, the Greek who had ideas to disseminate, and who established schools at Antioch or Alexandria, was a pure Monotheist.

(2) Divine Attributes

Although we do not yet find anything like a dogmatic account of God’s attributes, the larger outlook upon the universe and the deeper reflection upon man’s individual experience have produced more comprehensive and far-reaching ideas of God’s being and activity. (a) Faith rests upon His eternity and unchangeablehess (Psa 90:1, Psa 90:2; Psa 102:27). His omniscience and omnipresence are expressed with every possible fullness (Ps 139; Job 26:6). His almighty power is at once the confidence of piety, and the rebuke of blasphemy or frowardness (Psa 74:12-17; 104 et passim; Job 36; 37 et passim; Ecclesiasticus 16:17ff). (b) His most exalted and comprehensive attribute is His holiness; by it He swears as by Himself (Psa 89:35); it expresses His majesty (Psa 99:3, Psa 99:1.9) and His supreme power (Psa 60:6). (c) His righteousness marks all His acts in relation to Israel and the nations around her (Psa 119:137-144; Psa 129:4). (d) That both holiness and righteousness were conceived as moral qualities is reflected in the profound sense of sin which the pious knew (Ps 51) and revealed in the moral demands associated with them; truth, honesty and fidelity are the qualities of those who shall dwell in God’s holy hill (Psa 15:1-5); purity, diligence, kindliness, honesty, humility and wisdom are the marks of the righteous man (Prov 10 through 11). (e) In Job and Proverbs wisdom stands forth as the preëminent quality of the ideal man, combining in itself all moral and intellectual excellences, and wisdom comes from God (Pro 2:6); it is a quality of His nature (Pro 8:22) and a mode of His activity (Pro 3:19; Psa 104:24). In the Hellenistic circles of Alexandria, wisdom was transformed into a philosophical conception, which is at once the principle of God’s sell-revelation and of His creative activity. Philo identifies it with His master-conception, the Logos. “Both Logos and Wisdom mean for Him the reason and mind of God, His image impressed upon the universe, His agent of creation and providence, the mediator through which He communicates Himself to man and the world, and His law imposed upon both the moral and physical universe” (Mansfield Essays, 296). In the Book of Wisdom it is represented as proceeding from God, “a breath of the power of God, and a clear effulgence of the glory of the Almighty ... an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (Pro 7:25, Pro 7:26). In man, it is the author of knowledge, virtue and piety, and in the world it has been the guide and arbiter of its destiny from the beginning (chapters 10 through 12). (f) But in the more purely Hebrew literature of this period, the moral attribute of God that comes into greatest prominence is His beneficence. Goodness and mercy, faithfulness and loving-kindness, forgiveness and redemption are His willing gifts to Israel. “Like as a father pitieth his children, so Yahweh pitieth them that fear him” (Psa 103:13; Psa 145:8; Psa 103:8; Ecclesiasticus 2:11 ). To say that God is loving and like a father goes far on the way to the doctrine that He is Love and Father, but not the whole way; for as yet His mercy and grace are manifested only in individual acts, and they are not the natural and necessary outflow of His nature. All these ideas of God meant less for the Jewish than for the Christian mind, because they were yet held subject to several limitations.

(3) Surviving Limitations

(A) Disappearing Anthropomorphism

We have evidence of a changed attitude toward anthropomorphisms. God no longer walks on earth, or works under human limitation. Where His eyes or ears or face or hands are spoken of, they are clearly figurative expressions. His activities are universal and invisible, and He dwells on high forevermore. Yet anthropomorphic limitations are not wholly overcome. The idea that He sleeps, though not to be taken literally, implies a defect of His power (Psa 44:23).

(B) Localization

In the metaphysical attributes, the chief limitation was the idea that God’s dwelling-place on earth was on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. He was no longer confined within Palestine; His throne is in heaven (Psa 11:4; Psa 103:19), and His glory above the heavens (Psa 113:4); but

“In Judah is God known:

His name is great in Israel.

In Salem also is his tabernacle,

And his dwelling-place in Zion” (Psa 76:1, Psa 76:2; Psa 110:2; compare Ecclesiasticus 24:8ff).

That these are no figures of speech is manifested in the yearning of the pious for the temple, and their despair in separation from it (Psa 42:1-11; Psa 43:1-5; compare 122).

(C) Favoritism

This involved a moral limitation, the sense of God’s favoritism toward Israel, which sometimes developed into an easy self-righteousness that had no moral basis. God’s action in the world was determined by His favor toward Israel, and His loving acts were confined within the bounds of a narrow nationalism. Other nations are wicked and sinners, adversaries and oppressors, upon whom God is called to execute savage vengeance (Ps 109; Psa 137:7-9). Yet Israel did not wholly forget that it was the servant of Yahweh to proclaim His name among the nations (Psa 96:2, Psa 96:3; Psa 117:1-2). Yahweh is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works (Psa 145:9; Ecclesiasticus 18:13; compare Psa 104:14; Zec 14:16, and the Book of Jonah, which is a rebuke to Jewish particularism).

(D) Ceremonial Legalism

God’s holiness in the hands of the priests tended to become a material and formal quality, which fulfilled itself in established ceremonial, and His righteousness in the hands of the scribes tended to become an external law whose demands were satisfied by a mechanical obedience of works. This external conception of righteousness reacted upon the conception of God’s government of the world. From the earliest times the Hebrew mind had associated suffering with the punishment of sin, and blessedness with the reward of virtue. In the post-exilic age the relation came to be thought of as one of strict correspondence between righteousness and reward and between sin and punishment. Righteousness, both in man and God, was not so much a moral state as a measurable sum of acts, in the one case, of obedience, and in the other, of reward or retribution. Conversely, every calamity and evil that befell men came to be regarded as the direct and equivalent penalty of a sin they had committed. The Book of Job is a somewhat inconclusive protest against this prevalent view.

These were the tendencies that ultimately matured into the narrow externalism of the scribes and Pharisees of our Lord’s time, which had substituted for the personal knowledge and service of God a system of mechanical acts of worship and conduct.

(4) Tendencies to Abstractness

Behind these defective ideas of God’s attributes stood a more radical defect of the whole religious conception. The purification of the religion of Israel from Polytheism and idolatry, the affirmation of the unity of God and of His spirituality, required His complete separation from the manifoldness of visible existence. It was the only way, until the more adequate idea of a personal or spiritual unity, that embraced the manifold in itself, was developed. But it was an unstable conception, which tended on the one hand to empty the unity of all reality, and on the other to replace it by a new multiplicity which was not a unity. Both tendencies appear in post-exilic Judaism.

(A) Transcendence

The first effect of distinguishing too sharply between God and all created being was to set Him above and apart from all the world. This tendency had already appeared in Ezekiel, whose visions were rather symbols of God’s presence than actual experiences of God. In Daniel even the visions appear only in dreams. The growth of the Canon of sacred literature as the final record of the law of God, and the rise of the scribes as its professional interpreters, signified that God need not, and would not, speak face to face with man again; and the stricter organization of the priesthood and its sacrificial acts in Jerusalem tended to shut men generally out from access to God, and to reduce worship into a mechanical performance. A symptom of this fact was the disuse of the personal name Yahweh and the substitution for it of more general and abstract terms like God and Lord.

(B) Skepticism

Not only an exaggerated awe, but also an element of skepticism, entered into the disuse of the proper name, a sense of the inadequacy of any name. In the Wisdom literature, God’s incomprehensibility and remoteness appear for the first time as a conscious search after Him and a difficulty to find Him (Job 16:18-21; Job 23:3, Job 23:8, Job 23:9; Pro 30:2-4). Even the doctrine of immortality developed with the sense of God’s present remoteness and the hope of His future nearness (Psa 17:15; Job 19:25). But Jewish theology was no cold Epicureanism or rationalistic Deism. Men’s religious experiences apprehended God more intimately than their theology professed.

(C) Immanence

By a “happy inconsistency” (Montefiore) they affirmed His immanence both in Nature (Ps 104; The Wisdom of Solomon 8:1; 12:1, 2) and in man’s inner experience (Pro 15:3, Pro 15:11; 1Ch 28:9; 1Ch 29:17, 1Ch 29:18). Yet that transcendence was the dominating thought is manifest, most of all, in the formulation of a number of mediating conceptions, which, while they connected God and the world, also revealed the gulf that separated them.

(5) Logos, Memra’ (Mēm^erā’) and Angels

This process of abstraction had gone farthest in Alexandria, where Jewish thought had so far assimilated Platonic philosophy, that Philo and Wisdom conceive God as pure being who could not Himself come into any contact with the material and created world. His action and revelation are therefore mediated by His Powers, His Logos and His Wisdom, which, as personified or hypostatized attributes, become His vicegerents on earth. But in Palestine, too many mediating agencies grew up between God and man. The memra’, or word of God, was not unlike Philo’s Logos. The deified law partly corresponded to Alexandrian Wisdom. The Messiah had already appeared in the Prophets, and now in some circles He was expected as the mediator of God’s special favor to Israel. The most important and significant innovation in this connection was the doctrine of angels. It was not entirely new, and Babylonian and Persian influences may have contributed to its development; but its chief cause lay in the general scheme of thought. Angels became intermediaries of revelation (Zec 1:9, Zec 1:12, Zec 1:19; Zec 3:1), the instruments of God’s help (Dan 3:28; 2 Macc 11:6), and of His punishment (Apoc Baruch 21:23). The ancient gods of the nations became their patron angels (Dan 10:13-20); but Israel’s hatred of their Gentile enemies often led to their transforming the latter’s deities into demons. Incidentally a temporary solution of the problem of evil was thus found, by shifting all responsibility for evil from Yahweh to the demons. The unity and supremacy of God were maintained by the doubtful method of delegating His manifold, and especially His contradictory, activities to subordinate and partially to hostile spirits, which involved a new Polytheism. The problem of the One and the Many in ultimate reality cannot be solved by merely separating them. Hebrew Monotheism was unstable; it maintained its own truth even partially by affirming contradictories, and it contained in itself the demand for a further development. The few pluralistic phrases in the Old Testament (as Gen 1:26; Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7; Isa 6:8, and ’Ĕlōhı̄m) are not adumbrations of the Trinity, but only philological survivals. But the Messianic hope was an open confession of the incompleteness of the Old Testament revelation of God.

III. The Idea of God in the New Testament

1. Dependence on the Old Testament

The whole of the New Testament presupposes and rests upon the Old Testament. Jesus Christ and His disciples inherited the idea of God revealed in the Old Testament, as it survived in the purer strata of Jewish religion. So much was it to them and their contemporaries a matter of course, that it never occurred to them to proclaim or enforce the idea of God. Nor did they consciously feel the need of amending or changing it. They sought to correct some fallacious deductions made by later Judaism, and, unconsciously, they dropped the cruder anthropomorphisms and limitations of the Old Testament idea. But their point of departure was always the higher teaching of the prophets and Psalms, and their conscious endeavor in presenting God to men was to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (Mat 5:17). All the worthier ideas concerning God evolved in the Old Testament reappear in the New Testament. He is One, supreme, living, personal and spiritual, holy, righteous and merciful. His power and knowledge are all-sufficient, and He is not limited in time or place. Nor can it be said that any distinctly new attributes are ascribed to God in the New Testament. Yet there is a difference. The conception and all its factors are placed in a new relation to man and the universe, whereby their meaning is transformed, enhanced and enriched. The last trace of particularism, with its tendency to Polytheism, disappears. God can no longer bear a proper name to associate Him with Israel, or to distinguish Him from other gods, for He is the God of all the earth, who is no respecter of persons or nations. Two new elements entered men’s religious thought and gradually lifted its whole content to a new plane - Jesus Christ’s experience and manifestation of the Divine Fatherhood, and the growing conviction of the church that Christ Himself was God and the full and final revelation of God.

2. Gentile Influence

Gr thought may also have influenced New Testament thought, but in a comparatively insignificant and subordinate way. Its content was not taken over bodily as was that of Hebrew thought, and it did not influence the fountain head of New Testament ideas. It did not color the mind and teaching of Jesus Christ. It affected the form rather than matter of New Testament teaching. It appears in the clear-cut distinction between flesh and spirit, mind and body, which emerges in Paul’s Epistles, and so it helped to define more accurately the spirituality of God. The idea of the Logos in John, and the kindred idea of Christ as the image of God in Paul and Hebrews, owe something to the influence of the Platonic and Stoic schools. As this is the constructive concept employed in the New Testament to define the religious significance of Christ and His essential relation to God, it modifies the idea of God itself, by introducing a distinction within the unity into its innermost meaning.

3. Absence of Theistic Proofs

Philosophy never appears in the New Testament on its own account, but only as subservient to Christian experience. In the New Testament as in the Old Testament, the existence of God is taken for granted as the universal basis of all life and thought. Only in three passages of Paul’s, addressed to heathen audiences, do we find anything approaching a natural theology, and these are concerned rather with defining the nature of God, than with proving His existence. When the people of Lystra would have worshipped Paul and Barnabas as heathen gods, the apostle protests that God is not like men, and bases His majesty upon His creatorship of all things (Act 14:15). He urges the same argument at Athens, and appeals for its confirmation to the evidences of man’s need of God which he had found in Athens itself (Act 17:23-31). The same natural witness of the soul, face to face with the universe, is again in Romans made the ground of universal responsibility to God (Act 1:18-21). No formal proof of God’s existence is offered in the New Testament. Nor are the metaphysical attributes of God, His infinity, omnipotence and omniscience, as defined in systematic theology, at all set forth in the New Testament. The ground for these deductions is provided in the religious experience that finds God in Christ all-sufficient.

4. Fatherhood of God

The fundamental and central idea about God in New Testament teaching is His Fatherhood, and it determines all that follows. In some sense the idea was not unknown to heathen religions. Greeks and Romans acknowledged Father Zeus or Jupiter as the creator and preserver of Nature, and as standing in some special relation to men. In the Old Testament the idea appears frequently, and has a richer content. Not only is God the creator and preserver of Israel, but He deals with her as a father with his child. “Like as a father pitieth his children, so Yahweh pitieth them that fear Him” (Psa 103:13; compare Deu 1:31; 6; Jer 3:4, Jer 3:19; Jer 31:20; Isa 63:16; Hos 11:1; Mal 3:17). Even His chastisements are “as a man chasteneth his son” (Deu 8:5; Isa 64:8). The same idea is expressed under the figure of a mother’s tender care (Isa 49:15; Isa 66:13; Psa 27:10), and it is embedded in the covenant relation. But in the Old Testament the idea does not occupy the central and determinative position it has in New Testament, and it is always limited to Israel.

(1) In the Teaching of Jesus Christ

God is preëminently the Father. It is his customary term for the Supreme Being, and it is noteworthy that Jesus’ usage has never been quite naturalized. We still say “God” where Jesus would have said “the Father.” He meant that the essential nature of God, and His relation to men, is best expressed by the attitude and relation of a father to his children; but God is Father in an infinitely higher and more perfect degree than any man. He is “good” and “perfect,” the heavenly Father, in contrast with men, who, even as fathers, are evil (Mat 5:48; Mat 7:11). What in them is an ideal imperfectly and intermittently realized, is in Him completely fulfilled. Christ thought not of the physical relation of origin and derivation, but of the personal relation of love and care which a father bestows upon his children. The former relation is indeed implied, for the Father is ever working in the world (Joh 5:17), and all things lie in His power (Luk 22:42). By His preserving power, the least as well as the greatest creature lives (Mat 6:26; Mat 10:29). But it is not the fact of God’s creative, preserving and governing power, so much as the manner of it, that Christ emphasizes. He is absolutely good in all His actions and relations (Mat 7:11; Mar 10:18). To Him men and beasts turn for all they need, and in Him they find safety, rest and peace (Mat 6:26, Mat 6:32; Mat 7:11). His goodness goes forth spontaneously and alights upon all living things, even upon the unjust and His enemies (Mat 5:45). He rewards the obedient (Mat 6:1; Mat 7:21), forgives the disobedient (Mat 6:14; compare Mat 18:35) and restores the prodigal (Luk 15:11). “Fatherhood is love, original and underived, anticipating and undeserved, forgiving and educating, communicating and drawing to his heart” (Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, I, 82). To the Father, therefore, should men pray for all good things (Mat 6:9), and He is the ideal of all perfection, to which they should seek to attain (Mat 5:48). Such is the general character of God as expressed in His Fatherhood, but it is realized in different ways by those who stand. to Him in different relations.

(A) Its Relation to Himself

Jesus Christ knows the Father as no one else does, and is related to Him in a unique manner. The idea is central in His teaching, because the fact is fundamental in His experience. On His first personal appearance in history He declares that He must be about His Father’s business (Luk 2:49), and at the last He commends His spirit into His Father’s hands. Throughout His life, His filial consciousness is perfect and unbroken. “I and the Father are one” (Joh 10:30). As He knows the Father, so the Father knows and acknowledges Him. At the opening of His ministry, and again at its climax in the transfiguration, the Father bears witness to His perfect sonship (Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7). It was a relation of mutual love and confidence, unalloyed and infinite. “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand” (Joh 3:35; Joh 5:20). The Father sent the Son into the world, and entrusted Him with his message and power (Mat 11:27). He gave Him those who believed in Him, to receive His word (Joh 6:37, Joh 6:44, Joh 6:45; Joh 17:6, Joh 17:8). He does the works and speaks the words of the Father who sent Him (Joh 5:36; Joh 8:18, Joh 8:29; Joh 14:24). His dependence upon the Father, and His trust in Him are equally complete (Joh 11:41; Joh 12:27 f; 17). In this perfect union of Christ. with God, unclouded by sin, unbroken by infidelity, God first became for a human life on earth all that He could and would become. Christ’s filial consciousness was in fact and experience the full and final revelation of God. “No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him” (Mat 11:27). Not only can we see in Christ what perfect sonship is, but in His filial consciousness the Father Himself is so completely reflected that we may know the perfect Father also. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (Joh 14:9; compare Joh 8:19). Nay, it is more than a reflection: so completely is the mind and will of Christ identified with that of the Father, that they interpenetrate, and the words and works of the Father shine out through Christ. “The words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (Joh 14:10, Joh 14:11). As the Father, so is the Son, for men to honor or to hate (Joh 5:23; Joh 15:23). In the last day, when He comes to execute the judgment which the Father has entrusted to Him, He shall come in the glory of the Father (Mat 16:27; Mar 8:38; Luk 9:26). In all this Jesus is aware that His relation to the Father is unique. What in Him is original and realized, in others can only be an ideal to be gradually realized by His communication. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me” (Joh 14:6). He is, therefore, rightly called the “only begotten son” (Joh 3:16), and His contemporaries believed that He made Himself equal to God (Joh 5:18).

(B) To Believers

Through Christ, His disciples and hearers, too, may know God as their Father. He speaks of “your Father,” “your heavenly Father.” To them as individuals, it means a personal relation; He is “thy Father” (Mat 6:4, Mat 6:18). Their whole conduct should be determined by the consciousness of the Father’s intimate presence (Mat 6:1, Mat 6:4). To do His will is the ideal of life (Mat 7:21; Mat 12:50). More explicitly, it is to act as He does, to love and forgive as He loves and forgives (Mat 5:45); and, finally, to be perfect as He is perfect (Mat 5:48). Thus do men become sons of their Father who is in heaven. Their peace and safety lay in their knowledge of His constant and all-sufficient care (Mat 6:26, Mat 6:32). The ultimate goal of men’s relation to Christ is that through Him they should come to a relation with the Father like His relation both to the Father and to them, wherein Father, Son, and believers form a social unity (Joh 14:21; Joh 17:23; compare Joh 17:21).

(C) To All Men

While God’s fatherhood is thus realized and revealed, originally and fully in Christ, derivatively and partially in believers, it also has significance for all men. Every man is born a child of God and heir of His kingdom (Luk 18:16). During childhood, aIl men are objects of His fatherly love and care (Mat 18:10), and it is not His will that one of them should perish (Mat 18:14). Even if they become His enemies, He still bestows His beneficence upon the evil and the unjust (Mat 5:44, Mat 5:45; Luk 6:35). The prodigal son may become unworthy to be called a son, but the father always remains a father. Men may become so far unfaithful that in them the fatherhood is no longer manifest and that their inner spirits own not God, but the devil, as their father (Joh 8:42-44). So their filial relation to God may be broken, but His nature and attitude are not changed. He is the Father absolutely, and as Father is He perfect (Mat 5:48). The essential and universal Divine Fatherhood finds its eternal and continual object in the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. As a relation with men, it is qualified by their attitude to God; while some by faithlessness make it of no avail, others by obedience become in the reality of their experience sons of their Father in heaven. See CHILDREN OF GOD.

(2) In Apostolic Teaching

In the apostolic teaching , although the Fatherhood of God is not so prominently or so abundantly exhibited as it was by Jesus Christ, it lies at the root of the whole system of salvation there presented. Paul’s central doctrine of justification by faith is but the scholastic form of the parable of the Prodigal Son. John’s one idea, that God is love, is but an abstract statement of His fatherhood. In complete accord with Christ’s teaching, that only through Himself men know the Father and come to Him, the whole apostolic system of grace is mediated through Christ the Son of God, sent because “God so loved the world” (Joh 3:16), that through His death men might be reconciled to God (Rom 5:10; Rom 8:3). He speaks to men through the Son who is the effulgence of His glory, and the very image of His substance (Heb 1:2, Heb 1:3). The central position assigned to Christ involves the central position of the Fatherhood.

As in the teaching of Jesus, so in that of the apostles, we distinguish three different relationships in which the fatherhood is realized in varying degrees:

(A) Father of Jesus Christ

Primarily He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 15:6; 2Co 1:3). As such He is the source of every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Eph 1:3). Through Christ we have access unto the Father (Eph 2:18).

(B) Our Father

He is, therefore, God our Father (Rom 1:7; 1Co 1:3). Believers are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:26). “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” (Rom 8:14). These receive the spirit of adoption whereby they cry, Abba, Father (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). The figure of adoption has sometimes been understood as implying the denial of man’s natural sonship and God’s essential Fatherhood, but that would be pressing the figure beyond Paul’s purpose.

(C) Universal Father

The apostles’ teaching, like Christ’s, is that man in sin cannot possess the filial consciousness or know God as Father; but God, in His attitude to man, is always and essentially Father. In the sense of creaturehood and dependence, man in any condition is a son of God (Act 17:28). And to speak of any other natural sonship which is not also morally realized is meaningless. From God’s standpoint, man even in his sin is a possible son, in the personal and moral sense; and the whole process and power of his awakening to the realization of his sonship issues from the fatherly love of God, who sent His Son and gave the Spirit (Rom 5:5, Rom 5:8). He is “the Father” absolutely, “one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ” (Eph 4:6, Eph 4:7).

5. God Is King

After the Divine Fatherhood, the kingdom of God (Mark and Luke) or of heaven (Matthew) is the next ruling conception in the teaching of Jesus. As the doctrine of the Fatherhood sets forth the individual relation of men to God, that of the kingdom defines their collective and social condition, as determined by the rule of the Father.

(1) The Kingdom of God

Christ adopted and transformed the Old Testament idea of Yahweh’s rule into an inner and spiritual principle of His gospel, without, however, quite detaching it from the external and apocalyptic thought of His time. He adopts the Jewish idea in so far as it involves the enforcing of God’s rule; and in the immediate future He anticipates such a reorganization of social conditions in the manifestation of God’s reign over men and Nature, as will ultimately amount to a regeneration of all things in accordance with the will of God (Mar 9:1; Mar 13:30; Mat 16:28; Mat 19:28). But He eliminated the particularism and favoritism toward the Jews, as well as the non-moral, easy optimism as to their destiny in the kingdom, which obtained in contemporary thought. The blessings of the kingdom are moral and spiritual in their nature, and the conditions of entrance into it are moral too (Mat 8:11; Mat 21:31, Mat 21:43; Mat 23:37, Mat 23:38; Luk 13:29). They are humility, hunger and thirst after righteousness, and the love of mercy, purity and peace (Mat 5:3-10; Mat 18:1, Mat 18:3; compare Mat 20:26-28; Mat 25:34; Mat 7:21; Joh 3:3; Luk 17:20, Luk 17:21). The king of such a kingdom is, therefore, righteous, loving and gracious toward all men; He governs by the inner communion of spirit with spirit and by the loving coördination of the will of His subjects with his own will.

(2) Its King

But who is the king?

(A) God

Generally in Mk and Lk, and sometimes in Matthew, it is called the kingdom of God. In several parables, the Father takes the place of king, and it is the Father that gives the kingdom (Luk 12:32). God the Father is therefore the King, and we are entitled to argue from Jesus’ teaching concerning the kingdom to His idea of God. The will of God is the law of the kingdom, and the ideal of the kingdom is, therefore, the character of God.

(B) Christ

But in some passages Christ reveals the consciousness of his own Kingship. He approves Peter’s confession of his Messiahship, which involves Kingship (Mat 16:16). He speaks of a time in the immediate future when men shall see “the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Mat 16:28). As judge of all men, He designates Himself king (Mat 25:34; Luk 19:38). He accepts the title king from Pilate (Mat 27:11, Mat 27:12; Mar 15:2; Luk 23:3; Joh 18:37), and claims a kingdom which is not of this world (Joh 18:36). His disciples look to Him for the restoration of the kingdom (Act 1:6). His kingdom, like that of God, is inner, moral and spiritual.

(C) Their Relation

But there can be only one moral kingdom, and only one supreme authority in the spiritual realm. The coördination of the two kingships must be found in their relation to the Fatherhood. The two ideas are not antithetical or even independent. They may have been separate and even opposed as Christ found them, but He used them as two points of apperception in the minds of His hearers, by which He communicated to them His one idea of God, as the Father who ruled a spiritual kingdom by love and righteousness, and ordered Nature and history to fulfill His purpose of grace. Men’s prayer should be that the Father’s kingdom may come (Mat 6:9, Mat 6:10). They enter the kingdom by doing the Father’s will (Mat 7:21). It is their Father’s good pleasure to give them the kingdom (Luk 12:32). The Fatherhood is primary, but it carries with it authority, government, law and order, care and provision, to set up and organize a kingdom reflecting a Father’s love and expressing His will.

And as Christ is the revealer and mediator of the Fatherhood, He also is the messenger and bearer of the kingdom. In his person, preaching and works, the kingdom is present to men (Mat 4:17, Mat 4:23; Mat 12:28), and as its king He claims men’s allegiance and obedience (Mat 11:28, Mat 11:29). His sonship constitutes His relation to the kingdom. As son He obeys the Father, depends upon Him, represents Him to men, and is one with Him. And in virtue of this relation, He is the messenger of the kingdom and its principle, and at the same time He shares with the Father its authority and Kingship.

(3) Apostolic Teaching

In the apostolic writings, the emphasis upon the elements of kingship, authority, law and righteousness is greater than in the gospels. The kingdom is related to God (Gal 21; Col 4:11; 1Th 2:12; 2Th 1:5), and to Christ (Col 1:13; 2Ti 4:1, 2Ti 4:18; 2Pe 1:11), and to both together (Eph 5:5; compare 1Co 15:24). The phrase “the kingdom of the Son of his love” sums up the idea of the joint kingship, based upon the relation of Father and Son.

6. Moral Attributes

The nature and character of God are summed up in the twofold relation of Father and King in which He stands to men, and any abstract statements that may be made about Him, any attributes that may be ascribed to Him, are deductions from His royal Fatherhood.

(1) Personality

That a father and king is a person needs not to be argued, and it is almost tautology to say that a person is a spirit. Christ relates directly the spirituality of God to His Fatherhood. “The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is Spirit” (Joh 4:23, Joh 4:14 margin). Figurative expressions denoting the same truth are the Johannine phrases, ’God is life’ (1Jn 5:20), and “God is light” (1Jn 1:5).

(2) Love

Love is the most characteristic attribute of Fatherhood. It is the abstract term that most fully expresses the concrete character of God as Father. In John’s theology, it is used to sum up all God’s perfections in one general formula. God is love, and where no love is, there can be no knowledge of God and no realization of Him (1Jn 4:8, 1Jn 4:16). With one exception (Luk 11:42), the phrase “the love of God” appears in the teaching of Jesus only as it is represented in the Fourth Gospel. There it expresses the bond of union and communion, issuing from God, that holds together the whole spiritual society, God, Christ and believers (Jn 10; Joh 14:21). Christ’s mission was that of revelation, rather than of interpretation, and what in person and act He represents before men as the living Father, the apostles describe as almighty and universal love. They saw and realized this love first in the Son, and especially in His sacrificial death. It is “the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:39). “God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8; compare Eph 2:4). Love was fully made known in Christ’s death (1Jn 3:16). The whole process of the incarnation and death of Christ was also a sacrifice of God’s and the one supreme manifestation of His nature as love (1Jn 4:9, 1Jn 4:10; compare Joh 3:16). The love of God is His fatherly relation to Christ extended to men through Christ. By the Father’s love bestowed upon us, we are called children of God (1Jn 3:1). Love is not only an emotion of tenderness and beneficence which bestows on men the greatest gifts, but a relation to God which constitutes their entire law of life. It imposes upon men the highest moral demands, and communicates to them the moral energy by which alone they can be met. It is law and grace combined. The love of God is perfected only in those who keep the word of Jesus Christ the Righteous (1Jn 2:5). “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1Jn 5:3). It is manifested especially in brotherly love (1Jn 4:12, 1Jn 4:20). It cannot dwell with worldliness (1Jn 2:15) or callous selfishness (1Jn 3:17). Man derives it from God as he is made the son of God, begotten of Him (1Jn 4:7).

(3) Righteousness and Holiness

Righteousness and holiness were familiar ideas to Jesus and His disciples, as elements in the Divine character. They were current in the thought of their time, and they stood foremost in the Old Testament conception. They were therefore adopted in their entirety in the New Testament, but they stand in a different context. They are coördinated with and even subordinated to, the idea of love. As kingship stands to fatherhood, so righteousness and holiness stand to love.

(a) Once we find the phrase “Holy Father” spoken by Jesus (Joh 17:11; compare 1Pe 1:15, 1Pe 1:16). But generally the idea of holiness is associated with God in His activity through the Holy Spirit, which renews, enlightens, purifies and cleanses the lives of men. Every vestige of artificial, ceremonial, non-moral meaning disappears from the idea of holiness in the New Testament. The sense of separation remains only as separation from sin. So Christ as high priest is “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners” (Heb 7:26). Where it dwells, no uncleanness must be (1Co 6:19). Holiness is not a legal or abstract morality, but a life made pure and noble by the love of God shed abroad in men’s hearts (Rom 5:5). “The kingdom of God is ... righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).

(b) Righteousness as a quality of character is practically identical with holiness in the New Testament. It is opposed to sin (Rom 6:13, Rom 6:10) and iniquity (2Co 6:14). It is coupled with goodness and truth as the fruit of the light (Eph 5:9; compare 1Ti 6:11; 2Ti 2:22). It implies a rule or standard of conduct, which in effect is one with the life of love and holiness. It is brought home to men by the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Joh 16:8). In its origin it is the righteousness of God (Mat 6:33; compare Joh 17:25). In Paul’s theology, “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe” (Rom 3:22) is the act of God, out of free grace, declaring and treating the sinner as righteous, that he thereby may become righteous, even as “we love, because he first loved us” (1Jn 4:19). The whole character of God, then, whether we call it love, holiness or righteousness, is revealed in His work of salvation, wherein He goes forth to men in love and mercy, that they may be made citizens of His kingdom, heirs of His righteousness, and participators in His love.

7. Metaphysical Attributes

The abstract being of God and His metaphysical attributes are implied, but not defined, in the New Testament. His infinity, omnipotence and omniscience are not enunciated in terms, but they are postulated in the whole scheme of salvation which He is carrying to completion. He is Lord of heaven and earth (Mat 11:25). The forces of Nature are at His command (Mat 5:45; Mat 6:30). He can answer every prayer and satisfy every need (Mat 7:7-12). All things are possible to Him (Mar 10:27; Mar 14:36). He created all things (Eph 3:9). All earthly powers are derived from Him (Rom 13:1). By His power, He raised Christ from the dead and subjected to Him “all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion” in heaven and on earth (Eph 1:20, Eph 1:21; compare Mat 28:18). Every power and condition of existence are subordinated to the might of His love unto His saints (Rom 8:38, Rom 8:39). Neither time nor place can limit Him: He is the eternal God (Rom 16:26). His knowledge is as infinite as His power; He knows what the Son and the angels know not (Mar 13:32). He knows the hearts of men (Luk 16:15) and all their needs (Mat 6:8, Mat 6:32). His knowledge is especially manifested in His wisdom by which He works out His purpose of salvation, “the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph 3:10, Eph 3:11). The teaching of the New Testament implies that all perfections of power, condition and being cohere in God, and are revealed in His love. They are not developed or established on metaphysical grounds, but they flow out of His perfect fatherhood. Earthly fathers do what good they can for their children, but the Heavenly Father does all things for the best for His children - “to them that love God all things work together for good” - because He is restricted by no limits of power, will or wisdom (Mat 7:11; Rom 8:28).

8. The Unity of God

It is both assumed through the New Testament and stated categorically that God is one (Mar 12:29; Rom 3:30; Eph 4:6). No truth had sunk more deeply into the Hebrew mind by this time than the unity of God.

(1) The Divinity of Christ

Yet it is obvious from what has been written, that Jesus Christ claimed a power, authority and position so unique that they can only be adequately described by calling Him God; and the apostolic church both in worship and in doctrine accorded Him that honor. All that they knew of God as now fully and finally revealed was summed up in His person, “for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). If they did not call Him God, they recognized and named Him everything that God meant for them.

(2) The Holy Spirit

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is a third term that represents a Divine person in the experience, thought and language of Christ and His disciples. In the Johannine account of Christ’s teaching, it is probable that the Holy Spirit is identified with the risen Lord Himself (Joh 14:16, Joh 14:17; compare Joh 14:18), and Paul seems also to identify them in at least one passage: “the Lord is the Spirit” (2Co 3:17). But in other places the three names are ranged side by side as representing three distinct persons (Mat 28:19; 2Co 13:14; Eph 4:4-6).

(3) The Church’s Problem

But how does the unity of God cohere with the Divine status of the Son and the distinct subsistence of the Holy Spirit? Jesus Christ affirmed a unity between Himself and the Father (Joh 10:30), a unity, too, which might be realized in a wider sphere, where the Father, the Son and believers should form one society (Joh 17:21, Joh 17:23), but He reveals no category which would construe the unity of the Godhead in a manifoldness of manifestation. The experience of the first Christians as a rule found Christ so entirely sufficient to all their religious needs, so filled with all the fullness of God, that the tremendous problem which had arisen for thought did not trouble them. Paul expresses his conception of the relation of Christ to God under the figure of the image. Christ “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4). Another writer employs a similar metaphor. Christ is “the effulgence of (God’s) glory, and the very image of his substance” (Heb 1:3). But these figures do not carry us beyond the fact, abundantly evident elsewhere, that Christ in all things represented God because He participated in His being. In the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the doctrine of the Word is developed for the same purpose. The eternal Reason of God who was ever with Him, and of Him, issues forth as revealed thought, or spoken word, in the person of Jesus Christ, who therefore is the eternal Word of God incarnate. So far and no farther the New Testament goes. Jesus Christ is God revealed; we know nothing of God, but that which is manifest in Him. His love, holiness, righteousness and purpose of grace, ordering and guiding all things to realize the ends of His fatherly love, all this we know in and through Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit takes of Christ’s and declares it to men (Joh 16:14). The problems of the coördination of the One with the three, of personality with the plurality of consciousness, of the Infinite with the finite, and of the Eternal God with the Word made flesh, were left over for the church to solve. The Holy Spirit was given to teach it all things and guide it into all the truth (Joh 16:13). “And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mat 28:20). See JESUS CHRIST; HOLY SPIRIT; TRINITY.

Literature

Harris, The Philosophical Basis of Theism; God the Creator and Lord of All; Flint, Theism; Orr, The Christian View of God and the World; E. Caird, The Evolution of Religion; James Ward, The Realm of Ends; Fairbairn, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion; W.N. Clarke, The Christian Doctrine of God; Adeney, The Christian Conception of God; Rocholl, Der Christliche Gottesbegriff ; O. Holtzmann, Der Christliche Gottesglaube, seine Vorgeschichte und Urgeschichte; G. Wobbernim, Der Christliche Gottesglaube in seinem Verhältnis zur heutigen Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft; Köstlin, article “Gott” in Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche; R. S. Candlish, Crawford and Scott-Lidgett, books on The Fatherhood of God: Old Testament Theologies by Oehler, Schultz and Davidson; New Testament Theologies by Schmid, B. Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann and Stevens; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; sections in systems of Christian Doctrine by Schleiermacher, Darner, Nitzsch, Martensen, Thomasius, Hodge, etc.

1. General aspects of the apostolic doctrine.-The object of this article is to investigate the doctrine of God as it is presented in the Christian writings of the apostolic period; but, in view of the scope of this Dictionary, the teaching of our Lord Himself and the witness of the Gospel records will be somewhat lightly passed over.

The existence of God is universally assumed in the NT. The arguments that can be adduced, e.g. from the consent of mankind and from the existence of the world, are only intended to show that the belief that God is is reasonable, not to prove it as a mathematical proposition. But undoubtedly the fact that the doctrine is by such arguments shown to be probable will lead man to receive with more readiness the revealed doctrine of God’s existence. The biblical writers, however, did not, in either dispensation, concern themselves to prove a fact which no one doubted. Psa_10:4; Psa_14:1; Psa_53:1 are no exceptions to this general consent. The ungodly man (the ‘fool’) who said in his heart ‘There is no God,’ did not deny God’s existence, but His interfering in the affairs of men. ‘The wicked … saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.’

The apostolic doctrine of God as we have it in Acts, Revelation, and the Epistles does not come direct from the OT. It presupposes a teaching of our Lord. At first this teaching was in the main handed down by the oral method, and the Epistles, or at least most of them, do not defend on any of our four Gospels, though it is quite likely that there were some written evangelic records in existence even when the earliest of the Epistles were written (Luk_1:1). St. Paul, writing on certain points of Christian teaching, tells us that he handed on what he himself had received (1Co_11:2; 1Co_11:23; 1Co_15:3; the expression ἀðὸ ôïῦ êõñßïí in 1Co_11:23 probably does not mean ‘from the Lord without human mediation’: it was tradition handed on from Christ).

In approaching the apostolic writings we must bear in mind two points. (a) The NT was not intended to be a compendium of theology. The Epistles, for example, were written for the immediate needs of the time and place, doubtless without any thought arising in their writers’ minds of their being in the future canonical writings of a new volume of the Scriptures. We should not, therefore, a priori expect to find in them any formulated statement of doctrine. (b) There is a considerable difference between the Epistles on the one hand and the Gospels on the other in the presentation of doctrine. The Gospels are narratives of historical events, and in them, therefore, the gradual unfolding of Jesus’ teaching, as in fact it was given, is duly set forth. This is especially the ease with the Synoptics, though even in the Fourth Gospel there is a certain amount of progress of doctrine. At the first the doctrines taught by oar Lord are set forth, so to speak, in their infancy, adapted to the comprehension of beginners; and they are gradually unfolded as the Gospel story proceeds. In the Epistles, on the other hand, the writer treats his correspondents as convinced Christians, and therefore, though he instructs them, he plunges at once in medias res. There is no progress of doctrine from the first chapter of an Epistle to the last.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, What did the apostles teach about God? Or rather, in order not to beg any question (since it is obviously impossible in this article to discuss problems of date and authorship), we must ask, What do the books of the NT teach about God?

2. Christian development of the OT doctrine of God.-It is an essential doctrine of the NT writers that a new and fuller revelation was given by the Incarnation and by the fresh outpouring of the Holy Ghost.

(a) The revelation by the Incarnate.-That the Son had made a revelation of old by the part which He took in creation (see below, 6 (e)) is not explicitly stated, but is implied by Rom_1:20, which says that creation is a revelation of God’s everlasting power and Divinity (èåéüôçò, ‘Divine nature and properties,’ whereas èåüôçò is ‘Divine Personality’ [see Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , 1902, in loc.]). But the Incarnate reveals God in a fuller sense than ever before: ‘God … hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in [his] Son’ (Heb_1:1 f.). The revelation by the Incarnation is a conception specially emphasized in the Johannine writings, not only in the Gospel, but also in the First Epistle and the Apocalypse. The Prologue of the Gospel says that ‘God only begotten’ (or ‘the only begotten Son’ [see below, 6 (c)]) ‘which is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared him’ (Joh_1:18). ‘What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth witness’ (Joh_3:32). The revelation of the Son is the revelation of the Father (Joh_14:7-11). The ‘life which was with the Father’ was manifested and gave a message about God (1Jn_1:2-5). The revelation of eternal life which is in the Son was made when God bore witness concerning His Son (1Jn_5:10 f.). This new and fuller revelation is that with which the Apocalyptist begins his book (Rev_1:1): ‘the revelation (apocalypse) of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants’ (see Swete, Com. in loc., who gives good reasons fox thinking that the revelation mode by Jesus, rather than that made about Jesus, is meant; cf. Gal_1:12).

We find the same teaching, though in a somewhat less explicit form, in the Pauline Epistles. Christ is ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God … made unto us wisdom from God’ (1Co_1:24; 1Co_1:30). In Him ‘are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden’ (Col_2:3). In the new ‘dispensation of the fulness of the times’ God has ‘made known unto us the mystery of his will’ (Eph_1:9 f., a passage where ‘mystery’ specially conveys the idea of a hidden thing revealed, rather than one kept secret). To St. Paul personally Jesus made a revelation (Gal_1:12; see above). That our Lord made a new revelation is also stated in the Synoptics: ‘Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal [him]’ (Mat_11:27; cf. Luk_10:22). So in Acts, Jesus bids the disciples ‘wait for the promise of the Father, which [said he] ye heard from me’ (Act_1:4); and St. Peter (Act_10:36) calls the new revelation ‘the word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all).’ Sanday (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii. 212) points out that the passages about our Lord being the ‘image’ of God, and ‘in the form of God’ (see below, 6 (c)), express the fact that He brings to men’s minds the essential nature of God.

(b) The revelation by the Holy Ghost.-The new revelation of the nature of God by the full outpouring of the Spirit, in a manner unknown even in the old days of prophetical inspiration, is also, as far as the promise is concerned, a favourite Johannine conception (see especially John 14-16). The promise is, however, alluded to by St. Luke (Luk_24:49, Act_1:4), and its fulfilment is dwelt on at great length in Acts, which may be called the ‘Gospel of the Holy Spirit,’ and in which the action of the Third Person in guiding the disciples into all the truth (Joh_16:13) is described very fully. Jesus gave commandment to the apostles ‘through the Holy Ghost’ (Act_1:2). The guidance of the Spirit is described, e.g., in Act_2:17 f.; Act_8:9; Act_10:19; Act_11:12; Act_13:2; Act_16:6 f.; Act_20:23; Act_21:11, though these passages speak rather of the practical loading of the disciples in the conduct of life rather than of the teaching of the truth. St. Paul says that ‘the things which eye saw not’ (he seems to be paraphrasing Isa_64:4) have been revealed by God ‘unto us’ (ἡìῖí is emphatic here) ‘through the Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God’ (1Co_2:9 f.; so 1Co_2:13). It is the Holy Spirit only who can teach us that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (1Co_12:3).

3. Attributes of God in the NT.-Before considering the great advance on the OT ideas made by the Christian doctrine of God, we may notice certain Divine attributes which are emphasized in the NT, but which are also found in the OT.

(a) God is Almighty.-The word used in the NT (as in the Eastern creeds) for this attribute is ðáíôïêñÜôùñ, chiefly in the Apocalypse (Rev_1:8; Rev_4:8; Rev_11:17; Rev_15:3; Rev_16:7; Rev_16:14; Rev_19:6; Rev_19:15; Rev_21:22), but also in 2Co_6:18, as it is used in the Septuagint , where it renders ṣebhâ’ôth and Shaddai. We notice in each instance in Rev. how emphatically it stands at the end: ‘the Lord God, which is and which was … the Almighty,’ ‘the Lord God, the Almighty’; not ‘Lord God Almighty’ as Authorized Version (the Authorized Version translates the word by ‘omnipotent’ in Rev_19:6 only). The word omnipotens occurs in the earliest Roman creed.-But what does ‘Almighty’ imply? To the modern reader it is apt to convey the idea of omnipotence, as if it were ðáíôïäýíáìïò, i.e. ‘able to do everything,’ on account of the Latin translation omnipotens. So Augustine understands the word in the Creed (de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, 2 [ed. Ben. vi. 547]), explaining it, ‘He does whatever He wills’ (Swete, Apostles’ Creed, p. 22). Undoubtedly God is omnipotent, though this does not mean that He can act against the conditions which He Himself makes-He cannot sin, He cannot lie (Tit_1:2, Heb_6:18; so 2Ti_2:13 of our Lord). As Augustine says (loc. cit.), if He could do these things He would not be omnipotent. But this is not the meaning of ‘Almighty.’ As we see from the form of the Greek word (ðáíôïêñÜôùñ), and as is suggested by the Hebrew words which it renders, it denotes sovereignty over the world. It is equivalent to the ‘Lord of heaven and earth’ of Act_17:24, Mat_11:25. Everything is under God’s sway (see Pearson, Expos. of the Creed, article i., especially notes 37-43). The Syriac bears out this interpretation by rendering the word aḥîdh kûl, i.e. ‘holding (or governing) all.’

(b) God is ‘living.’-He has ‘life in himself’ (Joh_5:26). He is ‘the living God’ (Rev_7:2), ‘that liveth for ever and ever’ (Rev_10:6); and therefore is eternal, the ‘Alpha and Omega, which is and which was and which is to come’ (ὁ ὢí êáὶ ὁ ἦí êáὶ ὁ ἐñ÷üìåíïò), ‘the beginning and the end’ (Rev_1:8; Rev_21:6; cf. Rev_16:5)-these words are here (but not in Rev_22:13; see below, 6 (e)) rightly ascribed by Swete to the Eternal Father. ‘One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2Pe_3:8; cf. Psa_90:4; see also Rom_1:20).

(c) God is omniscient.-He knows the hearts of all men (êáñäéïãíῶóôá ðÜíôùí, Act_1:24; Act_15:8.; The prayer in Act_1:24 is perhaps addressed to our Lord); He knows all things (1Jn_3:20). St. Paul eloquently exclaims: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!’ (Rom_11:33), and ascribes glory ‘to the only wise God,’ i.e. to God who alone is wise (Rom_16:27; the same phrase occurs in some Manuscripts of 1Ti_1:17, but ‘wise’ is there an interpolation). Even the uninstructed Cornelius recognizes that we are in God’s sight (Act_10:33). Such sayings cannot but be a reminiscence of our Lord’s teaching that ‘not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God’ (Luk_12:6). They are summed up in the expressions ‘God is light’ (1Jn_1:5) and ‘God is true’ (‘This is the true God,’ 1Jn_5:20; for the reference here see A. E. Brooke’s note in International Critical Commentary , 1912, in loc.), God ‘cannot lie’; see above (a).

(d) God is transcendent.-This Divine attribute had been exaggerated by the Jews just before the Christian era, but it is nevertheless dwelt on in the apostolic writings. The ‘things of God’ are indeed ‘deep,’ so that man cannot, though the Spirit can, ‘search them out’ (1Co_2:10 f.; cf. Job_11:7). God, who ‘only hath-immortality,’ dwells ‘in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see’ (1Ti_6:16; cf. Joh_1:18, 1Jn_4:12; 1Jn_4:20). He is spirit (Joh_4:24 Revised Version margin) and invisible (Col_1:15, 1Ti_1:17, Heb_11:27), unchangeable (Heb_6:17 f.,; cf. Mal_3:6, Psa_102:27), infinite, omnipresent (Act_7:48; Act_17:24; Act_17:27; cf. Psa_139:7 ff.) These statements do not mean, however, that God is altogether unknowable by men; for God in His condescension reveals Himself to man (see above, 2).

(e) God is immanent.-That God dwells in man is stated several times. ‘God is in you indeed,’ says St. Paul (1Co_14:25 Authorized Version and Revised Version margin; Revised Version text has ‘among’; the Gr. is ἐí ὑìῖí). ‘There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all’ (Eph_4:8). ‘God abideth in us’ (1Jn_4:12). His ‘tabernacle is with men’ and He ‘shall dwell with them … and be with them’ (Rev_21:3). For the immanence of the Son and the Spirit in man see below, 6 (e) and 7.

(f) Moral attributes.-God is love (1Jn_4:8; 1Jn_4:16); love is His very nature and being, and therefore love is the foundation of all true religion; love is of God (v. 7; see Brooke’s notes on these verses [op. cit.]). The love of God is specially emphasized by Christianity; cf. also Joh_3:16 (the kernel of the gospel message), Rom_5:5; Rom_5:8; Rom_8:31-39, 2Co_13:14, Col_1:13 (‘the Son of his love’), 2Th_3:5, 1Ti_2:4 (desire of universal salvation), 1Jn_2:5; 1Jn_3:1. The ‘love of God’ may be God’s love for us, or our love for God; but the latter, as St. John teaches (see above), comes from the former.

God is holy. This attribute is emphasized both in the OT (Lev_11:44) and in the NT (1Pe_1:15 f.). The four living creatures cry ‘Holy (ἄãéïò), holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty’ (Rev_4:8; cf. Isa_6:3). ‘Thou only art holy’ (ὅóéïò)* [Note: The word ὅóéïò (equivalent to the Latin pius) ‘represents God as fulfilling His relation to His creatures, even as He requires them to fulfil theirs towards Himself’ (Swete, Com. in loc.).] cry the conquerors (Rev_15:4; cf. Rev_16:5)-a striking comment on the ascription of holiness to our Lord and to the Spirit (below, 6 (e), 7). Brooke (op. cit.) thinks it unnecessary to determine whether ‘the Holy One’ in 1Jn_2:20 is the Father or the Son.

God is just; He has no respect of persons (Act_10:34, Rom_2:11, Gal_2:8, 1Pe_1:17; cf. Deu_10:17).

He is righteous (for the meaning of this see below, 6 (e)); St. Paul not only speaks of the ‘righteous judgment’ (äéêáéïêñéóßá, Rom_2:5; cf. 2Th_1:5), but of the ‘righteousness’ (äéêáéïóýíç), of God (Rom_1:17; Rom_3:22; Rom_10:3). On this phrase, äéêáéïóýíç èåïῦ, see an elaborate investigation by Sanday in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii. 209-212; it was familiar to the Jews, and to them meant the personal righteousness of God. Many commentators take it, as used in the NT, to mean the righteous state of man, of which God is the giver. But in either case it predicates righteousness of God. In Php_3:9 we find ôὴí ἐê èåïῦ äéêáéïóýíçí, ‘the righteousness which is of God.’ The Apocalyptist also emphasizes this attribute (Rev_15:3; Rev_16:5; Rev_16:7).

God is merciful (Rom_11:32; Rom_15:9, etc,). This is really the same attribute as love; but it is not the same as the Musulman idea of the mercy of God, which can scarcely be distinguished from indifference. Love and justice combined produce the true Divine mercy.

He is the God of hope (Rom_15:13). A despairing pessimism is rebellion against the good God who makes us to hope, and who promises to overthrow Satan.

He is the God of peace (Rom_15:33; Rom_16:20, 1Th_5:23, 2Th_3:16, Heb_13:20).

(g) God is Creator and Saviour.-That God the Father is the Maker of the world is again and again insisted on (Act_14:15-17; Act_17:25-29, Rom_1:20-25; Rom_11:36, 1Co_3:9, Eph_2:10; Eph_3:9 [cf. Eph_3:14 f.] Col_1:15 f, Heb_1:2; Heb_4:4; Heb_12:9 [the spirits of men], Jam_1:17 f. [‘the lights,’ the heavenly bodies], Rev_4:11; Rev_10:6). Man was made in God’s likeness (1Co_11:7, Jam_3:9). That God made the world was also much emphasized by the sub-apostolic writers (Swete, Apostles’ Creed, p. 20), in opposition to the Gnostic conception of a Demiurge, an inferior God who was Creator, and who was more or less in opposition to the supreme God. (For God the Father as Saviour, see below, 6 (e); for the part of the Son and of the Spirit in creation see below, 6 (e), 7).

4. The Fatherhood of God.-We now pass to the great developments made by the Christian doctrine of God. In the OT it had been freely taught that God was Father; but the conception scarcely went further than a fatherhood of the chosen people. ‘Israel is ray son, my first born.… Let my son go that he may serve me,’ is Jahweh’s message to Pharaoh (Exo_4:22). The Deuteronomist goes no farther (Exo_8:5, Exo_32:6, and especially Exo_14:1 f.: ‘Ye are the children of the Lord your God … for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth’). The restrictive words of Psa_103:13 are very significant: ‘Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.’ The prophets made no advance on this. To Judah and Israel God says: ‘Ye shall call me, My father’ (Jer_3:19; cf. Isa_63:16; Isa_30:1; Isa_30:9, Mal_1:6); ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt’ (Hos_11:1).

The NT greatly develops this doctrine. It teaches that God is Father of all men, though in a special sense Father of believers. But, above all, God is the Father of our Lord in a sense quite unique.

(a) The Father of our Lord.-Jesus ever makes a difference between the Father’s relationship to Himself and to the rest of the world. The striking words of the twelve-year-old Child; ‘Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?’ (or ‘about my Father’s business,’ ἐí ôïῖò ôïῦ ðáôñüò ìïõ, Luk_2:49) are the first indication of this. Jesus speaks of ‘my Father’ and ‘the Father’ and ‘your Father,’ but never of ‘our Father,’ though He teaches the disciples to use these words (Mat_6:9). In Joh_20:17 the Evangelist represents our Lord as using what would otherwise be an unintelligible periphrasis: ‘My Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ This same distinction is kept up in the rest of the NT. Thus in Rom_8:3 St. Paul calls our Lord God’s ‘own Son’ (ôὸí ἑáõôïῦ õἱüí), in a manner in which we could not be designated ‘sons’; we can only be ‘conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom_8:29), while Jesus is ‘his own Son’ (ôïῦ ἰäßïõ õἱïῦ, Rom_8:32; cf. Col_1:13 : ‘Son of his love’). St. Paul exhibits a fondness for the phrase ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom_15:16, 2Co_1:3, Eph_1:3; cf. Col_1:3 ‘God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’), which is re echoed by St. Peter (1Pe_1:3), and in the Apocalypse (Rev_1:8 ‘his God and Father’). (On the other hand, in Eph_1:17 we read: ‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.’) In Rev_3:21 our Lord is speaking, and uses the words ‘my Father.’ This distinction is at the root of the Johannine title ‘Only-begotten,’ applied to our Lord (1Jn_4:9, Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18). See Adoption, Only-Begotten.

(b) The Father of all men.-This relationship is expressly affirmed by St. Paul in his speech at Athens (Act_17:28 f.). God has created us; ‘in him we live and move and have our being, as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.’ And he endorses this heathen saying by continuing: ‘Being then the offspring of God,’ etc. (Act_17:29). We may compare our Lord’s saying: ‘that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust’ (Mat_5:45); ‘he is kind towards the unthankful and evil’ (Luk_6:35). The same thought seems to be at the root of St. Paul’s saying that all fatherhood (ðᾶóá ðáôñéÜ) in heaven and earth is named from God the Father (Eph_3:14 ff; see Family). ‘There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all’ (Eph_4:6). ‘To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we unto him’ (1Co_8:6). In several passages in the Epistles where we read ‘our Father’ (Rom_1:7, 1Co_1:3, 2Co_1:2, Eph_1:2, Php_4:20, etc.), there is no special restriction to God’s relationship to Christians, such as we find with regard to the chosen people in the OT passages. St. James speaks of ‘the Father of lights’ (Jam_1:17), i.e. of the created heavenly bodies. And the writer of Hebrews refers to a universal Fatherhood due to creation. As contrasted with the ‘fathers of our flesh,’ God is ‘the Father of spirits’-the Author not only of our spiritual being but of all spiritual beings (Heb_12:9; see Westcott, Com. in loc.).

(c) The Father of believers.-Side by side with the doctrine of universal fatherhood is the special relationship of God to believers, not only as Saviour (1Ti_4:10) but as Father. Here the apostolic writers ascribe to Christians the prerogatives of the chosen people in the old covenant. This special fatherhood is brought out in the passages where St. Paul applies the metaphor of adoption to Christians (Rom_8:14-17; Rom_8:23, Gal_4:5 f., Eph_1:5; see Adoption; cf. also 1Pe_1:17, 1Jn_3:1 f, Joh_1:12, etc.).

(d) ‘The Father’ in general.-In many passages we find the absolute expression ‘the Father,’ comprehending any or all of the above meanings, as, e.g., 1Co_8:6, Gal_1:1, Eph_5:20 (‘give thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father’), Col_1:12, Jam_3:9 Revised Version (‘the Lord and Father’), 1Jn_2:13; 1Jn_2:15 f.; and 2Pe_1:17, 1Jn_1:2, where there is a special reference to our Lord.

The word ‘Father’ stands at the head of most Christian creeds, but it is probable that it was not originally in that of Rome. The Creed of Marcellus of Ancyra, an early Western specimen, though coming from an Eastern bishop, begins; ‘I believe in Almighty (ðáíôïêñÜôïñá) God’ (Epiphanius, Haer. lxxii. 3). The language of Tertullian (de Virg. Vel. 1-one of his later works) leads us to suppose that the creed used by him: began similarly; he speaks of ‘the rule of believing in one only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ.’ But thenceforward it appears in the Western creeds (see Swete, Apostles, Creed, p. 19f.).

5. The Holy Trinity

(a) The technical terms by which the Christian Church has expressed the faith that it derived from the Scriptures were not invented for a considerable time after the apostolic period. Thus no one would expect to find the terms ‘Trinity’ and ‘Person’ in the NT. It is usually said that the word ‘Trinity,’ referred to God, was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autol. ii. 15; c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 180), as far as extant Christian literature is concerned. This is true, but the context shows that it was not then an accepted technical term. The first three days of creation are said to be ‘types of the trinity (ôñéÜò), God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.’ Theophilus goes on to say that the fourth day finds its antitype in man, who is in need of light, so that we get the series: God, the Word, Wisdom, Man. Swete justly remarks that an author who could thus ‘convert the Divine trinity into a quaternion in which Man is the fourth term, must have been still far from thinking of the Trinity as later writers thought’ (Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 47). Or we should perhaps rather put it that Theophilus did not use the word ‘Trinity’ in the technical sense which immediately afterwards is found; as when Tertullian speaks of ‘the Trinity of the one God-head, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ (de Pudic. 21; cf. adv. Prax. 2), and as when Hippolytus says: ‘Through this Trinity the Father is glorified, for the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested’ (circa, about Noet. 14).

The words which we render ‘Person’ (ὑðüóôáóéò, ðñüóùðïí, persona) are of a still later date, and at first exhibited a remarkable fluidity of signification. Thus ὑðüóôáóéò was used at one time to denote what is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what we should call the Divine ‘substance,’ at another it was used to distinguish between the Three; so that in one sense there is one ὑðüóôáóéò in the Holy Trinity, in the other there are three. With regard to the word ‘Person,’ the student must necessarily be always on his guard against the supposition that ‘Person’ means ‘individual,’ as when we say that three different men are three ‘persons’; or that ‘Trinity’ involves tritheism, or three Gods. These technical expressions are but methods of denoting the teaching found in the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead, and that, while God is One, yet He is not a mere Monad. These technical terms are not found in the apostolic or sub-apostolic writers; with regard to the second of them, it may be remembered that the idea of personality was hardly formulated in any sense till shortly before the Christian era; and its application to theology came in a good deal later.

(b) The name ‘God’ used absolutely.-In considering the distinctions in the Godhead taught by the NT, it must be borne in mind that, when the name ‘God’ is used absolutely, without pronoun or epithet, it is never, with one possible exception, applied explicitly to the Son as such or to the Spirit as such. It is, indeed, most frequently used without any special reference to the Person. But it is often, when standing absolutely, used in contrast to the Son or to the Spirit, and then the Father is intended. Instances of this are too numerous to mention; but we may take as examples Act_2:22 (‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved or God … by mighty works … which God did by him’), Act_13:30 (‘God raised him from the dead.’), Rom_2:16 (‘God shall judge the secrets of men … by Jesus Christ’), Eph_4:30 (‘the Holy Spirit of God’). This is sometimes the case also when ‘God’ is not used absolutely, as in Act_3:13 (‘the God of our fathers hath glorified his Servant [ðáῖäá] Jesus’), Act_5:30 (‘the God of our fathers raised up Jesus’), Act_22:14, Rom_1:8 (‘I thank my God through Jesus Christ’). In Rev_3:2; Rev_3:12 our Lord calls the Father ‘my God’; compare the similar Pauline phrases quoted above, 4 (a). See below, 8.

The one possible exception is Act_20:28 ‘to feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’ This is the reading of à B and other weighty authorities (followed by Authorized Version and Revised Version text), but ACDE read ‘the Lord’ instead of ‘God’. The balance of authority is in favour of the reading ‘God,’ and it is decidedly more difficult than the other variant. At first sight, to say the least, the word ‘God’ (if read) must refer to our Lord, and yet this usage is unlike that of the NT elsewhere, and a scribe finding èåïῦ would readily alter it to êõñßïõ because of the strangeness of the expression. Thus both because of superior attestation, and because a difficult rending is ordinarily to be preferred to an easier one, èåïῦ has usually been accepted here (so Westcott-Hort’s Greek Testament , ii [1882] Appendix, p. 98). To get rid of the strangeness of the expression, it has been suggested that the reference is to the Father, and that ‘his own blood’ means ‘the blood which is his own,” i.e. the blood of Christ who is essentially one with the Father; but this seems to be a rather forced explanation. A somewhat more probable conjecture (that of Hort) is that there is here an early corruption, and that the original had ‘with the blood of his own Son,’ The beat reading of the last words of the verse, supported by overwhelming authority, is äéὰ ôïῦ áἵìáôïò ôïῦ ἰäßïõ: and this conjecture supposes that õἱïῦ has dropped out at the end (cf. Rom_8:32). However this may be, it would seem that the verse as we hate it in à B was so read by Ignatius, and gave rise to his expression ‘the blood of God’ (Ephesians 1)-a very early Instance of what later writers called the communicatio idiomatum, by which the properties of one or our Lord’s natures are referred to when the other nature is in question, because of the unity of His Person (see 6 (b)). Another early instance is perhaps to be found in Clement of Rome (Cor. ii. 1): ôὰ ðáèÞìáôá áὐôïῦ (‘his sufferings’), èùïῦ having just preceded; but the reading, though accepted by Lightfoot, is not quite certain. On these two passages see Lightfoot, Apostolic Father, ‘S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp2,’ 1889, ii. 29f., S. Clement of Rome,’ 1890, ii 13-16. Tertullian uses the expression ‘the blood of God’ (ad Uxor. ii.3).

(c) Trinitarian language.-In the NT teaching the Son and the Spirit are joined to the Father in a special manner, entirely different from that in which men or angels are spoken of in relation to God. Perhaps the beat example of this is the apostolic benediction of 2Co_13:14, which has no dogmatic purpose, but is a simple, spontaneous prayer, and is therefore more significant than if it was intended to teach some doctrine. The ‘grace of our Lord,’ the ‘love of God,’ and the ‘communion of the Holy Ghost’ are grouped together, and in this remarkable order. In many passages Father, Son, and Spirit are grouped together, just as the Three are mentioned together in the account of our Lord’s Baptism (Mat_3:16 f.), only in a still more significant way. Thus in Act_5:31 f. we read that God exalted Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour, and gave the Holy Ghost ‘to them that obey him.’ Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, saw the glory of God, and Jeans standing at the right hand of God (Act_7:55). The Holy Ghost is in one breath called by St. Paul the ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘Spirit of Christ’ (Rom_8:9). See also 1Co_12:3-6 (‘the Spirit of God … Jesus is Lord … the same Spirit … the same Lord … the same God’), Act_2:33, 1Pe_1:2 (‘foreknowledge of God the Father,’ ‘sanctification of the Spirit,’ ‘sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’), Tit_3:4-6 (‘the kindness of God our Saviour’ [the Father], ‘renewing of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘through Jesus Christ our Saviour’), 1Jn_4:2, and especially Jud_1:20, where the writer’s disciples are bidden to pray in the Holy Spirit, to keep themselves in the love of God, and to look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the greeting of all the Pauline Epistles but one, the Father and Son are joined together as the source of grace and peace; e.g. ‘Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom_1:7); the only exception being Col_1:2 Revised Version , which has ‘grace to you and peace from God our Father.’ And this Pauline usage is also found in 2Jn_1:3. It is difficult to conceive the possibility of this zeugma unless our Lord be God. With this compare St. James’s description of himself as ‘a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Jam_1:1), and many other passages such as ‘one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him’ (1Co_8:6; see above, 4 (b)); ‘in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus’ (2Ti_4:1); ‘fellowship with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ’ (1Jn_1:3); ‘he that denieth the Father and the Son’ (1Jn_2:22); ‘the same hath both the Father and the Son’ (2Jn_1:9); ‘the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb are the temple thereof’ (Rev_21:22); ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb’ (Rev_22:1; Rev_22:3).

These expressions are the counterpart of our Lord’s words in the Fourth Gospel: ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me’ (Joh_14:10). We might try the effect of substituting for ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ the names of ‘Peter,’ ‘Paul,’ or even of ‘Michael,’ ‘Gabriel,’ to see how intolerable all these expressions would he on any but the Trinitarian hypothesis. St. Paul uses a similar argument in 1Co_1:13 : ‘Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’

These passages are taken from the NT outside the Gospels. The Fourth Gospel, which is full of the same doctrine, is here passed by. But one passage of the Synoptics must be considered. How did St. Paul come by the phraseology of his benediction in 2Co_13:14? Some would say that he invented it, and was the real founder of Christian doctrine (see below, 9). For those who cannot accept this position-and the Apostle betrays no consciousness of teaching a new doctrine, but, as we have seen (above, 1), professes to hand on what he has received-the only conclusion can be that the benediction is based on teaching of our Lord. In the Synoptics there is one passage (Mat_28:19) which would at once account for St. Paul’s benediction. According to this, our Lord bade His followers ‘make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name (åἱò ôὸ ὄíïìá) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ This passage has been criticized on three grounds. (1) It has been said not to be an authentic part of the First Gospel. This, however, is not a tenable position (see Baptism, § 4); but it is important to distinguish it from the view which follows. (2) It has been acknowledged to be an authentic part of Mt., but said to have been due to the Christian theology of the end of the 1st cent., to the same line of thought that produced the Fourth Gospel; and not to have been spoken by our Lord. (3) In support of this it is urged that as a matter of fact, the earliest baptisms, as we read in Acts, were not ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ but ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or the like. But may there not be a mistake here on both sides? ‘It is quits unnecessary to suppose on the one hand that the passages in Acts describe a formula used in baptism, or, on the other, that our Lord in Mat_28:19 prescribed one. All the passages may, and probably do, express only the theological import of baptism (for authorities, see Baptism as above).* [Note: We are not here concerned with the meaning of ‘in’ or ‘into the name.’ The argument is independent of the disputed interpretation of these words.] It was not the custom of our Lord to make minute regulations, as did the Mosaic Law. He rather laid down general principles; and it would be somewhat remarkable if He made just one exception, in regulating the words to be used in baptism. (The justification of the Christian formula is the general consent of the ages, dating from immediately after the apostolic period.) Nor is it necessary to suppose that Mat_28:19 gives us-any more than the other Gospel records do-the ipsissima verba of Jesus. It is almost certain that such teaching, if given, would be much expanded for the benefit of the hearers, and that we have only a greatly abbreviated record. But that our Lord gave such ‘Trinitarian’ teaching in some shape on the occasion of giving the baptismal command is the only way of accounting for the phenomena of Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. This would explain not only the apostolic benediction, but also the whole trend of the teaching of the NT outside the Gospels.

Having now considered the general scope of apostolic teaching with regard to distinctions in the Godhead, we must consider in particular the doctrine with regard to the Godhead of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost.

6. The Godhead of our Lord.-In historical sequence the realization of our Lord’s Divinity came before the teaching which we have already considered. The disciples first learnt that their Master was not mere man, but was Divine; and then that there are distinctions in the Godhead.

(a) Jesus is the Son of God.-Of this the apostles were fully convinced. The passages are too numerous to cite, but they occur in almost every book of the NT, whether they give the title to our Lord in so many words, or express the fact otherwise (see above, 4 (a)). Before considering the meaning of the title, we may ask if the name ðáῖò (‘child’ or ‘servant’) applied to our Lord (Act_3:13; Act_3:26; Act_4:27; Act_4:30) has the same signification. Sanday points out (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 574, 578) that ðáῖò is taken in the sense of ‘Son’ in the early Fathers, as in the Epistle to Diognetus (viii. 9f.; c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 150?). This may also be the meaning of St. Luke in Acts; but it is equally probable that he refers to the OT ‘servant of Jahweh.’ This is clearly the meaning in Mat_12:18, whore Isa_42:1 is quoted: ‘Behold my servant whom I have chosen,’ etc.

But what is the significance of the title ‘Son of God’? It was not exactly a now title when used in the NT, though Dan_3:25 cannot be quoted for it (‘a son of the gods,’ Revised Version ; Authorized Version wrongly, ‘the Son of God’). It is probable that Psa_2:7 was the foundation of the Jewish conception of Messiah as Son.* [Note: We are not here concerned with the connexion between the thought of Israel as Son and Messiah as Son.] . And therefore the title ‘Son of God’ had probably a different meaning in the mouth of some speakers from that which it had in the mouth of others. Thus when the demoniacs called Jesus the Son of God (Mar_3:11; Mar_5:7, Mat_14:33, Luk_4:41), they would mean no more than that He was the promised Messiah, without dogmatizing as to His nature. The mockers at Calvary would use the word in the same sense. ‘If thou art the Son of God’ is the same as ‘If thou art the Christ’ (Mat_27:40). The Centurion, if (as seems probable) his saying as reported in Mar_15:39, Mat_27:54 is more correct than that given in Luk_23:47, where ‘a righteous man’ is substituted for ‘the Son of God,’ would have borrowed a Jewish phrase without exactly understanding its meaning, and thus St. Luke’s paraphrase would faithfully represent what was passing in his mind.

But Jesus gave a higher meaning to the title, and this higher meaning is the keynote of the teaching of His disciples. It is true that in Luk_3:38 the Evangelist calls Adam a [son] of God (for ‘son’ see Luk_3:23), as being created directly by God; but this is not the meaning in the NT generally. There seems to have been a suspicion in Caiaphas’ mind of the higher meaning given to the title by Jesus, when he asked Him whether He was ‘the Christ, the Son of God’ (Mat_26:63). There is almost an approach here to the Johannine saying that the Jews sought to kill Him because He ‘called God his own Father, making himself equal with God’ (Joh_5:18). To the disciples the confession that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ (Joh_11:27, Martha) or ‘the Holy One of God’ (Joh_6:69 Revised Version , Simon Peter) meant the belief that He partook of the nature of God, This, indeed, might have meant only that Jesus was a Divinely inspired man. But the teaching of Jesus lifts the title to the highest level (Mat_11:27, Joh_5:19-26; Joh_9:35, etc.; for St. John’s own teaching see, e.g., Joh_3:35 f.). In this sense there is only one ‘Son of God,’ who is the Only-begotten, the Beloved (ìïíïãåíÞò and ἀãáðçôüò are both translations of éָçִéã; see Only-Begotten). And so in the Epistles the title expresses the Divinity of our Lord. The apostolic message was to preach that Jesus is the Son of God (Act_9:20, Joh_20:21). While the first Christian teachers proclaimed the true humanity of the Lord (e.g. Rom_1:3 : ‘concerning his Son who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh’), they also proclaimed His true Godhead (Rom_1:4 : ‘declared to be the Son of God with power’). The saying of Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 22) exhibits no advance on apostolic doctrine: ‘The Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner’ (ἰäßùò).

The Arians distinguished ‘Son of God’ from ‘God,’ and denied that the ‘Son’ could be in the highest sense ‘God’. The Clementine Homilies (which used to be thought to be of the 2nd or 3rd cent., but are now usually, la their present form, ascribed to the 4th [Journal of Theological Studies x. (1908-09) 457]) make the same distinction (xvi. 16). St. Peter is made to say: ‘Our Lord … did not proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.’ Simon [Magus] replies that he who comes from God is God; but St. Peter says that this is not possible; they did not hear it from Him, ‘What is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self begotten.’ Sanday (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 577b) refers to this passage as an isolated phenomenon; but now that the book has been with much probability assigned to the later date, we may say that the teaching just quoted was not heard of, as far as the evidence goes, till the 4th century.

(b) Jesus is the Lord.-The significance of this title (ὁ êýñéïò) in the Apostolic Age is not at once apparent to the European of to-day. The name ‘Lord’ seems to him applicable to any leader of religious thought. To the present-day Greek êýñéå is no more than our ‘Sir,’ and ὁ êýñéïò is the way in which any gentleman is spoken of, as the French use the word Monsieur. But to the Greek-speaking Christian Jew of the 1st cent., ὁ êýñéïò had a much deeper signification; deeper also than the complimentary Aramaic title ‘Rabbi’ (lit. [Note: literally, literature.] ‘my great one’). For the Jews habitually used the word ‘Lord’ as a substitute for ‘Jahweh.’ That sacred name, though written, was not pronounced. In reading the Hebrew OT, ‘Adonai’ was substituted for it. And so the Hellenistic Jews, in reading their Greek translation of the OT, found ὁ êýñéïò where the original has ‘Jahweh.’ When, then, St. Paul declares that ‘no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit’ (1Co_12:3), or bids the Roman Christian ‘confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord’ (Rom_10:9 Revised Version ; cf. Php_2:11), he does not mean merely that Jesus is a great teacher, but he identifies Him with ‘the Lord’ of the Greek OT, that is, with Jahweh. St. Peter uses the same identification when he says: ‘Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord’ (1Pe_3:15 Revised Version ; the Authorized Version reading is not supported by the best authorities); here he quotes Isa_8:13 Septuagint (êýñéïí áὐôὸí ἁãéÜóáôå), actually substituting ôὸí ×ñéóôüí for áὐôüí. (C. Bigg [International Critical Commentary , 1901, in loc.] renders ‘sanctify the Lord, that is to say, the Christ,’ but this does not affect the present argument.) This identification is frequent in the NT. The title ‘the Lord’ is used both of the Father and of the Son. A remarkable passage is Jam_5:4-15, where we read in quick succession of ‘the Lord of Sabaoth,’ ‘the coming of the Lord,’ ‘the Lord is at hand,’ ‘the prophets spake in the name of the Lord,’ ‘the Lord shall raise (the sick man) up’; ‘the Lord’ means here sometimes the Father and sometimes the Son (in Jam_3:9 Revised Version it is explicitly used of the Father). With this compare the way in which in Jam_4:12 God is said to be the one ‘lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and to destroy,’ while in Jam_5:9 Jesus is the judge who ‘standeth before the doors.’ The passage 1Co_10:9 would be still more striking if we could be sure of the text. According to the Authorized Version and Revised Version margin, St. Paul speaks of the Israelites who sinned against Jahweh in Num_21:5 ff. as ‘tempting Christ’; but the reading ôὸí Êýñéïí is not quite so well attested as ôὸí ×ñéóôüí. Another identification of Jesus with Jahweh is to be seen in the taking over of the expression ‘the day of the Lord’ (‘the day of Jahweh’) from ‘the OT (cf. Amo_5:18, etc.) and the using of it to denote the return of Jesus, in 1Th_5:2, 2Pe_3:10, which have ‘the day of the Lord,’ and 1Co_5:5, 2Co_1:14, which have ‘the day of [our] Lord Jesus.’

Again, Jesus is in the NT called ‘Lord’ in a manner which is equivalent to ‘Almighty,’ i.e. ‘all ruling’ (see above, 3 (a));, e.g. Act_10:36 (‘he is Lord of all’), Rom_14:9 (‘Lord of the dead and the living’), Php_3:20 f. (‘the Lord Jesus Christ … is able even to subject all things unto himself’), 1Co_2:8 (‘crucified the Lord of glory’-an approach to the cammunicatio idiomatum [see above, 5 (b) ]), Rev_1:5 (‘ruler of the kings of the earth’), Rev_17:14; Rev_19:16 (the Lamb, the Word of God, is ‘Lord of lords and King of kings’-a phrase used in 1Ti_6:15 of the Father); cf. Heb_1:3 f., 8 (‘the Son … upholding all things by the word of his power’) and Rom_9:5 (‘who is over all’), God is commonly addressed by the disciples as ‘Lord,’ as in Act_1:24 (but see above, 3 (c)) Act_4:29 (explicitly the Father; see Act_4:30) Act_10:4; Act_10:14; Act_11:8; and this is the way in which Saul of Tarsus and Ananias address the Ascended Jesus in their visions (Act_9:5; Act_9:10; Act_9:13 [see Act_9:15 f.] Act_22:8; Act_22:10; Act_22:19; Act_26:15; cf. Mat_25:11, etc.).

The title ‘our Lord’ for Jesus, which became the most common designation among the Christians, is not very common in the NT. In Rev_11:15 it is used of the Father (‘our Lord and his Christ’). In Rev_11:8 Authorized Version it is used of Jesus, but all the best Manuscripts here have ‘their Lord.’ It is, however, found in Jam_2:1 (our Lord Jesus Christ’) [the Lord] of glory’) and in 2Co_13:14, 1Ti_1:14, 2Ti_1:8, Heb_7:14; Heb_13:20, 2Pe_3:15, etc.

(c) Our Lord’s Divinity stated in express terms.-Many of the passages about to be given in this subsection have been keenly criticized, but it is impossible to pass over the whole of them. This passage or that may possibly be explained otherwise than is here done, or in some cases the reading may be disputed; but the cumulative effect of the whole is overwhelming. Yet it must be remarked that the doctrine of the Godhead of our Lord does not depend merely on a certain number of leading tests. The language of the whole of the apostolic writings is inexplicable on the supposition that their authors believed their Master to be mere man, or even a created being of any sort, however highly exalted.

In Rom_9:5 St. Paul says that Christ is ‘over all, God blessed for ever.’ Such is the interpretation of the Authorized Version and Revised Version (Revised Version margin mentions the translations of ‘some modern interpreters’), adopted ‘with some slight, but only slight, hesitation’ by Sanday-Headlam in their exhaustive note (International Critical Commentary in loc.). The alternative interpretations insert a full stop, and make the latter part of the verse an ascription of praise to the Father.

In 2Co_4:4, Col_1:15 Christ is called the ‘image’ (åἰêþí) of God; with this we must compare the remarkable passage, Heb_1:3 ff., where the Son is called ‘the effulgence (ἀðáýãáóìá; cf. Wis_7:26) of his glory and the very image of his substance’ (÷áñáêôὴñ ôῆò ὑðïóôÜóåùò áὐôïῦ), and is declared to be higher than, and worshipped by, the angels, and to have eternal rule; the quotation from Psa_45:6 f., beginning ‘Thy throne, O God,’ is referred to the Son. It is remarkable that whereas no Epistle emphasizes our Lord’s humanity be strongly as Hebrews, its beginning should dwell so forcibly on His Divine prerogatives. The meaning of these expressions ‘image,’ ‘effulgence,’ is seen by studying the passage Col_1:15 ff. with Lightfoot’s notes (Colossians3, 1879, in loc.). Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation’ (see First-Born for Patristic interpretations). But our Lord is not the’ imago’ of God in the same way as all men are (1Co_11:7, Jam_3:9, Gen_1:26; Clement of Rome uses ÷áñáêôÞñ in the same sense [Cor. xxxiii. 4] though he quotes Gen_1:26 with åἰêþí). Christ is the revelation of the invisible God because He is His ‘express image.’ He is the ‘firstborn of all creation, as being before all creation, and having sovereignty over it (Lightfoot). There can be little doubt that St. Paul here refers to the pre-incarnate Christ as the earlier Fathers, and eventually the later Greek Fathers, held. he adds that ‘in him all the fulness (ðëÞñùìá) dwells’ (Col_1:19), and that ‘in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col_2:9): the totality of the Divine power and attributes (Lightfoot) are in the Incarnates Jesus.

In Php_2:6-8 St. Paul says that our Lord ‘being (ὑðÜñ÷ùí) is the form of God, counted it not a prize [a tiling to be grasped at] to be on an equality with God, but emptied (ἐêÝíùóå) himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man.’ This passage, which has given rise to the word ‘Kenotic, is elaborately treated by Lightfoot (see his Philippians4, 1878, p. 111f., and especially his appended Notes, pp. 127-137). It espressos Christ’s pre-existence, for He ‘emptied himself.’ Of what He emptied Himself is seen from the preceding words. He was originally (ὑðÜñ÷ùí, denoting ‘prior existence,’ but not necessarily ‘eternal existence’ [Lightfoot] in the form of God, participating in the ïὐóßá of God. Yet He did not regard His equality with God as a thing to be jealously guarded, a prize which must not slip from His grasp.

We cannot lay great stress on Act_20:26, for which see above, 5 (b), because of the uncertainty of the reading; but by all grammatical canons (though this has been denied) Tit_2:13 must apply the name ‘God’ to our Lord: ‘our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (Revised Version ; ôïῦ ìåãÜëïõ èåïῦ êáὶ óùôῆñïò ἡìῶí Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ), and this interpretation is borne out by the word ἐðéöÜíåéá (‘manifestation’) which immediately precedes, and by the whole context, which speaks of our Lord (v. 14). The phrase in 2Pe_1:1 is similar: ‘out God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Revised Version text).

The explicit ascription of Divinity is found frequently in the Johannine writings. In 1Jn_5:20, indeed, the phrase ‘This is the true God’ may be applied either to the Father or to the Son (see above, 3 (c)); and in Joh_1:18 the reading is disputed (see Only-Begotten); ‘God only begotten ‘(ìïíïãåíÞò èåüò) is somewhat better attested than ‘the only begotten Son’ (ὁ ìïíïãåíὴò õἱüò) and is the more difficult reading; Westcott (Com. in loc.) judges both readings to be of great and almost equal antiquity, but on various grounds thinks that the former most be accepted. But, whatever view we take of these two passages, St. Thomas’s confession, ‘My Lord and my God’ (Joh_20:28), is quite explicit; and so is the preface to the Fourth Gospel: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (Joh_1:1), and so are our Lord’s words, ‘I and the Father are one’ (ἕí ἐóìåí, Joh_10:30), The Johannine doctrine of the Logos or Word, which cannot be altogether passed over even in an investigation which deals chiefly with the NT outside the Gospels (though the title ‘Word of God’ occurs only in Rev_19:13 outside the Fourth Gospel, for Heb_11:3 [ῥÞìáôé èåïῦ] is no exception to this statement), is equivalent to the Pauline doctrine of the Image. The Logos is an eternally existent ‘Person’ through whom God has ever revealed Himself; who was in a true sense distinct from the Father, and yet ‘was God’ (Joh_1:1); who was incarnate, ‘became flesh and tabernacled (ἐóêÞíùóåí) among us’ (Joh_1:14). The Logos is identified with Jesus Christ, whose glory the disciples beheld.

(d) Pre-existence of our Lord.-This is stated frequently in the NT. Besides the passages just quoted in (c), we may notice Rom_8:3 (‘God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh’); 1Co_10:4 (the Israelites of old ‘drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ [note the past tense ‘was’: it is not a mere type]); 1Co_15:47 (‘the second man is of heaven’; the best Manuscripts omit ‘the Lord,’ but this does not affect the present point; Robertson-Plummet, however [International Critical Commentary , 1911, in loc.], think that the reference is to the Second Advent rather than to the Incarnation); 2Co_8:9 (‘though he was rich, for your sakes he became poor’ (ἐðôþ÷åõóå)-if He had no previous existence, there never was a previous time when He was rich); Col_1:17 (‘he is before all things, and in him all things consist’ [hold together]: see above (c)); 1Ti_1:15 (Christ Jesus came into the world’); 1Ti_3:16 (‘He who was manifested in the flesh’: the reading èåüò for ὄò [i.e. OC for OC], which would have made this verse an explicit statement of our Lord’s Divinity, has ‘no sufficient ancient evidence’ [Revised Version margin], but this ancient hymn, as it appears to be, is good witness for the pre-existence); 2Ti_1:9 f. (‘which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus’); Heb_1:6 (‘when he bringeth in the firstborn into the world’); 1Pe_1:20 (‘who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake’); 1Jn_3:5-8 (He ‘was manifested’); 1Jn_4:2 (‘Jesus Christ is come in the flesh’), See also below (e). Some of these expressions might have been interpreted, though with difficulty, of an ordinary birth; but such an interpretation is impossible when we compare them all together.

With these passages from the Epistles we may compare a few examples taken out of the Fourth Gospel. The Word was ‘in the beginning’ and ‘became flesh’ (Joh_1:1; Joh_1:4). Jesus speaks of Himself, or the Evangelist speaks of him, as ‘he that cometh from above, he that cometh from heaven’ (Joh_3:31), whom thou hast sent’ (Joh_17:8), as ‘be that descended out of heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven’ (Joh_3:13; the last four words are omitted by àB and some other authorities, and are thought by Westcott-Hort’s Greek Testament [Appendix, p. 75] to be an early but true gloss). Pre-existence does not in itself imply Godhead; but, on the other hand, if our Lord was not pre-existent, He cannot be God.

(e) Divine attributes ascribed to our Lord.-At the outset of the apostolic period St. Peter speaks of Jesus as the ‘Prince’ (or ‘Author,’ ἀñ÷çãüò) ‘of life’; He could not be holden of death (Act_2:24. This resembles the sayings of the Fourth Gospel that Jesus has ‘life in himself’ (Joh_5:26, see below, 8), and that He has power to lay down His life and to take it again (Joh_10:18). Jesus ‘abolished death and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel’ (2Ti_1:10). He is ‘the first and the last, and the Living One,’ who ‘was dead’ but is ‘alive for evermore and has ‘the keys of death and of Hades’ (Rev_1:17 f.); He is the ‘Alpha and Omega’ (Rev_22:13), a title which had just before been given to the Father (Rev_1:8; Rev_21:6; see above, 3 (b)). The Lamb, as well as the Father, is the source of the river (Rev_22:1) which is the gift of the Spirit (see Swete, Com. in loc.; cf. Joh_7:38 f.). Christ, being the Living One, is called ‘our life,’ the giver of life to us, in Col_3:4 : cf. 2Ti_1:10 as above, and Joh_6:57 (‘he that eateth me, he also shall live because of mo’; see 8). And therefore He is ‘in us’ (Rom_8:10, etc.).

Our Lord is represented as receiving the worship of angels (Heb_1:6) and of the four-and-twenty elders (Rev_5:6 f.), and of the angels and living creatures and elders (Rev_5:11-14). He took part in the creation of the world (Col_1:16, Heb_1:2; Heb_1:10; Heb_3:3, 1Co_8:6, Rom_11:36, Joh_1:3). Both He and the Father are called ‘the Saviour.’ The ascription of this title to the Father is characteristic of the Pastoral Epistles (1Ti_1:1; 1Ti_2:3; 1Ti_4:10, Tit_1:3; Tit_2:10; Tit_3:4; cf. 2Ti_1:9) and is also found in Jud_1:25 Revised Version , Luk_1:47 (cf. Jam_4:12); but it is given to our Lord in 2Ti_1:10, Tit_1:4; Tit_3:6 (in each case just after it had been given to the Father), as it is given in Eph_5:23, Php_3:10, 1Jn_4:14, 2Pe_1:11; 2Pe_2:20; 2Pe_3:2; 2Pe_3:18, Luk_2:11, Joh_4:42, Act_5:31; Act_13:23 (cf. also Joh_12:47, Heb_7:25). His human name of Jesus was given Him with that very signification (Mat_1:21). It was the foundation of the gospel message that ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’ (1Ti_1:15). It is in the same way that the Father is sometimes said to be the Judge, sometimes our Lord. The Father judges through the Son (Joh_5:22; cf. Jam_4:12 with Jam_5:9). He that sat on the white horse ‘doth judge and make war’ (Rev_19:11), though during His earthly ministry our Lord did not judge (Joh_8:15). These two considerations, that Jesus is Saviour and Judge, might not be so conclusive as to His Divinity, if it were not for another office ascribed to Him, that of the One Mediator (1Ti_2:5). He is Himself man (1Ti_2:6), or He could not mediate; and by parity of reasoning He is Himself God. A mediator must share the nature of both parties to the mediation. A mere man can only supplicate; God not incarnate can be merciful; but God incarnate alone can mediate.

The great attributes of God-love, truth, knowledge, holiness, righteousness (including justices)-are ascribed to our Lord. His love is spoken of in some of the most pathetic passages of St. Paul: ‘the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me’ (Gal_2:20), ‘the love of Christ which passeth knowledge’ (Eph_3:19; cf. Eph_5:25). The Apocalyptist declares that ‘he loveth us and loosed us from our sins by his blood’ (Rev_1:5). It is because of this Divine attribute of love that ‘Christ forgave’ sinners (Eph_4:32). His forgiving sins was a great scandal to the Jews (Mar_2:5-7; Mar_2:10). Well might they ask, from their point of view, ‘Who can forgive sins but one, even God?’ The forgiveness of sins by out Lord differs in kind, not in degree, from human absolutions pronounced by Christian ministers, who do not profess to be able to read the heart or to perform any but a conditional and ministerial action.-For the attribute of truth see Rev_3:7; Rev_3:14 (‘the Amen’) Rev_6:10, Rev_19:11 (in these Jesus is [ὁ] ἀëçèéíüò, the ‘ideal or absolute truth,’ not merely ‘veracious’), Joh_1:14 (‘full of grace and truth’) Joh_14:6 (‘I am the way and the truth and the life’). Our Lord, then, is absolute Truth; and with this attribute is associated that of knowledge: ‘He knew all men … he himself knew what was in man’ (Joh_2:25); without this He could not be the Judge (see also 1Co_1:24; 1Co_1:30, Col_2:3).-Most emphatically is our Lord called holy. His is an absolute sanctity (Rev_3:7 : ‘He that is holy, he that is true’); not only the holiness of a good man who strives to do God’s will, but absolute sinlessness. This attribute is insisted on with some vehemence in 2Co_5:21, Heb_4:15; Heb_7:26 f. (‘holy’ [ὄóéïò; see 3 (f) note], ‘separated from sinners’), 1Pe_1:19; 1Pe_2:22, 1Jn_3:5; note also Rom_8:3 (‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’). Sanday-Headlam justly remark (International Critical Commentary in loc.) that ‘the flesh of Christ is “like” ours inasmuch as it is flesh; “like,” and only “like,” because it is not sinful.’ For this attribute see also Act_3:14 (‘the Holy and Righteous One’) Act_4:27, Rev_6:10; and, in the Gospels, Mar_1:24, Joh_6:69, etc. Both the demoniacs in a lower sense and the instructed disciples in a higher one call our Lord ‘the Holy One of God.’ It was announced by Gabriel that from His birth Jesus should be called holy, the Son of God (Luk_1:35 Revised Version ).-Lastly, the attribute of righteousness is ascribed to our Lord, e.g. in Act_3:14; Act_22:14, 2Ti_4:8, Heb_1:9, Jam_5:6, 1Pe_3:16, (Rev_19:11, as in Joh_5:30. It is this attribute which assures a just judgment; but it includes more than ‘justice’ in She ordinary human sense; it embraces all that ‘uprightness’ stands for. (With the whole of this sub-section, cf. § 3 above.)

(f) Christ’s Godhead is not contrary to His true humanity.-In weighing all the above considerations, we must remember the great stress that is laid in the NT on the true humanity of Jesus (e.g. Act_17:31, Rom_1:3, 1Ti_2:5, Rev_1:13), though this does not come within the scope of this article. The apostles did not make their Master to be a mere Docetic or phantom man. Jesus really suffered in His human spirit as well as in His human body. But when we review all the passages given in the preceding paragraphs, and others like them, what-ever deductions we may make because of a doubtful reading here or a questionable interpretation there, we cannot doubt that the apostles taught that Jesus is no mere man, or even a created angel, but is God. See further below, § 9.

7. Personality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost.-Much is said in the OT of the Spirit of God, who from the first had given life to the world (Gen_1:2; Gen_2:7, Job_33:4). The ‘Spirit’ in Hebrew, as in Greek and Latin, is the Breath of God (øåּçַ, ðíåῦìá, spiritus), who not only gave physical life at the first, but is the moving power of holiness. The Psalmist prays: ‘Take not thy holy spirit from me’ (Psa_51:11). But the OT teachers had not yet learnt what Christian theology calls the personality of the Holy Ghost (sec above, 5 (a)), though in the teaching about ‘Wisdom,’ which is in some degree personified in the OT, e.g. in Proverbs 8 and the Sapiential books of the Apocrypha, and also in the phraseology of such passages as Isa_48:16; Isa_63:10, they made some approach to it. In Christian times, while there has been on the whole little doubt about the Godhead of the Spirit (though in the 4th cent. the Arians asserted that He was a created being), yet men have frequently hesitated about His distinct personality, and have thought of Him merely as an Attribute or Influence of the Father. It is therefore important to investigate the apostolic teaching on the subject. We must first notice that the NT writers fully recognize that the Holy Spirit had worked in the Old Dispensation; He ‘spake by the prophets’ [the enlarged ‘Nicene’ Creed]; the words quoted from the OT are the words of the Holy Ghost (Act_1:16; Act_28:25, 1Pe_1:11, 2Pe_1:21, Mar_12:36 etc.). The Pentecostal outpouring was not the first working of the Spirit in the world. But the apostolic writers teach a far higher doctrine of the Spirit than was known in the OT.

(a) The Godhead of the Holy Ghost.-We hare already seen (above, 5 (c)) that the Spirit is in the NT teaching joined to the Father and Son in a manner which implies Godhead. The ‘Spirit of God’ (see below) must be God. When Ananias lied ‘to the Holy Ghost,’ he lied not ‘unto men but unto God’ (Act_5:3 f. cf. Act_5:9, where he and Sapphira are said to have ‘agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord’). With this we may compare Mar_3:29, where blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is said to have ‘never forgiveness’; the || Mat_12:31 f. adds: ‘Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man it shall he forgiven him.’ The inference is that if the Son is God, the Spirit is God.-Divine attributes are predicated of the Spirit, In particular, He is throughout named holy. We may ask why this epithet is so constantly given to Him, for it is obviously not intended to derogate from the Father or the Son. May not the reason be sought in the work of the Spirit? It is through Him that man becomes holy, through Him that God works on man. In this connexion we may notice two points. (1) In the OT we do not find the absolute title ‘the Holy Spirit,’ though the Spirit is called ‘holy’ in Psa_51:11 (‘thy holy spirit’) and Isa_63:10 f. (‘his holy spirit’). The use of the title ‘the Holy Spirit’ is a token of advance to the conception of personality; see below (b). (2) In the NT there is frequently a difference between the title when used without the article and when used with it, so that ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí (‘Holy Spirit’) is a gift or manifestation of the Spirit in its relation to the life of man, while the same words with the article (ôὸ ðíåῦìá ôὸ ἅãéïí or ôὸ ἅãéïí ðíåῦìá) denote the Holy Spirit considered as a Divine Person (Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, 1909, p. 396f.).-Again, knowledge of the deep things of God is predicated of the Spirit (1Co_2:10 f.). He is the truth (1Jn_5:7; cf. Joh_15:26). He is the Spirit of life (Rom_8:2), and immanent in man (Rom_5:5; Rom_8:9; Rom_14:11, 1Co_6:19 [cf. esp. 2Co_6:16] 1Co_7:40, Gal_4:6, Joh_14:17, etc.). He is eternal (Heb_9:14; but on this verse see Swete, p. 61).

(b) The Personality of the Holy Ghost.-This needs careful consideration. Is He but an Influence of the Father? The NT writings negative this idea; for, though they join together the Spirit with the Father and the Son, as above, 5 (c), yet they represent the Spirit as being in a read sense distinct from both. In Joh_14:15 our Lord says: ‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another (ἄëëïí) Comforter.’ He is sent by the Father (Joh_14:26), proceeds from the Father (Joh_15:26), and is sent by the on from the Father (Joh_15:26, Joh_16:7). He is called by St. Paul in the same context ‘the Spirit of God’ and ‘the Spirit of Christ’ (Rom_8:6). The Father is not the same Person as the Son, and if the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of both. He must be distinct from both. This is seen also, though in not quite so close and striking a contest, in many other passages. He is called ‘the Spirit of God’ also in 1Co_2:10 f., 14; 1Co_7:40, Eph_4:30, Php_3:3, 1Th_4:8, 1Jn_4:2; 1Jn_4:13, as in Mat_12:28 (where the || Luk_11:20 has ‘the finger of God’ instead, the meaning being that God works through the Holy Ghost); He is called ‘the Spirit of your Father’ in Mat_10:20; and ‘the Spirit of Christ’ or ‘of Jesus’ or ‘of the Son’ in Act_16:7 Revised Version , Gal_4:6, Php_1:19, 1Pe_1:11; note especially Galatians 4; Galatians 6 : ‘God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.’ Again, that the Spirit is distinct from the Son is clear from Joh_16:7 (‘if I go not away the Comforter will not come onto you, but if I go I will send him unto you’) and Joh_16:14 (‘he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you’).

Personal acts are frequently predicated of the Holy Ghost. In Act_13:2; Act_13:4 we read; ‘They ministered to the Lord, and the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.… So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost,’ etc. In Act_15:28 the formula which became the common usage of later Councils is used: ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.’ So we read that the Spirit wills (1Co_2:11), searches (1Co_2:10), is grieved (Eph_4:30), helps and intercedes (Rom_8:26), dwells within us (above (a)), and distributes gifts (1Co_12:11).

In the sub-apostolic period there is found tome confusion between the Son and the Spirit: e.g. Hermas, Sim. 1Co_12:6, ix. 1; pseudo-Clement, 2 Cor. ix., xiv.; Justin, Apol. i. 33. Thus Justin Says: ‘The Spirit and the Power which is from God must not be thought to be aught else but the Word who la God’s First-begotten.’ Hermas seems to identify the Spirit with the pre-existent Divine nature of Christ: ‘The holy pre existent Spirit which created the whole earth God made to dwell in flesh.… That Spirit in the Son of God.’ But the meaning of these writers seems to be merely that the pre-existent Logos was spirit and was Divine. Swete (Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 31) remarks of this period that ‘there was as yet no formal theology of the Spirit and no effort to create it; nor wan there any conscious heresy. But the presence of the Spirit in the Body of Christ was recognized on all hands as an acknowledged fact of the Christian life.’

8. Subordination.-This is the term by which Christian theology expresses the doctrine that there are not three sources in the Godhead, but that the Son and the Holy Ghost derive their Divine substance from the Father, and that, while they are equal to Him as touching their Godhead, yet in a real sense they are subordinate to Him. This, however, does not involve the Arian conception of a Supreme God and two inferior deities. It must be remembered that human language is limited, and unable to express fully the Divine mysteries; be that just as the technical terms ‘Trinity,’ ‘Person,’ may be misused in the interests of Tritheism, so ‘subordination’ may be misused in the interests of Arianism.

It is noteworthy that the ‘spiritual Gospel,’ as Clement of Alexandria calls’ Jn. (quoted in Eusebius, HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] vi, xiv. 7), though it insists so strongly on the Godhead of our Lord, yet equally emphasizes the doctrine of subordination. It is the Father who, having ‘life in himself,’ gave ‘to the Son also to have life in himself,’ and ‘gave all judgment unto the Son’ (Joh_5:22; Joh_5:26). Jesus says: ‘I live because of the Father’ (Joh_6:57; cf. Joh_10:18). It has been disputed whether Joh_14:28 (‘the Father is greater than I’) refers to Jesus’ humanity, as the Latin Fathers ordinarily explain it, or to His Divinity, as the Greek Fathers interpret; if to the latter, we have here a striking instance of subordination (see Liddon, Bampton Lectures, 18668, 1878, lect. iv. p. 199f.). We find the same thing in St. Paul: ‘The head of Christ is God’ (1Co_11:3); ‘then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all’ (1Co_15:28); cf. 1Co_8:8, ‘of whom are all things,’ Subordination is also suggested by the frequent phrase ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and the words ‘my God’ used by our Lord in Rev_3:12, Revised Version Rev_3:12, and especially in Joh_20:17, where Jesus distinguishes ‘my God’ and ‘your God’ just as He distinguishes ‘my Father’ and ‘your Father’ (above, 4 (a)).

Both the Godhead and the subordination of our Lord ore expressed by the phrases ‘God of (ἑê) God,’ ‘Very God of very God of the Nicene Creed. The Father is the fount or source of Godhead, and there is none other.

The subordination of the Spirit is implied in much that has been quoted above. The very title ‘the Spirit of God’ denotes that He is subordinate to the Father and derives from Him. Note also Joh_16:13 f: ‘He shall not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak … he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you,’ with which we must compare Joh_15:15 : ‘all things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you.’ This refers to the temporal mission of the Holy Ghost, and so, probably (at least in its primary aspect), does the saying that He ‘proceedeth from the Father’ (Joh_15:26). The procession of the Holy Ghost has been much discussed, and the controversy has been complicated by the addition of a word (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church; but most of those who have engaged in this theological warfare might probably agree in the statement that He who is ‘the Spirit of Christ’ proceeds, in eternity as well as in time, from the Father through the Son. In any case, procession involves what is meant by ‘subordination.’

9. The Divine unity.-Although the apostolic writers emphasize the distinctions in the Godhead, they at the same time reiterate the OT doctrine that God is One. They show no consciousness of teaching anything but the unity of God. The saying of Deu_6:4 (cf. Isa_44:8) that ‘The Lord our God is one Lord’ is repeated by the Master in Mar_12:29. ‘There is no God but one,’ says St. Paul (1Co_8:4 so 1Co_8:6); ‘There is one God,’ ‘the only God’ (1Ti_2:5; 1Ti_1:17). St. James makes the unity of God a common ground between his opponents and himself; even the demons believe [this] (Jam_2:19). As a matter of fact, Christianity was never seriously accused of polytheism. Aubrey Moore remarks (Lux Mundi5, 1890, p. 59) that at the present day polytheism has ceased to exist in the civilized world; every theist is by a rational necessity a monotheist. And this tendency had begun at the commencement of the Christian era. But the Jews of that day mode the Divine unity to be self-absorbed. The Divine attribute of love implies relations within the Divine Being; and hence the Jewish idea of God was a barren one, as is the Muhammadan idea to-day. The world needed a re-statement of the doctrine of God, and this was given by Christianity. The Christian doctrine steers its way between Tritheism, which postulates three Persons like there individuals, and Sabellianism, which teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are but three aspects of God. It does not profess to be ‘easy’; it was the desire for ‘easiness’ that led to Arianism and its cognates, which taught that the Son and the Spirit were inferior and created Divine beings; and, indeed, it was the same desire that led to all the old Christian heresies. But we need not expect that the ‘deep things of God’ (1Co_2:10), which cannot adequately be expressed in human language, will be readily comprehensible to our limited human intelligence.

To whom is this re-statement of the doctrine of God due? Was it made in sub-apostolic times, or by the apostles, or by our Lord Himself? Those who deny that St. Paul wrote any Epistles, or at least any that have survived, and who make the Fourth Gospel, and perhaps the First, to be 2nd cent. writings, may take the first view. Only it is difficult to imagine what unknown genius in the sub-apostolic age could have made such a revolution in thought. This view, however, may safely be passed over, as involving a thoroughly false criticism of the NT books. More attention must be paid to the view that the re-statement of doctrine is due to St. Paul; that he was, in reality, the founder of Christian doctrine, and that the ‘original Christianity is better represented by Ebionism.’ It has been well pointed out by Gore (Bampton Lectures, 1891, Appended Note 26, p. 254ff.) that this view is contrary to all the evidence. Those books of the NT which are most independent of St. Paul, such us the Second Gospel, the Epistle of St. James, and the Apocalypse, give the same doctrine that the Apostle of the Gentiles gives. There was no opposition on the subject of the Person of Christ between St. Paul and his judaizing opponents, as would certainly have been the case had Ebionism been the original Christianity. The re-statement of the doctrine of God was fully received at least within a generation of the Ascension. For example, Sanday points out (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv, 573a) that the use of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ as theological terms goes back to a date which is not more than 23 years from that event (1Th_1:1; 1Th_1:10). It is impossible to account for such a rapid growth unless the re-statement came from Him whoso bond-servants the apostles loved to profess themselves. The concurrence of so many independent writers can only be due to the fact that ‘grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; God only begotten [or the only begotten Son], which is in the bosom of the Father, be hath declared him’ (Joh_1:17 f.).

Literature.-Out of a vast number of works it is not easy to give a small selection which will be useful to the reader; and therefore only English works are here mentioned, and only those which bear on the apostolio period. Reference may be made to J. Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed (first published in 1659; a monument of theological learning, of which the foot-notes, giving the Patristic quotations, are specially valuable); C, Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God (Bampton Lectures, 1891); H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Bampton Lectures, 1866); Lux Mundi5, 1890 (especially Essays iv., v., vi., viii.); H. B. Swete, The Apostles’ Creed3, 1899, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, 1909, and The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, 1912; R. L. Ottley, Aspects of the OT (Bampton Lectures, 1897) (especially Lecture iv. On the ‘Progressive Self-Revelation of God’); R. C. Moberley, Atonement and Personality, 1901; H. C. Powell, The Principle of the Incarnation, 1896; A. J. Mason, The Faith of the Gospel, 1887-89. Special reference must also be made to article ‘God’ and ‘Son of God’ by W. Sanday in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and ‘Trinity’ by C. F. D’Arcy in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels .

A. J. Maclean.

The Bible makes no attempt to prove the existence of God, but assumes it from the outset (Gen 1:1). This God is neither an impersonal ‘force’ nor an abstract ‘principle’ but a living person, and people find true meaning to existence by coming into a living relationship with him (Joh 17:3).

The personal God revealed

As people observe the physical world, they may conclude that there is an intelligent and powerful God who is the ultimate cause and controller of all things (Act 17:23-27; Rom 1:19-20; Heb 3:4; see CREATION). As they reflect upon their awareness of right and wrong, they may conclude that there is a moral God to whom all rational creatures are answerable (Act 17:23; Rom 2:15-16). However, God has not left people with only a vague or general knowledge of himself. He has revealed himself more fully through history, and he has recorded that revelation in the Bible (Jer 1:1-3; 2Pe 1:21; see REVELATION). The central truth of that revelation is that there is only one God (Deu 6:4; Isa 44:6; Jer 10:10; Mar 12:29; 1Th 1:9; 1Ti 2:5), though he exists in the form of a trinity (see TRINITY).

In any study of the character of God, we must bear in mind that God is a unified personality. He is not made up of different parts, nor can he be divided into different parts. Also, he is not simply a person who has certain qualities (e.g. goodness, truth, love, holiness, wisdom) but he is the full expression of these qualities. The Bible’s way of putting this truth into words is to say that God is love, he is light, he is truth (Joh 14:6; 1Jn 1:5; 1Jn 4:16; see LOVE; LIGHT; TRUTH). (In the present article many of the qualities, or attributes, of God can be mentioned only briefly. For fuller details see the separate articles as indicated.)

Eternal and independent

Since it is impossible to give a complete definition or description of God, the Bible makes no attempt to do so. In addition, it forbids the use of anything in nature or anything made by human hands as a physical image of God, for such things can lead only to wrong ideas about God (Exo 20:4-5; Deu 4:15-19; see IDOL, IDOLATRY).

When Moses asked for a name of God that would give the Israelites some idea of his character, the name that God revealed to him was ‘I am who I am’ (Exo 3:14). The name was given not to satisfy curiosity, but to tell God’s people that their God was independent, eternal, unchangeable and able always to do what he, in his absolute wisdom, knew to be best. (Concerning this and other names of God see YAHWEH.)

God’s existence cannot be measured according to time, for he is without beginning and without end. He is eternal (Psa 90:2; Isa 48:12; Joh 5:26; Rom 1:23; Rom 16:26; 1Ti 1:17; Rev 1:8; Rev 4:8; see ETERNITY). He is answerable to no one. He does not need to give reasons for his decisions or explanations of his actions (Psa 115:3; Isa 40:13-14; Dan 4:35; Act 4:28; Rom 9:20-24), though in his grace he may sometimes do so (Gen 18:17-19; Eph 1:9). His wisdom is infinite and therefore beyond human understanding (Psa 147:5; Isa 40:28; Dan 2:20; Rom 11:33; Rom 16:27; see WISDOM).

A God who is infinite has no needs. Nothing in the works of creation or in the activities of humans or angels can add anything to him or take anything from him (Psa 50:10-13; Act 17:24-25; Rom 11:36). He is under obligation to no one, he needs no one, and he depends on no one. Whatever he does, he does because he chooses to, not because he is required to (Eph 1:11). But, again in his grace, he may choose people to have the honour of serving him (Psa 105:26-27; Act 9:15).

Majestic and sovereign

As the creator and ruler of all things, God is pictured as enthroned in majesty in the heavens (Psa 47:7; Psa 93:1-2; Psa 95:3-5; Heb 1:3; see GLORY). Nothing can compare with his mighty power (Isa 40:12-15; Isa 40:25-26; Jer 32:17; Rom 1:20; Eph 1:19-20; Eph 3:20; see POWER).

God is the possessor of absolute authority and nothing can exist independently of it (Psa 2:1-6; Isa 2:10-12; Isa 2:20-22; Isa 40:23; see AUTHORITY). He maintains the whole creation (Psa 147:8-9; Mat 5:45; Col 1:17), he controls all life (Deu 7:15; Deu 28:60; Job 1:21; Psa 104:29-30; Mat 10:29) and he directs all events, small and great, towards the goals that he has determined (Gen 45:5-8; Psa 135:6 : Pro 16:33; Isa 10:5-7; Isa 44:24-28; Isa 46:9-11; Amo 3:6; Amo 4:6-11; Joh 11:49-53; Act 2:23; Act 17:26; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11; see PREDESTINATION; PROVIDENCE). Yet people have the freedom to make their own decisions, and they are responsible for those decisions (Deu 30:15-20; Isa 1:16-20; Mat 27:21-26; Rom 9:30-32).

There are no limits to God’s knowledge or presence. This is a cause for both fear and joy: fear, because it means that no sin can escape him; joy, because it means that no one who trusts in his mercy can ever be separated from him (Psa 139:1-12; Pro 15:3; Isa 40:27-28; Isa 57:15; Jer 23:24; Heb 4:13). God is not only over all things, but is also in all things (Act 17:24; Act 17:27-28; Eph 4:6).

Since God is sovereign, people must submit to him and obey him. Refusing to do this, they rebel against him. They want to be independent, but instead they become slaves of sin (Gen 3:1-7; Joh 8:34; see SIN). They cannot escape God’s judgment through anything they themselves might do. They can do nothing but repent of their rebellion and surrender before the sovereign God, trusting solely in his grace for forgiveness (Act 17:30-31; Eph 2:8; see GRACE).

The rebellion of sinners, though in opposition to God, does not destroy God’s sovereignty. God allows evil to happen, but he never allows it to go beyond the bounds that he has determined (Job 1:12; see EVIL; SATAN). God still works according to his purposes, for his own glory. He still causes to happen whatever does happen, even to the salvation of rebellious sinners (Isa 14:24; Isa 37:26; Mat 25:34; Act 2:23; Eph 1:5; Eph 3:20; see ELECTION).

Invisible yet personal

From the above it is clear that God is not an impersonal ‘force’, but a personal being. He has knowledge, power, will and feelings. Human beings also have knowledge, power, will and feelings, but that does not mean that God is like a human being (Hos 11:9). On the contrary, human beings have these attributes only because God has them; for they have been made in God’s image (Gen 1:26; see IMAGE).

Being spirit, God is invisible (Joh 4:24; Rom 1:20; 1Ti 1:17; Heb 11:27). Since human language cannot properly describe a person who has no physical form, the Bible has to use pictures and comparisons when speaking of God. It may speak of God as if he has human features, functions and emotions, but such expressions should not be understood literally (Gen 2:2; Num 12:8; Deu 29:20; Deu 33:27; Psa 2:4; Joh 10:29; Heb 4:13).

Not only is God a person, but believers are so aware of a personal relationship with him that they can collectively call him ‘our God’ and individually ‘my God’ (Act 2:39; Php 4:19). They have an increased appreciation of God’s character through their understanding of Jesus Christ; because, in the person of Jesus Christ, God took upon himself human form and lived in the world he had created (Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9; Col 1:15; see JESUS CHRIST). God is the Father of Jesus Christ (Mar 14:36; Joh 5:18; Joh 8:54) and through Jesus Christ he becomes the Father of all who believe (Rom 8:15-17; see FATHER).

Unchangeable yet responsive

Although God is personal, he is unchangeable. Everything in creation changes, but the Creator never changes (Psa 33:11; Mal 3:6; Heb 1:10-12; 1Pe 1:24). This does not mean that God is mechanical, that he has no emotions, or that he is the helpless prisoner of his own laws. What it means may be summarized from two aspects.

Firstly, the unchangeability of God means that, because he is infinite, there is no way in which any of his attributes can become greater or less. They cannot change for either better or worse. God can neither increase nor decrease in knowledge, love, righteousness, truth, wisdom or justice, because he possesses these attributes in perfection (Exo 34:6-7).

Secondly, God’s unchangeability means that he is consistent in all his dealings. His standards do not change according to varying emotions or circumstances as do the standards of human beings. His love is always perfect love, his righteousness is always perfect righteousness (Heb 6:17-18; Jas 1:17). God’s unchangeable nature guarantees that every action of his is righteous, wise and true.

We must not understand God’s unchangeability to mean that he is unmoved by human suffering on the one hand or human rebellion on the other. In his mercy he may have compassion on the weak, and in his wrath he may punish the guilty (Exo 2:23-25; Exo 32:9-10; Jas 5:4; 1Pe 3:12). He may change his treatment of people from blessing to judgment when they rebel (Gen 6:6-7; 1Sa 15:11; 1Sa 15:23) or from judgment to blessing when they repent (Joe 2:13-14; Jon 3:10).

This does not mean that events take God by surprise and he has to revise his plans. He always knows the end from the beginning, and he always bases his plans on his perfect knowledge and wisdom (Num 23:19; 1Sa 15:29; Isa 14:24; Isa 46:9-10; Rom 11:29).

Righteous yet loving

When the Bible speaks of God as holy, the emphasis is not so much on his sinlessness and purity as on his ‘separateness’ from all other things. A thing that was holy, in the biblical sense, was a thing that was set apart from the common affairs of life and consecrated entirely to God. God is holy as the supreme and majestic one who exists apart from all else and rules over all (Exo 15:11; Isa 40:25; Joh 17:11; Rev 4:8-9; Rev 15:4; see HOLINESS). Any vision of such a holy God overpowers the worshipper with feelings of awe, terror and unworthiness (Job 40:1-4; Isa 6:1-5; Hab 3:3; Hab 3:16; Rev 1:17).

Since holiness means separation from all that is common, it includes separation from sin. Therefore, God’s holiness includes his moral perfection. He is separate from evil and opposed to it (Hab 1:12-13). The Bible usually speaks of this moral holiness of God as his righteousness (Psa 11:7; Psa 36:6; Isa 5:16; Heb 1:9; 1Jn 3:7; see RIGHTEOUSNESS). God’s attitude to sin is one of wrath, or righteous anger. He cannot ignore sin but must deal with it (Psa 9:8; Isa 11:4-5; Jer 30:23-24; Rom 1:18; Rom 2:8; see WRATH; JUDGMENT).

But God is also a God of love, grace, mercy and longsuffering, and he wants to forgive repentant sinners (Psa 86:5; Psa 145:8-9; Rom 2:4; Tit 3:4; 2Pe 3:9; 1Jn 4:16; see LOVE; PATIENCE). His love is not in conflict with his righteousness. The two exist in perfect harmony. Because he loves, he acts righteously, and because his righteous demands against sin are met, his love forgives. All this is possible only because of what Jesus Christ has done on behalf of sinners (Rom 3:24; see PROPITIATION). The God who is the sinners’ judge is also the sinners’ saviour (Psa 34:18; Psa 50:1-4; 1Ti 2:3; 2Ti 4:18; Tit 3:4-7; see SALVATION).

The supreme being of the universe. He is the creator of all things (Isa 44:24). He alone is God (Isa 45:21-22; Isa 46:9; Isa 47:8). There have never been any Gods before Him nor will there be any after Him (Isa 43:10). God is God from all eternity (Psa 90:2). In Exo 3:14, God revealed His name to His people. The name commonly known in English is Jehovah. This comes from the four Hebrew consonants that spell the name of God. (See Tetragrammaton.)

God is a Trinity, knows all things (1Jn 3:20), can do all things (Jer 32:17; Jer 32:27 - except those things against His nature like lie, break His word, cheat, steal, etc.), and is everywhere all the time (Psa 119:7-12).