International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Gin — Grace
Gin
Gin - jin (moqesh, pach): A noose of hair or wire for snaring wild birds alive. There are over half a dozen traps and net devices indicated by different terms in the Bible. The gin was of horse-hair for small birds and wire for larger ones. It is mentioned in Amos 3:5: "Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is set for him? shall a snare spring up from the ground, and have taken nothing at all?" Job writing in mental and physical discomfort on the ash heap included all methods mentioned in one outburst:
"For he is cast into a net by his own feet.
And he walketh upon the toils.
A gin shall take him by the heel,
And a snare shall lay hold on him,
A noose is hid for him in the ground.
And a trap for him in the way" (Job 18:8 ff).
Gene Stratton-Porter
Ginath
Ginath - gi'-nath (ginath): Father of Tibni, the unsuccessful rival of Omri (1 Kings 16:21-22).
Ginnethoi; Ginnethon
Ginnethoi; Ginnethon - gin-e-tho'-i, gin'-e-thon (the King James Version Ginnetho), (ginnethoy, and ginnethon): The head of a priestly family. Ginnethoi (Ginnetho) is found in Nehemiah 12:4, and Ginnethon in Nehemiah 10:6; 12:16.
Girdle
Girdle - gur'-d'-l.
Girgashite
Girgashite - gur'-ga-shit (girgashi; Gergesaios; also punctuated (?) Girgasite (Genesis 10:16 the King James Version)): A son of (the land of) Canaan (Genesis 10:16), and accordingly enumerated along with the Canaanite' in the list of tribes or nationalities inhabiting that country (Genesis 15:21; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10; 24:11; Nehemiah 9:8). It has been supposed that the name survived in that of "the Gergesenes," the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "the Gadarenes"), of Matthew 8:28, on the East side of the Sea of Galilee; Josephus (Ant., I, vi, 2), however, states that nothing was known about it. The inscriptions of the Egyptian king, Ramses II, mention the Qarqish who sent help to the Hittites in their war with Egypt; but Qarqish was more probably in Asia Minor than in Syria. Pinches (The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records, 324) would identify the Girgashites with the Kirkishati of an Assyrian tablet; the latter people, however, seem to have lived to the East of the Tigris, and it may be that, as in the case of the Hittites, a colony of the Qarqish, from Asia Minor, was established in Palestine.
A. H. Sayce
Girl
Girl - gurl: Twice in the Old Testament as the rendering of yaldah (Joel 3:3; Zechariah 8:5), in both cases in association with boys. Same word rendered "damsel" in Genesis 34:4.
See DAUGHTER; MAID,MAIDEN .
Girzites
Girzites - gur'-zits.
See GIZRITES.
Gishpa
Gishpa - gish'-pa (the King James Version Gispa; gishpa'): An officer of the Nethinim (Nehemiah 11:21). A comparison with Ezra 2:43 makes it probable that he is to be identified with Hasupha, and quite possible that this word is a corruption of Hasupha.
Gittah-hepher
Gittah-hepher - git-a-he'-fer (gittah chepher): the King James Version (Joshua 19:13) for Gath-hepher. Gittah is correctly Gath with the Hebrew letter, he ("h") locale, meaning "toward Gath."
Gittaim
Gittaim - git'-a-im (gittayim): The town to which the Beerothites tied, and where they lived as gerim, or protected strangers (2 Samuel 4:3). The place need not have been beyond the boundaries of Benjamin, so it may be identical with Gittaim of Nehemiah 11:33, which was occupied by Benjamites after the exile. It is named with Hazor and Ramah; but so far the site has not been discovered.
Gittites
Gittites - git'-its (gittim, plural of gittiy): The inhabitants of Gath. They are mentioned along with the inhabitants of the other chief Philistine cities in Joshua 13:3. It would seem that numbers of them emigrated to Judah, for we find 600 of them acting as a bodyguard to David with Ittai at their head (2 Samuel 15:18 ff; 2 Samuel 18:2). Obed-edom, to whom David entrusted the ark when he was frustrated in bringing it into the city of David, was a Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11 f; 1 Chronicles 13:13). The Gittites seem to have been remarkable for their great stature (2 Samuel 21:19; 1 Chronicles 20:5 ff).
Gittith
Gittith - git'-ith.
See MUSIC; PSALMS.
Give
Give - (nathan, yahabh, sum; didomi): "Give" is a very common word in the Old Testament. It is most frequently the translation of nathan, "to give" (Genesis 1:29; 3:6; Exodus 2:9; Deuteronomy 18:1-22, 20, etc., over 800 instances); nathan is also translated "to give up" (Deuteronomy 23:14; Isaiah 43:6; Hosea 11:8); of yahabh, "to give" (Genesis 30:1; 1 Chronicles 16:28 the King James Version). In Psalms 55:22 we have the perfect with suffix, "Cast thy burden upon Yahweh," margin "what he hath given thee"; elsewhere it is the imperative "Give!" (the King James Version in Gen, "Go to"); sum, "to put," "place" (Numbers 6:26; Proverbs 8:29); rum, "to lift up," "exalt" (2 Chronicles 30:24 bis; 2 Chronicles 35:7-8, 9, "to give to"); shubh, "to cause to turn back" (Leviticus 25:51-52; 2 Kings 17:3, "to give again"); various other words are in single instances translated "give."
In the New Testament, the common word is didomi, "to give" (Matthew 4:9; John 1:12; Revelation 1:1; 21:6, etc.); we have also apodidomi, "to give away (from one's self)" (Matthew 12:36; Luke 16:2; Acts 4:33; 19:40; Revelation 22:12); diadidomi, "to give throughout" (Revelation 17:13); epididomi, "to give upon or besides" (Matthew 7:9-10; John 13:26); metadidomi, "to give a share" (Romans 12:8); paradidomi, "to give over to" (Romans 1:28; 1 Corinthians 13:3; Galatians 2:20, etc.); prodidomi, "to give forth or foremost" (Romans 11:35); aponemo, "to apportion" (1 Peter 3:7); doreomai, "to give as a gift" (Mark 15:45, the Revised Version (British and American) "granted"; 2 Peter 1:3-4 the King James Version); martureo, "to give testimony or witness" (1 John 5:10); pareisphero, "to bring forward therewith" (2 Peter 1:5); parecho, "to hold near by" (Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:17); kataphero, "to bear against or down" (Acts 26:10); charizomai, "to grant as a favor" (Luke 7:21; Acts 27:24; Romans 8:32; Galatians 3:18; Philippians 2:9; Philemon 1:22 the King James Version). A few other words mostly occurring singly are translated "give."
Of the many changes in the Revised Version (British and American), the following are among the most important: for "Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies," "Thou hast also made mine enemies turn their backs unto me" (2 Samuel 22:41; Psalms 18:40); for "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him" (Job 40:19), the American Standard Revised Version has "He only that made him giveth him his sword," the English Revised Version, margin "furnished"; for "hasten after another god" (Psalms 16:4), the American Standard Revised Version has "give gifts for" (ERVm); for "give" (Psalms 29:1-2, etc.), the American Standard Revised Version has "ascribe"; for "give myself unto wine" (Ecclesiastes 2:3), "cheer my flesh with wine"; for "giveth his life" (John 10:11), "layeth down"; "given" is supplied (Acts 19:2), where we read instead of "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," "We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given," margin "there is a Holy Spirit"; for Christ shall give thee light" (Ephesians 5:14), "Christ shall shine upon thee"; for "give in charge" (1 Timothy 5:7), "command"; for "not given to wine" (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7), "no brawler," margin "not quarrelsome over wine"; for "she that liveth in pleasure" (1 Timothy 5:6), "giveth herself to"; for "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), "Every scripture inspired of God," margin "Every scripture is inspired of God"; for "given to filthy lucre" (Titus 1:7), "greedy of"; in Hebrews 2:16, the American Standard Revised Version has "For verily not of angels doth he give help," margin "For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold," etc. (compare Isaiah 41:9; Ecclesiastes 4:11; 8:9 (in the Greek) the English Revised Version, "not of angels doth he take hold") (the idea is that of taking hold of to lift up or help); in Ecclesiasticus 13:15 for "giving thanks to his name," the Revised Version (British and American) reads "make confession to his name"; for "giving all diligent" (2 Peter 1:5), "adding."
The prominence of "give" in the Bible reminds us that God is the great Giver (James 1:5), and of the words of the Lord Jesus, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35), "Freely ye received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8).
W. L. Walker
Gizonite
Gizonite - gi'-zon-it: This gentilic name in 1 Chronicles 11:34, "Hashem the Gizonite," is probably an error for "Gunite" (compare Numbers 26:48), and the passage should be corrected, after 2 Samuel 23:32, into "Jashen the Gunite."
Gizrites
Gizrites - giz'-rits (gizri (Kethibh); the King James Version Gezrites): Inhabitants of GEZER, (which see). The Qere reads girzi, Girzites (1 Samuel 27:8).
Glad Tidings
Glad Tidings - ti'-dingz (euaggelizo): "Glad-tidings" occurs in the King James Version in the translation of the verb euaggelizo, "to tell good news" (Luke 1:19; 8:1; Acts 13:32; Romans 10:15); in each instance, except the last, the Revised Version (British and American) translations "good tidings." The verb is also very frequently translated in the King James Version "to preach the gospel," the original meaning of which word (god-spell) is "good news or tidings" (Matthew 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22; 9:6; 20:1); in the first two passages the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "good tidings," margin "the gospel"; in the last two instances "the gospel" is retained, the American Revised Version, margin "good tidings"--the gospel or good tidings being the announcement of the near approach of the promised, long-looked-for salvation and kingdom of God; in Romans 1:15; 15:20; 1 Corinthians 1:17, etc., the King James Version has "the gospel," namely, that of God's reconciliation of the world to Himself in Christ; the Revised Version (British and American) in some passages substitutes "good tidings," or gives this in the margin; but "glad tidings" stands only in Romans 10:15.
W. L. Walker
Glass
Glass - glas (zekhukhith; hualos):
1. History: Glass is of great antiquity. The story of its discovery by accident, as related by Pliny (NH, xxxvi.65), is apocryphal, but it was natural for the Greeks and Romans to ascribe it to the Phoenicians, since they were the producers of the article as known to them. The Egyptian monuments have revealed to us the manufacture in a time so remote that it must have preceded that of the Phoenicians. A representation of glass-blowing on monuments of the Old Empire, as formerly supposed, is now regarded as doubtful, but undoubted examples of glazed pottery of that age exist. A fragment of blue glass has been found inscribed with the name of Antef III, of the XIth Dynasty, dating from 2000 or more BC (Davis, Ancient Egypt, 324). The oldest dated bottle, or vase, is one bearing the name of Thothmes III, 1500 or more BC, and numerous examples occur of later date. The close connection between Egypt and Syria from the time of Thothmes on must have made glass known in the latter country, and the Phoenicians, so apt in all lines of trade and manufacture, naturally seized on glass-making as a most profitable art and they became very proficient in it. The earliest glass was not very transparent, since they did not know how to free the materials used from impurities. It had a greenish or purplish tinge, and a large part of the examples we have of Phoenician glass exhibit this. But we have many examples of blue, red and yellow varieties which were purposely colored, and others quite opaque and of a whitish color, resembling porcelain (Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Ancient Phoenicia and Its Dependencies). But both they and the Egyptians made excellent transparent glass also, and decorated it with brilliant coloring on the surface (ib; Beni Hasan, Archeol. Survey of Egypt, Pt IV). Layard (Nineveh and Babylon) mentions a vase of transparent glass bearing the name of Sargon (522-505 BC), and glass was early known to the Babylonians.
2. Manufacture: Phoenicia was the great center, and the quantities found in tombs of Syria and Palestine go to confirm the statement that this was one of the great industries of this people, to which ancient authors testify (Strabo, Geog.; Pliny, NH). Josephus refers to the sand of the Belus as that from which glass was made (BJ, II, x, 2). It seems to have been especially adapted for the purpose, but there are other places on the coast where plenty of suitable sand could be obtained. The potash required was obtained by burning certain marine and other plants, and saltpeter, or niter, was also employed. The manufacture began centuries BC on this coast, and in the 12th century AD a factory is mentioned as still being worked at Tyre, and the manufacture was later carried on at Hebron, even down to recent times (Perrot and Chipiez).
Both the Egyptians and Phoenicians gained such proficiency in making transparent and colored glass that they imitated precious stones with such skill as to deceive the unwary. Necklaces are found composed of a mixture of real brilliants and glass imitations. Cut glass was manufactured in Egypt as early as the XVIIIth Dynasty, and diamonds were made use of in the article Glass composed of different colors in the same piece was made by placing layers of glass wire, of different colors, one above the other and then fusing them so thar they became united in a solid mass without intermingling. Colored designs on the surface were produced by tracing the patterns, while the glass was still warm and plastic, deep enough to receive the threads of colored glass which were imbedded in them. The whole was heated again sufficiently to fuse the threads and attach them to the body. The surface was then made even by perishing. By this process vessels and ornaments of very beautiful design were produced. Many of the specimens, as found, are covered by an exquisite iridescence which is due wholly to the decomposition of the surface by chemical action, from lying buried for centuries in the soil which thus acts upon it. This is often lost in handling by the scaling off of the outer surface.
Glass, in the strict sense, is rarely mentioned in Scripture, but it was certainly known to the Hebrews, and occurs in Job 28:17 (translated "crystal" in the King James Version). Bottles, cups and other vessels in glass must have been in use to some extent. The wine cup of Proverbs 23:31 and the bottle for tears mentioned in Psalms 56:8 were most likely of glass. Tear bottles are found in great quantities in the tombs throughout the land and were undoubtedly connected with funeral rites, the mourners collecting their tears and placing them in these bottles to be buried with the dead. As mourners were hired for the purpose, the number of these bottles would indicate the extent to which the deceased was honored. These were, of course, small, some quite diminutive (see illustration), as also were the vials or pots to contain the ointment for the eyebrows and eyelashes, used to heighten the beauty of the women, which was probably a custom among the Hebrews as well as their neighbors. Rings, bracelets and anklets of glass are very common and were doubtless worn by the Hebrew women (see Isaiah 3:18 f). In the New Testament the Greek hualos occurs in Revelation 21:18, 21, and the adjective derived from it hualinos in Revelation 4:6 and Revelation 15:2. In the other passages, where in the King James Version "glass" occurs, the reference is to "looking-glass," or mirror, which was not made of glass, but of bronze, and polished so as to reflect the light similar to glass. The Hebrew word for this is gillayon (Isaiah 3:23), or mar'ah (Exodus 38:8), and the Greek esoptron (1 Corinthians 13:12; James 1:23; compare Wisdom of Solomon 7:26; Sirach 12:11).
The composition of the Phoenician glass varies considerably. The analysis shows that, besides the ordinary constituents of silica, lime, lead, potash or soda, other elements are found, some being used for the purpose of coloring, such as manganese to give the purplish or violet hue, cobalt for blue, copper for red, etc. The articles illustrated above are of ordinary transparent glass with an iridescent surface, caused by decomposition, as mentioned above, indicated by the scaly appearance. Numbers 1:1-54, 4 and 5 are tear bottles, number 4 being only 1 Numbers 3:1-51/4 inches in height; numbers 2 and 3 are ointment vases which were used for the ointment with which ladies were accustomed to color their eyebrows and eyelashes to enhance their beauty. This custom still prevails in the East. The small ladle by the side of the larger vase is of bronze, used in applying the ointment. This vase is double and 6 3/4 inches high, ornamented with glass wire wound upon it while plastic. The larger vases (numbers 6 and 7) are about 6 inches in height. The hand-mirror ("looking-glass" the King James Version) is bronze, and had originally a polished surface, but is now corroded.
H. Porter
Glass, Sea of
Glass, Sea of - (thalassa hualine; Revelation 4:6; 15:2): In the vision of heaven in these two apocalyptic passages a "glassy sea" is seen before the throne of God. The pure translucency of the sea is indicated in the former reference by the words, "like unto crystal"; and the fiery element that may symbolize the energy of the Divine holiness is suggested in the latter passage by the trait, "mingled with fire." On the margin of this sea--on the inner side--stood the victorious saints, with harps, singing the song of Moses and of the Lamb (Revelation 15:2-4). The imagery here points to a relation with the triumphal song in Exodus 15:1-27, after the deliverance from Pharaoh at the Red Sea. It is not easy to define the symbolism precisely. The sea, reflecting in its crystalline depths the purity and holiness of the Divine character and administration, speaks at the same time of difficulties surmounted, victory obtained and safety assured, the after-glow of the Divine judgments by which this result has been secured still illuminating the glassy expanse that has been crossed.
James Orr
Gleaning
Gleaning - glen'-ing (laqat, `alal): The custom of allowing the poor to follow the reapers in the field and glean the fallen spears of grain is strikingly illustrated in the story of Ruth (Ruth 2:2-23). This custom had back of it one of the early agricultural laws of the Hebrews (Leviticus 19:9; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-21). Breaking this law was a punishable offense. The generosity of the master of the crop determined the value of the gleanings, as the story of Ruth well illustrates (Ruth 2:16). A reaper could easily impose upon the master by leaving too much for the gleaners, who might be his own children. The old Levitical law no longer holds in the land, but the custom of allowing the poor to glean in the grain fields and vineyards is still practiced by generous landlords in Syria. The writer has seen the reapers, even when they exercised considerable care, drop from their hands frequent spears of wheat. When the reapers have been hirelings they have carelessly left bunches of wheat standing behind rocks or near the boundary walls. The owner usually sends one of his boy or girl helpers to glean these. If he is of a generous disposition, he allows some needy woman to follow after the reapers and benefit by their carelessness. It is the custom in some districts, after the main crop of grapes has been gathered, to remove the watchman and allow free access to the vineyards for gleaning the last grapes.
Gideon touched the local pride of the men of Ephraim when he declared that the glory of their conquest surpassed his, as the gleanings of their vineyards did the whole crop of Abiezer (Judges 8:2). Gleaned is used of a captured enemy in Judges 20:45.
Figurative: Israel, because of her wickedness, will be utterly destroyed, even to a thorough gleaning and destruction of those who first escape (Jeremiah 6:9). The same picture of complete annihilation is given in Jeremiah 49:9-10.
James A. Patch
Glede
Glede - gled (ra`ah; gups): A member of the hawk species. It is given among the list of abominations in Deuteronomy 14:13, but not in the Lev list (Leviticus 11:14). The kite is substituted. The Arabs might have called one of the buzzards the glede. In England, where specimens of most of these birds appear in migration, the glede is synonymous with kite, and was given the name from glide, to emphasize a gliding motion in flight. See illustration, p. 1235.
Glistering
Glistering - glis'-ter-ing (pukh, "dye" (spec. "stibium"), "fair colors"; stilbonta): "`Glistering stones' (1 Chronicles 29:2) is better
than the `inlaid' of the Revised Version (British and American); for some kind of colored, brilliant stone seems meant" (HDB, II, 182); compare Isaiah 54:11 Revised Version, margin. The term is employed in Mark 9:3 to denote the white, lustrous appearance of Christ's garments at the transfiguration. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. For once the Divine effulgence shone through the veil of the humiliation (compare John 1:14).
Glitter; Glittering
Glitter; Glittering - glit'-er, glit'-er-ing (baraq, "lightning"): The word is used in sense of "glittering" in the Old Testament with "sword," "spear" (Deuteronomy 32:41; Job 20:25; Ezekiel 21:10, 28; Nahum 3:3; Habakkuk 3:11). In Ezekiel 21:10 the Revised Version (British and American) changes "glitter" to "as lightning," and in Deuteronomy 32:41 the Revised Version, margin gives, "the lightning of my sword." In Job 39:23, where the word is different (lahabh), the Revised Version (British and American) has "flashing."
Glorify
Glorify - glo'-ri-fi: The English word is the equivalent of a number of Hebrew and Greek words whose essential significance is discussed more fully under the word GLORY (which see). The word "glorious" in the phrases "make or render glorious" is used most frequently as a translation of verbs in the original, rather than of genuine adjectives In dealing with the verb it will be sufficient to indicate the following most important uses.
(1) Men may glorify God, that is, give to Him the worship and reverence which are His due (Isaiah 24:15; 25:3; Psalms 22:23; Daniel 5:23; Sirach 43:30; Matthew 5:16, and generally in the Synoptic Gospels and in some other passages of the New Testament).
(2) God, Yahweh (Yahweh), glorifies His people, His house, and in the New Testament, His Son, manifesting His approval of them and His interest in them, by His interposition on their behalf (Isaiah 55:5; Jeremiah 30:19; Wisdom of Solomon 18:8; Sirach 45:3; John 7:39, and often in the Fourth Gospel).
(3) By a usage which is practically confined to the Old Testament, Yahweh glorifies Himself, that is, secures the recognition of His honor and majesty, by His direction of the course of history, or by His interposition in history, either the history of His own people or of the world at large (Leviticus 10:3; Isaiah 26:15; Ezekiel 28:22; Haggai 1:8).
Walter R. Betteridge
Glorious
Glorious - glo'-ri-us: The adjective "glorious" is used in the majority of cases as the translation of one of the nouns which are fully discussed in the article GLORY, and the general meaning is the same, for the glorious objects or persons have the quality which is described by the word "glory," that is, they are honorable, dignified, powerful, distinguished, splendid, beautiful or radiant. It is worthy of note that in many passages in the New Testament where the King James Version has "glorious," the Revised Version (British and American) has the noun "glory." So among others in Romans 8:21, the King James Version has "glorious liberty," the Revised Version (British and American) "liberty of the glory of the sons of God." The obsolete use of the word glorious in the sense of "boastful," "vain-glorious," "eager for glory," as it is used in Wycliffe, Tyndale and Bacon, and once or twice in Shakespeare, as in Cymbeline, I, 7, in the first speech of Imogen, "Most miserable is the desire that's glorious," and in Gower's Prologue to Pericles, 1,9, "The purchase of it is to make men glorious" occurs at least once in the apocryphal books, Additions to Esther 16:4 the King James Version, "but also lifted up with the glorious words of lewd persons."
Walter R. Betteridge
Glory
Glory - glo'-ri (substantive):
I. METHOD OF TREATMENT
II. GENERAL USE OF THE TERM
1. As Applied to External Things
2. As Applied to Yahweh
III. THE USES OF KABHODH
1. Material Wealth
2. Human Dignity and Majesty
3. "My Soul": the Self
4. Self-Manifestation of God (Yahweh)
(1) Exodus 23:18 ff
(2) Isaiah 6
(3) Psalms 19:1
(4) Sinai and the Temple
(5) Ezekiel's Visions
(6) Messianic Ideal
(7) Its Ethical Content
IV. IN THE APOCRYPHA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. In the Apocrypha: (1) As Applied to External Things
(2) As Applied to God
2. In the New Testament: (1) As Applied to Men
(2) As Applied to God
(3) As Applied to the Saints
(4) As Applied to the Messianic Kingdom
3. Its Ethical Significance
LITERATURE
I. Method of Treatment. In this article we deal, first, with a group of words, translated "glory" in the English Versions of the Bible, and in which the ideas of size, rarity, beauty and adornment are prominent, the emphasis being laid in the first instance in each case upon some external physical characteristic which attracts the attention, and makes the object described by the word significant or prominent.
These are ('addereth) perhaps to be connected with the Assyrian root 'adaru, meaning "wide," "great"; (hadhar, hadharah), perhaps with root-meaning of "brightness"; (hodh), with essentially the same meaning of "brightness," "light"; (Tehar), Psalms 89:44, translated "glory" in the King James Version, in the Revised Version (British and American) rendered "brightness"; (yeqara'), an Aramaic root meaning "rare"; (tiph'arah), with the root-meaning of "beauty "; and finally (tsebhi), perhaps on the basis of the Assyrian cabu, meaning "desire," "desirable."
Secondly, this article will discuss the most common and characteristic word for "glory" in the Old Testament, the Hebrew (kabhodh) including the special phrase "the glory of God" or "the glory of Yahweh." In dealing with the Old Testament usage, attention will also be called to the original Hebrew of the Book of Ecclesiasticus or Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, cited in this article as Sir. Thirdly, with the Greek word (doxa) in the Apocrypha and in the New Testament. The nouns kauchema, kauchesis, translated "glory" or "glorying" in the New Testament, will be dealt with in the concluding paragraphs in which the use of the word glory as a verb will briefly be discussed. It will be possible within the limits of this article to give only the main outlines of the subject as illustrated by a few of the most significant references. The lexicons and the commentaries must be consulted for the details.
II. General Use of the Term. In the first group, as has already been stated, the ideas of beauty, majesty and splendor are prominent. And these qualities are predicated first of all, of things. David determines to make the temple which Solomon is to build "a house of fame and of glory" (1 Chronicles 22:5).
1. As Applied to External Things: Then, and more commonly, glory belongs to men, and especially to men of prominence, like kings. This glory may consist in wealth, power, portion, or even in the inherent majesty and dignity of character of its possessor. The reference is most frequently, however, to the external manifestations. Physical power is suggested in Deuteronomy 33:17, where "glory" of the King James Version is replaced by "majesty" in the Revised Version (British and American). The king's glory consists in the multitude of his people (Proverbs 14:28). The glory and the pomp of the rebellious people shall descend into Sheol (Isaiah 5:14). Here the reference is clearly to those external things upon which the people depend, and the possession of which is the ground of their confidence.
2. As Applied to Yahweh: But chiefly glory is the possesion and characteristic of Yahweh, and is given by Him to His people or to anything which is connected with Him. In Isaiah 60:7 the Lord promises to glorify the house of His glory, and the meaning is clearly that He will impart to His house something of the beauty and majesty which belong to Him. Glory is one of the qualities which are distinctive of Yahweh (1 Chronicles 29:11); and Isaiah, in one of his earliest utterances, uses the word "glory" to describe Yahweh's self-manifestation in judgment to bring to naught the pride and power of men (Isaiah 2:10, 19, 21). The use of the word in Psalms 78:61 is not quite certain. The most natural interpretation would perhaps be to refer it to the ark as the symbol of the presence of Yahweh, but in view of the parallel word "strength," it is perhaps better to interpret glory as meaning power, and to suppose that the Psalmist means that Yahweh allowed His power to be temporarily obscured, and Himself to be seemingly humiliated on account of the sin of His people.
III. The Uses of Kabhodh. The use and significance of kabhodh in the Old Testament and in Sirach: The fundamental idea of this root seems to be "weight," "heaviness," and hence in its primary uses it conveys the idea of some external, physical manifestation of dignity, preeminence or majesty. At least three uses may be distinguished: (1) It defines the wealth or other material possesions which give honor or distinction to a person; (2) the majesty, dignity, splendor or honor of a person; (3) most important of all, it describes the form in which Yahweh (Yahweh) reveals Himself or is the sign and manifestation of His presence.
1. Material Wealth: In Genesis 31:1 (margin "wealth") it describes the flocks and herds which Jacob has acquired; in Psalms 49:16 f, as the parallelism indicates, it refers to the wealth of the sinner; and in Isaiah 10:3 it is said that in the day of desolation the heartless plunderers of the poor shall not know where to leave their ill-gotten gain. This idea is also probably to be found in Haggai 2:7, where the parallelism seems to indicate that the glory with which Yahweh will fill the house is the treasure which He will bring into it. See also Sirach 9:11, where the glory of the sinner which is not to be envied is probably his wealth.
2. Human Dignity and Majesty: It describes the majesty and dignity or honor of men due to their adornment or to their position. In Genesis 45:13, Joseph bids his brethren tell their father of his glory in Egypt; according to Exodus 28:40, the priestly garments are intended for the glorification of their wearers; in 1 Samuel 4:21 f, the loss of the ark means, for Israel, the loss of her glory, that which gave her distinction from, and preeminence over, her neighbors; in Isaiah 22:23 it is said that Eliakim is to be a throne of glory, i.e. the source and manifestation of the splendor and dignity of his father's house; in Job 19:9 the complaint that God has stripped him of his glory must be taken to refer to his dignity and honor. Reference may also be made to the numerous passages in which the glory of Israel and other nations describes their dignity, majesty or distinction; so we hear of the glory of Ephraim (Hosea 9:11), of Moab (Isaiah 16:14), of Kedar (Isaiah 21:16). This use is quite common in Sir. Sirach 3:10 f states that the glory of man comes from the honor of his father; the possessor of wisdom shall inherit glory (4:13; 37:26); note also 4:21 with its reference to "a shame that is glory and grace," and 49:5 where the forfeited independence of Judah is described by the terms "power" and "glory."
3. "My Soul": the Self: Closely related to this use of kabhodh to describe the majesty of men is the group of passages in which the phrase "my glory," in parallelism with nephesh, "soul," "self," or some similar expression, means the man himself in his most characteristic nature. In the blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49:6) we read, "Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united." Other passages are Psalms 4:2; 7:5; 16:9; 30:12; 57:8; 108:1 and perhaps Job 29:20. Some recent interpreters, partly because of the Septuagint rendering in Genesis 49:6 (ta hepata mou), "my liver," and partly because of the Assyrian root, kabittu, meaning "temper" or "heart" (see Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwortebuch, 317a), would read in all these passages kabhedh, literally, "liver" as in Lamentations 2:11, and interpret the figure as referring to the emotions as the expression of the self. The arguments in favor of the change are not without weight. Of course on either interpretation the language is highly figurative. It hardly seems necessary to change the reading, especially as the Septuagint renders the passages in the Psalms and in Job by doxa, the ordinary Greek rendering for kabhodh, and it does not seem improbable that in poetry the word kabhodh might be used to describe the man himself indicating that man as such is honorable and glorious, possibly because as in Psalms 8:1, he is thought of as having been crowned by his Creator with glory and honor.
Before leaving this use of kabhodh it is necessary to call attention to the fact that in a few cases it is used to describe things, perhaps because these things are thought of as practically personified. The "glory of the forest" (Isaiah 10:18) is clearly a personification, referring to the majestic force of the Assyrians. We may probably assume a personification also in the case of the glory of Lebanon in Isaiah 35:2; 60:13, and the nature of the parable in Ezekiel 31:1-18 makes it probable that personification is intended in Ezekiel 31:18.
4. Self-manfiestation of God (Yahweh): But unquestionably the most important use of the word kabhodh is its employment either with the following gen. God or Yahweh, or absolutely, to describe the method or the circumstances of the self-manifestation of God. In discussing this subject we shall deal first of all with the use of the term as connected with actual or historical manifestations of the Deity, and then with its use to describe the characteristic features of the ideal state of the future, or, otherwise stated, the Messianic kingdom.
(1) Exodus 23:18 ff. The significance of the phrase in its earliest occurrence is by no means clear. Notwithstanding the uncertainty as to the exact documentary connection of the famous passage in Exodus 33:18 ff, it seems quite certain that we may claim that this is the earliest historical reference that the Old Testament contains to the glory of Yahweh. "And he (Moses) said, Show me, I pray thee, thy glory. And he (Yahweh) said Thou canst not see my face; .... and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand until I have passed by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back; but my face shall not be seen." The passage in its present form bears unmistakable evidences of the editorial hand, due perhaps, as Baentsch (Hand-kommentar zum Altes Testament, "Ex-Lev-Nu," 279) suggests, to a desire to transform the primitive, concrete, physical theophany into a revelation of the ethical glory of God, but in its basis it belongs to the Jahwist (Jahwist) and is therefore the earliest literary reference to the glory of God in the Old Testament. The glory of Yahweh is clearly a physical manifestation, a form with hands and rear parts, of which Moses is permitted to catch only a passing glimpse, but the implication is clear that he actually does see Yahweh with his physical eyes.
It seems not improbable that in its original form it was related that Moses saw the glory, i.e., the form of Yahweh, and thus that we are to find in this narrative the source for the statement in Numbers 12:8, that he (Moses) will behold (or perhaps better rendering the tense as a frequentative), beholds the form of Yahweh (see also the description in Exodus 24:9-11). The mention of the cloud (Exodus 34:5) as the accompaniment of the manifestation of Yahweh suggests that the form of Yahweh was thought of as being outlined in cloud and flame, and that Yahweh was originally thought of as manifesting Himself in connection with meteorological or more probably volcanic phenomena.
(2) Isaiah 6. Later the glory of Yahweh and the form of Yahweh are no longer identical terms, but the glory is still the physical manifestation of the Divine presence. This is clear from Isaiah's account of his great inaugural vision. The prophet sees the enthroned Yahweh with His skirts filling the temple. There is no indication of what it was that he saw or how he recognized that it was Yahweh. The attendant seraphim in addition to the solemn "Holy, Holy, Holy" declare that "the whole earth is full of his glory."
Unquestionably His glory is here regarded as something visible, something, a part of which at least, Isaiah sees. The glory as such has no ethical significance except in so far as it is the method of manifestation of one who is undoubtedly an ethical being. The phraseology suggests that the skirts which fill the temple and the glory which fills the whole earth refer to the phenomena of fire and smoke. Some think that the smoke is caused by the clouds of incense that would fill the temple in connection with the sacrificial observances. But in view of Isaiah's horror of these observances, this interpretation is very questionable. A more probable interpretation connects the clouds and gloom with the phenomena of a great storm, and even possibly of an earthquake, for it seems highly plausible that the call of Isaiah in the year of the death of King Uzziah coincided with thee great earthquake in the days of Uzziah referred to in Zechariah 14:5. (It seems at least probable that the references to the darkness and light in Zechariah 14:6 f may have their origin in the phenomena attendant upon this earthquake. It is probable that the earthquake by which the prophecy of Amos is dated (Amos 1:1) is also this same historic earthquake.) The clouds and fire attendant upon this storm or earthquake become the media by which the glory of Yahweh is made known to the youthful prophet, and this glory partly reveals and partly conceals the presence of Yahweh of which, through, and in part by means of, these phenomena, Isaiah is made so vividly conscious.
(3) Psalms 19:1. This conception of Isaiah that the glory of Yahweh fills the earth is closely related to the thought of Psalms 19:1 that "the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork," the difference being that in the psalm Yahweh's glory is manifested in the ordinary rather than in the extraordinary phenomena. Parallel thoughts may be found in Psalms 8:1; 57:5; 108:5; 113:4. In Psalms 29:1-2, 3, 1, as in Isaiah, the glory of Yahweh is revealed in the extraordinary physical phenomena which the psalm describes. Glory here is a purely external, meteorological thing and is the manifestation of the presence of Yahweh, no matter whether the psalm is regarded, as it usually is, as a description of a thunderstorm, or whether with von Gall and others it is taken as a description of the phenomena which accompany the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom (see Joel 2:30 f the English Revised Version).
(4) Sinai and the Temple. Deuteronomy 5:24 indicates that in theophany at the time of the giving of the law, the glory and the greatness of Yahweh. consisted in the fire and thick darkness which enveloped the mountain, and out of which Yahweh spoke to the people. Essentially the same idea is expressed in the account of the dedication of Solomon's temple (1 Kings 8:10 f; 2 Chronicles 5:14). The cloud which filled the house of Yahweh, preventing the priests from ministering, is identified with the glory of Yahweh which filled the house. It is noteworthy that in 2 Chronicles 7:1-3 the glory of Yahweh which fills the house manifests itself in the form of the cloud of smoke from the sacrifices which were consumed by the fire coming down from heaven.
(5) Ezekiel's Visions. Perhaps the most elaborate description of the glory of Yahweh to be found in the Old Testament is that given by Ezekiel in the various accounts of his visions. It is not easy to interpret his conception, but it seems clear that he does not identify the glory with the stormy clouds, the fire, the cherubim and the chariots. "The appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh" (Ezekiel 1:28) is not applied to all the phenomena which have been described in the preceding verses, but only to the likeness of form which looked like a man above the sapphire throne (Ezekiel 1:26). The same idea is indicated in Ezekiel 9:3 which states that "the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon it was"; that is, the glory is something peculiar to Yahweh, and is not quite identical with the phenomena which accompany it. This is true of all his visions. The glory of Yahweh manifests itself with all the accompaniments which he describes with such richness of imagery, but the accompaniments are not the glory. For other descriptions of the glory of Yahweh in Ezekiel, see Ezekiel 3:12, 23; 8:4; 4, 18 ff; Ezekiel 11:22 f.
Very similar to this conception of Ezekiel is that given in those passages of the Pentateuch which are usually assigned to the Priestly Code. When the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron on account of the lack of food, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud as they "looked toward the wilderness" (Exodus 16:7, 10; compare Exodus 24:16 f). And just as in Ezekiel, the glory is distinguished from its attendant circumstances; for after the completion of the Tent of Meeting, the cloud covers the tent, and the glory of Yahweh fills the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34 f; see also Leviticus 9:6, 23; Numbers 14:21 f; 16:19,42; 20:6). The same thought is suggested in the references in Sirach 17:13; 45:3.
(6) Messianic Ideal. These passages just cited stand on the border between the historical and the ideal descriptions of the glory of Yahweh, for whatever may be one's views as to the historical worth of P's account of the Exodus and the wilderness sojourn, all must agree in seeing in it really the program or constitution for the ideal state of the future. And in this state the distinguishing characteristic is to be the manifest presence of Yahweh in His sanctuary, and this manifestation is the glory. This is the view of Ezekiel, for whom the essential action in the establishment of the new community is the return of the glory of Yahweh to the house of Yahweh (Ezekiel 43:2, 4-5; 44:4). The same thought is expressed very clearly in Isaiah 4:5 f, which may be rendered on the basis of a slight rearrangement and regrouping of the original, `And Yahweh will create over .... Mt. Zion ...., a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over everything the glory (of Yahweh) shall be a canopy and a pavilion, and it shall serve as a shelter from the heat, and a refuge and a covert from the storm and the rain.' This translation has the advantage that it furnishes an intelligible and characteristic conclusion to the description of the Messianic age which the chapter contains. Isaiah 11:10, reading with the Revised Version, margin, "and his resting-place shall be glory," has the same thought, for it is clearly the glory of Yahweh that is manifested in the resting-place of the root of Jesse, and this resting-place can be none other than Mt. Zion (compare also Isaiah 24:23).
The Psalms and Deuteronomy-Isaiah have many passages in which this phase of the thought is brought out. For both books the restoration of the people from captivity is to be accompanied by, or, perhaps better, itself is, a revelation of the glory of Yahweh (Isaiah 40:5). The children of Israel have been created for the glory of Yahweh, and hence they must be restored that His glory may be made manifest (Isaiah 43:7). The light of the restored community is to be the glory of Yahweh (Isaiah 60:1 f). The presence of Yahweh brings grace and glory (Psalms 84:11), and His salvation of those that fear Him causes glory to dwell in the land (Psalms 85:9). To these and many similar passages in Isa and the Psalms may also be added Sirach 36:14, which refers probably to the manifestation of God in glory in the Messianic kingdom.
(7) Its Ethical Content. But these passages make it quite evident that "glory" is not always used in the external, literally or figuratively physical sense. It comes to have an ethical significance, and this because, like the holiness with which it is associated in Isaiah 6:1-13, it is connected with Yahweh, who is more and more exclusively viewed as an ethical being. As holiness gradually loses its physical sense of aloofness, apartness, and comes to describe moral purity, so glory, because it is an attribute or expression of Yahweh, comes to have a moral sense. This transformation, as we have seen, is already being made in the present text of Exodus 33:18, 20, and the connection with holiness in Isaiah 6:1-13 makes it almost certain that Isaiah gave the word an ethical connotation. So the God of glory of Psalms 29:3 suggests a moral quality because Yahweh is a moral being. All doubt on this matter disappears when we find the word "glory" used as the term for the essential nature of Yahweh, as we have already found it to be used of man. In Isaiah 42:8, "I am Yahweh, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another," the meaning would seem to be, my essential character and power, that is, my glory, I will not share with other gods (compare also Isaiah 48:11). And in Isaiah 58:8 the glory must be taken in a figurative sense and refer to Yahweh Himself in His saving grace, who attends His people in advance and in the rear. It hardly seems possible to deny the ethical sense in Ezekiel 39:21, where the manifestation of the glory of Yahweh comes as a result of the execution of His purposes of justice and righteousness upon His people. And in Habakkuk 2:14, the glory of Yahweh which is to be known throughout the earth cannot be limited to any physical, external thing. It is equivalent to the righteous and just will of Yahweh. These passages are sufficient to prove the ethical significance of the word kabhodh, but it may be worth while to quote one more passage and this time from Psalms 97:1-12 with its wonderful description of the blessings of the righteous rule of Yahweh. It is stated in Psalms 97:6 that "the heavens declare his righteousness, and all the peoples have seen his glory." His righteousness may include, as Kirkpatrick suggests, "His faithfulness to His people and His sovereign justice in the punishment of all," or it may refer only to the former of these qualities; but in any case, it is a moral act, and by it the peoples recognize the glory of Yahweh as the supreme moral ruler.
IV. In Apocrypha and New Testament. "Glory" in the apocryphal books and in the New Testament is almost exclusively the translation of the Greek noun doxa. In all these writings the Old Testament usage seems to be the most important, and it seems to be the fact, if one may judge from the Septuagint and from the original Hebrew of Sir, that the Greek noun doxa, in the great majority of cases, represents the Hebrew kabhodh, so that the underlying thought is Hebrew, even though the words may be Greek
1. In the Apocrypha: (1) As Applied to External Things. It will be perhaps a little more convenient to deal with the usage of the Apocrypha separately, following essentially the order that has been adopted for the Old Testament discussion of kabhodh, and bearing in mind that the usage of Sir has been discussed under the Old Testament. The use of the word "glory" to describe the honor, reputation and splendor which belong to men is quite common. In this sense 1 Esdras 1:33 refers to the glory of Josiah, while in Wisdom of Solomon 10:14 the perpetual glory given by The Wisdom of Solomon to Joseph must be interpreted in the same way. In 2 Maccabees 5:16, 20 glory refers to the beautification and adornment of the temple in a sense like that of tiph'arah in Isaiah 60:7. In Judith 15:9 "glory" is the translation of the Greek gauriama, and indicates that Judith is the pride of Israel.
(2) As Applied to God. But the most significant use of doxa in the Apocrypha is that in which it refers to the light and splendor which are regarded as the invariable accompaniments of God. The reference may be to the historic manifestation of God in glory at Mt. Sinai, as in 2 Esdras 3:19, or to the manifestation of God in Israel, which is to be the especial characteristic of the Messianic kingdom. In 1 Esdras 5:61 songs sung to the praise of the Lord, "because his goodness and his glory are forever in all Israel," are based upon the hope that Yahweh is about to establish the Messianic kingdom among the people who have bound themselves to obey His law. In several passages in 2esdras the reference seems to be not to the Messianic kingdom in the historical sense, but rather to that kingdom of God which the saints are to inherit after death. This is clearly the thought in 2 Esdras 2:36 and in 7:52; also in 8:51 where the context shows clearly that the reference is to the glory of Paradise, which is the heritage of all those who are like Ezra in their devotion to Yahweh (compare also 2 Esdras 10:50).
But most frequently in the Apocrypha, in a sense which approximates that of the New Testament, the word "glory" refers to the blaze of light and splendor which is the essential expression of the holy majesty of Yahweh. The prayer of Manasseh refers to the unbearable majesty of the glory of Yahweh; while 2 Esdras 8:30, trusting in Yahweh's glory is equivalent to trusting in Yahweh Himself; and in 16:53 the oath "before God and his glory" is simply before the Lord God Himself. The same thought is expressed in Tobit 12:15; 13:14; Wisdom of Solomon 7:25. In the Song of Three Children, verses 31,33, the glory of Yahweh refers to His self-manifestation in His heavenly kingdom, and this is undoubtedly the significance in the frequently recurring doxologies, "Thine is the glory forever."
2. In the New Testament: (1) As Applied to Men. In the New Testament, much the same variety of usage is to be noted as in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and it is not easy to trace the exact relationship and order of the various meanings. The ordinary classical use of the word in the sense of "opinion," "judgment," "view," occurs in Hellenistic Greek only in 4 Maccabees 5:17 (18) on the authority of Thayer.
It is perhaps as convenient to follow generally the order adopted in the preceding discussion. In some places the word refers to the manifestations and insignia of rank and power, as in the familiar phrase, "Solomon in all his glory" (Matthew 6:29), or the glory of the kingdoms of the world (Matthew 4:8), or the glory of the kings and nations of the earth which shall be brought into the heavenly city (Revelation 21:24, 26). Doxa also defines the praise, honor and dignity of men. This is the meaning in John 5:41, 44, where Christ distinguishes between His accusers and Himself in that He receives not glory from men, while they receive glory one of another (compare also John 7:18). In Ephesians 3:13, Paul declares that his tribulations for those to whom he is writing are a glory or distinction to them, while in 1 Thessalonians 2:20 he declares that the Thessalonian Christians are his glory and joy.
(2) As applied to God. Closely related to this usage is the employment of the word to ascribe honor and praise to God; see Luke 17:18, where only the stranger returned to give glory to God; or John 9:24, where the man who had been born blind is bidden to give glory to God; or the phrase "to the glory of God" in Romans 15:7, where the meaning is to secure the honor and praise of God among men. Similar is the use in the frequently recurring doxologies such as, "Glory to God in the highest," "to him," that is, to God, "be glory," etc.
While the foregoing meanings are frequently illustrated in the New Testament, it is undoubtedly true that the characteristic use of the word doxa in the New Testament is in the sense of brightness, brilliance, splendor; and first of all, in the literal sense, referring to the brightness of the heavenly bodies, as in 1 Corinthians 15:40 f, or to the supernatural brightness which overcame Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (Acts 22:11).
(3) As Applied to the Saints. But the most common use of the word is to describe the brilliance which is the characteristic of all persons who share in the heavenly glory. Moses, Elijah and Jesus Himself have this glory on the Mountain of Transfiguration (Luke 9:31 f). It was the same glory which gave the angel who came out of heaven power to lighten the earth (Revelation 18:1), and also which shone about the shepherds when the angel appeared unto them (Luke 2:9). Paul refers to this glory, when he speaks of the face of Moses as it appeared after God had spoken with him (2 Corinthians 3:7 f). And as in the case of Moses, so here, the source of this glory is God Himself, who is the God of glory (Acts 7:2, and frequently).
(4) As Applied to the Messianic Kingdom. It is also used to describe the ideal Messianic kingdom of the future. It is applied to Christ to describe His royal majesty when He comes to set up His kingdom. So James and John ask to sit, one on His right hand and one on His left in His glory (Mark 10:37). Christ is to appear in glory with the angels (Matthew 16:27 and often), for His condition in the coming age as it was before the incarnation is a condition of glory (Luke 24:26; John 17:5, 22, 24). But not merely the Messiah, but also all His followers shall share in the glory of the Messianic kingdom. This use is so common that it is scarcely necessary to illustrate it by reference. This glory is to be revealed to all Christians in the future (Romans 8:18, 21; 9:23; compare also 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 4:17).
3. Its Ethical Significance: In all these cases it has a distinctly ethical signification, for it is the term which is used to describe the essential nature, the perfection of the Deity, and is shared by others because they are made partakers of the Divine nature. So Paul refers to "the glory of the incorruptible God" (Romans 1:23; compare also Ephesians 1:17 f, and often). And the essential nature of Christ comes to be described in the same way. He has glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14); he shows His glory in the performance of miracles (John 2:11); and like the Father, He is the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8).
As a verb in the Old Testament the most common signification of the word "glory" is, to make one's boast in or of anything, usually of the pious glorying in Yahweh (Yahweh), but occasionally with some other reference, as in Jeremiah 9:23 of man glorying in his riches, might or wisdom. In all these cases it represents the Hebrew hith-hallel. In Exodus 8:9 the phrase, "Have thou this glory over me," is the translation of the Hebrew hith-pa'er, and means take to thyself the honor or distinction as regards me. In 2 Kings 14:10 it translates the Hebrew hik-kabhedh, "honor thyself," i.e. be satisfied with the home which you have already attained.
In the Apocryphal books it means either "glorify thyself," the middle voice of the verb doxazo, as in Sirach 3:10, where the original Hebrew has hith-kabbedh, or "to exult," "boast over," as in Judith 9:7, where it represents the Greek gauroomai; or "to boast," "take pride in," where it represents, as it does usually in the New Testament, the Greek kauchaomai (Sirach 17:9; 24:1; 38:25; 39:8; 48:4, in the second and fourth of which cases it represents the Hebrew hith-pa'er).
In the New Testament the verb is used 3 times in James, and several times in the Epistles of Paul, and everywhere is used to translate the verb kauchaomai, or, in two cases in James, the same verb is compounded with the preposition kata. In all these cases the meaning is "to take pride in," "to congratulate oneself," upon anything.
In this connection attention may be called to the use of the noun "glorying," once or twice rendered "to glory," where the meaning is either the occasion or ground of glorying, or sometimes the act of glorying. The original has kauchema or kauchesis. This usage occurs in James 4:16; Hebrews 3:6, and several times in the Epistles of Paul.
LITERATURE.
In addition to the commentaries and works on Biblical theology among which, Briggs, ICC on the Psalms, Scribner, N.Y., 1906, especially the note in I, 66, 67; and Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, English translation, T. and S. Clark, Edinburgh, 1882-83, may be mentioned especially, the chief works on the subject are von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, Giessen, 1900; and Caspari, Die Bedeutungen der Wortsippe k-b-d im Hebraeischen, Leipzig, 1908. The discussions by G. B. Gray and J. Massie in HDB, II, are valuable, and also the brief but significant article by Zenos in the Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls, N.Y., 1909.
Walter R. Betteridge
Glowing, Sand
Glowing, Sand - glo'-ing, (Isaiah 35:10).
See MIRAGE.
Glutton; Gluttonous
Glutton; Gluttonous - glut'-'-n, glut'-'-n-us (zalal, "to be lavish"; phagos): "Glutton" (from glut, to swallow greedily) is the translation of zolel from zalal, "to shake or pour out," "to be lavish, a squanderer." In Deuteronomy 21:20, "This our son .... is a glutton, and a drunkard," the word may mean a squanderer or prodigal; the English Revised Version has "a riotous liver." In Proverbs 23:21, "For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty" (following zole bhasar, "squanderers of flesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "gluttonous eaters of flesh"), "glutton" in the usual sense is intended; "a man gluttonous," "a gluttonous man" (the Revised Version) (phagos, "an eater," "a glutton") was a term applied to Christ in His freedom from asceticism (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34).
The Revised Version has "idle gluttons" (margin Greek, "bellies") for "slow bellies" (Titus 1:12); "gluttonous" "gluttons," for "riotous" (Proverbs 23:20; 28:7).
W. L. Walker
Gnash
Gnash - nash (charaq; brugmos): "Gnash" is used of grinding or striking together the teeth in rage, pain or misery of disappointment. In the Old Testament it is the translation of charak, a mimetic word, and represents for the most part rage, anger, hatred (Job 16:9, "He gnasheth upon me with his teeth," the Revised Version (British and American) "hath gnashed upon me"; Psalms 35:16; 37:12; 112:10, grief; Lamentations 2:16, contempt or derision); brucho, "to gnash the teeth in rage," indicates anger, rage, Septuagint for charaq (Acts 7:54, of Stephen, "They gnashed on him with their teeth"). The several instances of brugmos, "gnashing," in the Gospels seem to express disappointment rather than anger (Matthew 8:12,"There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth," the Revised Version (British and American) "the weeping and the gnashing of teeth"; Matthew 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28--a vivid representation of the misery of disappointed expectations; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:10, "lest thou shalt gnash thy teeth in the end," gomphiazo, "to have the teeth set on edge"); trizo (Mark 9:18), which means "to give out a creaking, grating sound," "to screak," is used in the New Testament (in the above instance only) to mean "to grate or gnash with the teeth," indicating the effect of a paroxysm, the Revised Version (British and American) "grindeth his teeth."
W. L. Walker
Gnat
Gnat - nat (in English Versions of the Bible, only in Matthew 23:24, konops. In Exodus 8:16, for English Versions of the Bible "lice," one of the plagues of Egypt, kinnim, kinniym, or kinnam, we find in the Revised Version, margin "sand flies" or "fleas" (Gesenius "gnat"; Mandelkern "culex"). For kemo ken (Isaiah 51:6), English Versions of the Bible "in like manner," Septuagint hosper tauta, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sicut haec, the Revised Version, margin has "like gnats" since ken, elsewhere "thus," may here be taken to be a singular of the form kinnim, which occurs in Exodus 8:1-32): In the New Testament passage, the difference between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) should be noted. "Strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" is changed to "strain out the gnat and swallow the camel," the reference being to the inconsistency of the Jewish religious leaders in taking extraordinary pains in some things, as in the preparation of food, while leaving weightier matters unattended to.
In Isaiah 51:6, the suggestion of the Revised Version, margin, "They that dwell therein shall die like gnats," seems a decided improvement on the "shall die in like manner" of English Versions of the Bible, especially as ken, "thus" (see supra), is a repetition of kemo, whose meaning is practically the same, "in like manner" being the rendering in English Versions of the Bible of kemo ken.
As to the creatures, kinnim, of the Egyptian plague, there is little choice between "lice" of English Versions of the Bible and the others suggested, except as we may be influenced by the Septuagint rendering, skniphes, which may mean "gnats" or "mosquitoes."
Alfred Ely Day
Gnosticism
Gnosticism - nos'-ti-siz'-m:
I. GENERAL DEFINITION
II. SOURCES OF GNOSTICISM
1. Alexandrian Philosophy
2. Zoroastrianism
III. NATURE OF GNOSTICISM
Chief Points
IV. GNOSTICISM IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
1. Colossians
2. 1 Corinthians: "Knowledge" at Corinth
3. Pastoral Epistles
4. 1 John
(1) Gnostic Claims
(2) Its Loveless Nature
(3) Docetism
(4) The Antichrist
(5) Its Antinomian Side
5. "To Know the Depths," Revelation
V. THE CHRISTIAN ANTITHESIS
1. God and the World
How Did the World Originate?
2. Evil
(1) Christian Doctrine of Sin
(2) Sin and the Moral Law
3. Christ and Redemption
4. Asceticism and Antinomianism
VI. HARNACK'S VIEW OF GNOSTICISM
VII. INFLUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF GNOSTICISM
1. Not a Heresy of the Humbler Classes
2. Cerinthus: His Teaching
3. The Gospel of John
4. Various Sects
(1) The Ophites
(2) Valentinus
(3) Basilides
(4) Saturninus
(5) Marcion
5. Relation to the Old Testament
6. The Christian Verities
7. Influence on Theology
8. Truth Underlying Docetism
VIII. MODERN GNOSTICISM
LITERATURE
Gnosticism--except perhaps in 1 Timothy 6:20, where Paul warns Timothy against "the gnosis, which is falsely so called"--is not directly alluded to in the New Testament. Nevertheless its leaven was actually working, as will immediately be seen, and constituted a most serious peril in the apostolic church. "That strange, obscure movement, partly intellectual, partly fanatical .... in the 2nd century spread with the swiftness of an epidemic over the church from Syria to Gaul" (Law, The Tests of Life, 26). It is therefore of high importance to gain a right conception of the nature of this potent anti-Christian influence. This is not easy. The difficulty in dealing with Gnosticism is that it was not a homogeneous system of either religion or philosophy, but embraced many widely diversified sects holding opinions drawn from a great variety of sources. "The infinitely varied shapes assumed by the systems render it almost impossible to classify them, or even to give an account of their leading ideas, which shall not be open to objection. We might as well try to classify the products of a tropical jungle, or the shapes and hues of the sunset clouds, which change under our view as we look at them" (Orr, The Progress of Dogma, 58).
I. General Definition. On the general definition of Gnosticism a few authorities may be cited. "Gnosticism," says Dr. Gwatkin, "may be provisionally described as a number of schools of philosophy, oriental in general character, but taking in the idea of a redemption through Christ, and further modified in different sects by a third element, which may be Judaism, Hellenism, or Christianity .... the Gnostics took over only the idea of a redemption through Christ, not the full Christian doctrine, for they made it rather a redemption of the philosophers from matter, than a redemption of mankind from sin" (Early Church History to AD 313, II, 20).
Dr. Orr writes, "Gnosticism may be described generally as the fantastic product of the blending of certain Christian ideas--particularly that of redemption through Christ--with speculation and imaginings derived from a medley of sources (Greek, Jewish, Parsic; philosophies; religions, theosophies, mysteries) in a period when the human mind was in a kind of ferment, and when opinions of every sort were jumbled together in an unimaginable welter. It involves, as the name denotes, a claim to `knowledge,' knowledge of a kind of which the ordinary believer was incapable, and in the possession of which `salvation' in the full sense consisted. This knowledge of which the Gnostic boasted, related to the subjects ordinarily treated of in religious philosophy; Gnosticism was a species of religious philosophy" (The Early Church, 71).
Neander has described Gnosticism as "the first notable attempt to introduce into Christianity the existing elements of mental culture, and to render it more complete on the hitherto rather neglected side of theoretical knowledge; it was an attempt of the mind of the ancient world in its yearning after knowledge, and in its dissatisfaction with the present, to bring within its grasp and to appropriate the treasures of this kind which christianity presented" (Antignostikus, Intro, 199).
Gnosticism accordingly comprehends in itself many previously existing tendencies; it is an amalgam into which quite a number of different elements have been fused. A heretical system of thought, at once subtle, speculative and elaborate, it endeavored to introduce into Christianity a so-called higher knowledge, which was grounded partly on the philosophic creed in which Greeks and Romans had taken refuge consequent on the gradual decay and breaking-up of their own religions, partly, as will be shown, on the philosophies of Plato and of Philo, and still more on the philosophies and theosophies and religions of the East, especially those of Persia and of India.
"For a long time the pagan beliefs had ceased to be taken seriously by thoughtful men and had been displaced by various creeds derived from philosophical speculation. These in themselves were abstract and unsatisfying, but had been partly vitalized by union with theosophies of the East. An attempt was made on the part of this philosophical religion to effect an alliance with Christianity. A section of the church was dissatisfied with the simplicity of the gospel, and sought to advance to something higher by adopting the current speculations ..... The late books of the New Testament are all occupied, more or less, with this movement, which was the more dangerous as it threatened the church from within" (Professor E. Scott, The Apologetic of the New Testament, 14).
Gnosticism, though usually regarded as a heresy, was not really such: it was not the perverting of Christian truth; it came, rather, from outside. Having worked its way into the Christian church, it was then heretical. "Although it became a corrupting influence within the church, it was an alien by birth. While the church yet sojourned within the pale of Judaism, it enjoyed immunity from this plague; but as soon as it broke through these narrow bounds, it found itself in a world where the decaying religions and philosophies of the West were in acute fermentation under the influence of a new and powerful leaven from the East; while the infusion of Christianity itself into this fermenting mass only added to the bewildering multiplicity of Gnostic sects and systems it brought forth" (Law, The Tests of Life, 26).
II. Sources of Gnosticism. Mansel (in his work on The Gnostic Heresies, 32) sums up the principal sources of Gnosticism in these three, Platonism, the Persian religion, and the Buddhism of India. To Platonism it owed much of its philosophical form and tendencies. From the Dualism of the Per religion it derived its speculations regarding the origin of evil, and much of what it taught about emanations. To Buddhism, he thinks, it owed the doctrine of the antagonism between matter and spirit, and the unreality of derived existence--the germ of Docetism. Mansel also holds that there is the possibility that Gnosticism derived certain of its features from the Kabbala (qabbalah), or secret teaching of the Jews in the two books, the Cepher yetsirah, or Book of Creation, and the Zohar, or Book of Light. An influence of Buddhism on Gnosticism, however, may safely be doubted, as there is no reason to believe that the knowledge of Buddhist doctrine had so early penetrated into the West. The Jewish works named by Mansel are really products of the Middle Ages (Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 144-45). The other sources named were really influential. We notice two--the Alexandrian philosophy and the Parsic dualism.
1. Alexandrian Philosophy: Alexandrian philosophy endeavored to unite Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion. Philo, the great Jewish commentator of Alexandria, had tried to interpret the ancient Jewish Scriptures by the aid of the Greek philosophy, to expound the Old Testament in terms of Plato's thought and to discover allegorical meanings where none were intended. In Philo's teaching there is a sharp line drawn between God and the material world: with him God cannot exert any action upon the world of matter, except through intermediate agency, the Jewish angels and the heathen demons. Philo has much to say in regard to the Logos. His utterances on this subject may be compared with what is said of the attributes of "Wisdom" in chapter 8 of the Book of Prov, and also with the Logos or "Word" of the Gospel of John. With Philo, the Logos is the power of God, or the Divine reason endowed with energy, and embracing within itself all subordinate powers. The Logos is impersonal in its relations to God; and herein is one huge difference between Philo's conception and that in the gospel. Philo teaches that the Logos is the only firstborn of God, the chief of the angels, the viceroy of God, and representative of man.
See LOGOS.
According to Philo the creation of the universe was a gradual molding out of matter; hence, arises evil. He also teaches the preexistence of the soul, which is now imprisoned in the flesh. The wise man, therefore, will break the thralldom of the flesh, and will rise by a sort of ecstasy to the immediate vision of God. It will be seen how much of this teaching was assimilated by the various Gnostic sects.
2. Zoroastrianism: The Zoroastrian or Persian system was based on the assumption that there existed two original and independent powers of good and evil, of light and darkness, Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda), the wise Lord, and Ahriman (Angra-Mainyu), the wicked spirit. These powers were believed to be equal, and each supreme in his own domain. The earth, which was created by Ormuzd, became the battlefield of the two powers. Ahriman led away the first man and woman from their allegiance to Ormuzd, and so all evils result to mankind.
"In oriental (Persian) dualism," says Professor Bousset, "it is within this material world that the good and the evil powers are at war, and this world beneath the stars is by no means conceived as entirely subject to evil. Gnosticism has combined the two, the Greek opposition between spirit and matter, and the sharp Zoroastrian dualism, which, where the Greek mind conceived of a higher and a lower world, saw instead two hostile worlds standing in contrast to each other like light and darkness. And out of the combination of these two dualisms arose the teaching of Gnosticism with its thoroughgoing pessimism and its fundamental asceticism" ("Gnosticism," in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition, XII, 154).
III. Nature of Gnosticism. "Gnosticism," says Dr. Gwatkin, "is Christianity perverted by learning and speculation" (Early Church History 73). The intellectual pride of the Gnostics refined away the gospel into a philosophy. The clue to the understanding of Gnosticism is given in the word from which it is derived--gnosis, "knowledge." Gnosticism puts knowledge in the place which can only rightly be occupied by Christian faith. To the Gnostic the great question was not the intensely practical one, "What must I do to be saved from sin?" but "What is the origin of evil?" "How is the primitive order of the universe to be restored?" In the knowledge of these and of similar questions, and in the answers given to these questions, there was redemption, as the Gnostic understood it.
"These little Gnostic sects and groups all lived in the conviction that they possessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessible to those outside, which was not to be proved or propagated, but believed in by the initiated, and anxiously guarded as a secret. This knowledge of theirs was not based on reflection or scientific inquiry and proof, but on revelation. It was derived directly from the times of primitive Christianity, from the Saviour Himself and His disciples and friends, with whom they claimed to be connected by a secret tradition, or else from later prophets, of whom many sects boasted. It was laid down in wonderful mystic writings, which were in the possession of the various circles.
"In short, Gnosticism in all its various sections, its form and its character, falls under the category of mystic religions, which were so characteristic of the religious life of decadent antiquity. In Gnosticism, as in the other mystic religions, we find the same contrast of the initiated and the uninitiated, the same loose organization, the same kind of petty sectarianism and mystery-mongering. All alike boast a mystic revelation and a deeply veiled wisdom" (Bousset, op. cit., 153).
Chief Points in Gnosticism:
The questions, therefore, with which Gnosticism concerned itself were those of the relation of the finite and the infinite, the origin of the world and of evil, the cause, meaning, purpose and destiny of all things, the reason of the difference in the capacities and in the lot in life of individual men, the method of salvation. The following may be regarded as the chief points in the characteristics of the Gnostic systems: (1). A claim on the part of the initiated to a special knowledge of the truth, a tendency to regard knowledge as superior to faith, and as the special possession of the more enlightened, for ordinary Christians did not possess this secret and higher doctrine. (2) The essential separation of matter and spirit, the former of these being essentially evil, and the source from which all evil has arisen. (3) An attempt at the solution of the problems of creation and of the origin of evil by the conception of a Demiurge, i.e. a Creator or Artificer of the world as distinct from the Supreme Deity, and also by means of emanations extending between God and the visible universe. It should be observed that this conception merely concealed the difficulties of the problem, and did not solve them. (4) A denial of the true humanity of Christ, a docetic Christology, (which looked upon the earthly life of Christ and especially on His sufferings on the cross as unreal. (5) The denial of the personality of the Supreme God, and the denial also of the free will of man. (6) The teaching, on the one hand, of asceticism as the means of attaining to spiritual communion with God, and, on the other hand, of an indifference which led directly to licentiousness. (7) A syncretistic tendency which combined certain more or less misunderstood Christian doctrines, various elements from oriental and Jewish and other sources. (8) The Scriptures of the Old Testament were ascribed to the Demiurge or inferior Creator of the world, who was the God of the Jews, but not the true God. Some of these characteristic ideas are more obvious in one, and some of them in others of the Gnostic systems. The relation of these ideas to Christian facts and doctrines is dealt with more particularly below.
IV. Gnosticism in the Christian Church. In the New Testament and the Apostolic Age.
The germ of Gnosticism in the Christian church made its appearance in the apostolic age, and is referred to by Paul in several of his epistles, notably in that to the Colossians and in the Pastoral Epistles. It is also referred to by the apostles Peter and Jude; references to it are found, besides, in the Apocalypse, the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John.
1. Colossians: In col a great deal is said regarding a false teaching, an insidious theosophist doctrine, the teachers of which were alienating the Christians in Colosse from the gospel, and were disseminating their speculations, which led to the worship of angels in contrast to the worship of Christ, to esoteric exclusiveness wholly opposed to the universality of the gospel, and to an asceticism injurious to Christian freedom, and derogatory to the human body as indwelt by the Holy Ghost. These tenets are identical with the more fully developed Gnosticism of the generation succeeding that of the apostles; and at the root of the Colossian false teaching there lay the same error which the Gnostic mind had no way of meeting, namely, that there could be no connection between the highest spiritual agency, that is God, and gross corporeal matter.
From this theoretical basis arose another error--that as sin is inherent in the material substance of the body, therefore the only way by which perfection can be reached is to punish the body by asceticism, so that through the infliction of pain and the mortification of the flesh the region of pure spirit may be reached, and thus man may be etherealized and become like God. This ascetic tendency is wonderfully widespread; it reappears century after century, and shows itself in many forms of religion, not merely in distorted forms of Christianity, but in the Hindu religions, in Buddhism and elsewhere. In the Epistle to the Colossians, accordingly, there are definite references to ascetic practices which were inculcated by the false teachers at Colosse. The very terms which they employed have been preserved, "Touch not," "Taste not," "Handle not." It was in this way that these teachers had "at their own hand" invented a worship different from that of the Christian faith, which endeavored to attain the deliverance of the soul by "the neglecting of the body" (Colossians 2:21, 23 the King James Version). These Gnostic teachers showed these tendencies still more boldly when Paul wrote his First Epistle to Timothy (see below), for he describes them as "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (1 Timothy 4:3). These ascetic practices were afterward taught by various Gnostic sects, the Encratites, the followers of Saturninus, and others.
These tendencies in the Colossian church Paul set himself to correct in his epistle. The method which he adopts is not so much to demolish error, as to establish the contrary truth, setting before the Colossians the person and work of Christ, Christ the Creator, Christ in whom there dwells not merely some or even much of the fullness of God, but all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; Christ the God of providence, the Upholder of all things, in whom matter and all creatures and all events "consist" and have their being; Christ the Reconciler who has reconciled us unto God through the blood of the cross. In view of truths like these, Colossian error and all other forms of Gnosticism crumble into decay and vanish.
See COLOSSIANS,EPISTLE TO THE .
2. 1 Corinthians: "Knowledge" at Corinth: The Epistle to the Colossians is the first of the Pauline Epistles in which distinctively Gnostic teaching is found in its attack upon the Christian faith. But from incidental notices in epistles of Paul written at an earlier period, it can be seen how congenial was the soil into which Gnostic teaching was about to fall. For even in Corinth when Paul wrote his First Epistle to the church there, there had been a claim on the part of some that they possessed "knowledge," as if others were destitute of it, a claim which the apostle refuses to admit, and meets with stern resistance. They thought themselves "wise," they were given to disputing, they professed that they "all had knowledge" (1 Corinthians 8:1), nay, they could "know all mysteries and all knowledge" (1 Corinthians 13:2); but this knowledge did not edify them, did not build them up, it only puffed them up (1 Corinthians 8:1); it did not make them sympathetic or tender-hearted toward the weak (1 Corinthians 8:7-11).
3. Pastoral Epistles: In 1 Timothy 6:20, 21 Paul speaks of the "knowledge (the gnosis) which is falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith." In other places in that epistle reference is made to tenets which are exactly those of Gnosticism. In 1:4 the apostle speaks of "fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith." Philo had given a great impetus to an allegorizing interpretation of the Old Testament. His writings were well known and were popular in many of the Jewish schools. These fanciful interpretations would hinder the growth of the Christian church; and this allegorizing of Scripture, joined to the teaching of the genealogies of the eons, would leave no place for a Redeemer. In 4:3, as already noted, Paul describes ascetic practices which were regarded by their votaries as most meritorious. To abstain from marriage and from various kinds of food was the teaching of the Essenes and also of the Gnostics. This ascetic teaching was unnatural, as contrary to the constitution of the world, as that has been arranged by a holy and wise Creator, and it is also subversive of Christian liberty. Nothing can be esteemed common or unclean without throwing a reproach upon the Creator.
Antinomian Development.
But another and contrary result also followed from the principles of the sinfulness of matter and of redemption as deliverance from the flesh, namely, that there was an easier way of relief, by treating the soul and the body as separate entities which have nothing in common. Let the soul go its way on the wings of spiritual thought, while the body may indulge its fleshly desires. For, so it was held, as body and soul are entirely distinct in their nature, the spiritual cannot be defiled by anything, however carnal and gross, that the body can do. This was the antinomian development of Gnosticism. Many traces of this are apparent in the Pastoral Epistles and in 2 Peter and Jude. The Gnostics, against whom Paul warns Timothy, were "lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, rollers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed-up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof" (2 Timothy 3:2-3, 4). Such, too, is the testimony borne regarding them by Ignatius (Law, The Tests of Life, 30):("They give no heed to love, caring not for the widow, the orphan or the afflicted, neither for those who are in bonds, nor for those who are released from bonds, neither for the hungry nor the thirsty." Such persons professed that they knew God, but by their works they denied Him; they were "abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:16). They enticed others into sins of impurity (2 Timothy 3:5-6). They allured others through the lusts of the flesh; and the means by which they succeeded in doing this was that they spoke great swelling words of vanity, and the end was that in their destroying of others they themselves also were surely destroyed (2 Peter 2:12, 18). They were ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ; they gave themselves up to the sins of the flesh, and ran riotously after error in hope of a gain in money; they were sensual men, not having the Spirit (Jude 1:4, 8, 11, 19) The entire Epistle of Jude is directed against this antinomian and licentious development of Gnosticism, and against its terrible permission of an unholy life (see below on the Book of Revelation).
4. 1 John: In the First Epistle of John there is a distinct polemical purpose. There is no book of the New Testament which is more purposeful in its attack of error. There is "the spirit of error" (1 John 4:6), opposing the Spirit of truth. "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1), and this from the church itself, "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19); and these false prophets are distinctly named "the antichrist" (1 John 2:22) and "the liar" (same place), and "the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 1:7). This peril, against which the apostle writes, and from which he seeks to defend the church, was Gnosticism, as is proved by what is said again and again in the epistle of the characteristics of this insidious and deadly teaching.
(1) Gnostic Claims. The Gnostic claim to knowledge throws light upon many passages in this epistle. John refers to his opponents' using such phrases as "I know God," "I abide in Christ," "I am in the light." These lofty claims were made by persons who did not love their brethren on earth, who did not walk in Christ's footsteps, and who were destitute of love. The apostle therefore describes these lofty claims as false, because those who made them possessed neither love nor obedience.
In contrast to these Gnostic claims--for those who made them were no other than the early Gnostics--John shows how the Christ of history is the Christ of experience: for those to whom he is writing know Christ, who is from the beginning, and they know the Father. "We know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1 John 5:20). This knowledge of God and communion with Him are attained, not by Gnostic speculation, but by the obedience of faith, the outcome of which is brotherly love and a life in which the Christian walks even as Christ did (1 John 2:6). And thus also obedience and brotherly love are the test of the profession which any man may make that he knows God. "Every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him," (1 John 2:29); "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (1 John 3:10).
(2) Its Loveless Nature. Gnosticism was distinguished by an unethical, loveless intellectualism. This seems to be the explanation of the false teaching against which this epistle is directed. The apostle describes the dry head-knowledge which left the heart and life untouched by love, and which led men, while they professed to love God, nevertheless to remain destitute of love to their fellow-men. (They did not fold their human brethren to their hearts, they were dead to the fact that where pity dwells, the love of God dwells also. In Gnosticism knowledge was in itself the supreme end and purpose of life, the sum of highest good to which a man could attain, the crown of life. The system was loveless to the core.
(3) Docetism. Now, when the attempt was made to amalgamate these Gnostic ideas with the Christian faith, the inevitable result was Docetism. Just because God cannot have any immediate contact with matter, therefore the incarnation of Almighty God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ is inconceivable. From this position it is, of course, only a step to deny that the incarnation and the true human life of Christ ever took place at all.
(4) The Antichrist. The Antichrist of the First Epistle of John is docetic Gnosticism. The soul of the apostle rushes onward, with glowing zeal for the honor of his Master whom Gnosticism dishonored, to identify personally the historical Jesus with the Divine Being, "the Son of God," "the Word of Life," "the Christ." "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John 2:22-23). It should be noted that the last clause in 1 John 2:23, which is printed in italics in the King James Version, is restored in the Revised Version (British and American) to its rightful position in the original text. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already" (1 John 4:2-3).
(5) Its Antinomian Side. The antinomian side of Gnosticism is not so directly referred to in the First Epistle of John as Docetism is; but evidences are manifest that the apostle had it clearly before him. "Little children," he writes, "let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that doeth sin is of the devil" (1 John 3:7-8). And these were the methods by which those deceivers endeavored to lead the members of the church astray. They alleged that sin was a thing indifferent in itself. It made no difference to the spiritual man whether he sinned with his body or not. It is for this reason that the apostle, in opposing those teachers, insists that "sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4); "All unrighteousness is sin" (1 John 5:17); "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" (1 John 3:9); "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (1 John 3:10). The whole passage presupposes, as familiar to its readers, a doctrine of moral indifferentism, according to which the status of the `spiritual' man is not to be tested by the commonplace facts of moral conduct" (The Tests of Life, 34).
See JOHN,THE EPISTLES OF .
5. "To Know the Depths": Revelation: As time advanced, and the later books of the New Testament were written, Gnosticism assumed more of its distinctive peculiarities. "Those who had knowledge" regarded themselves as a superior order of believers. One of their phrases was "to know the depths" (Revelation 2:24 the King James Version), and this was valued far more highly than love and obedience. "From this language, we may, I think, infer the existence of an Ophite sect, boasting of its peculiar gnosis, before the date of the Apocalypse" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 105). The claim of the Ophites was that they alone knew "the depths." "Yes," is the apostle's reply to claims of this kind, "yes, the depths, but not of God, the depths of Satan"; for such is a just description of a teaching which ascribed the origin and the working of evil to God. It is in the light of Gnostic teaching of this sort that the meaning can be seen of the same apostle's language in his First Epistle, "And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).
The Nicolaitans.
In the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse there are other references to Gnosticism. Who the Nicolaitans were (Revelation 2:6, 15) is not absolutely certain; but it is not unlikely that they were so called because of their having assumed the name of "Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch" (Acts 6:5). The first step to the reception of Gentile believers into the Christian church on an equal footing with the Jews may have been the appointment of Nicolaus as one of the first deacons, for the facts that he was a native of Antioch and a proselyte, show that he had been a heathen by birth. And it is noteworthy to find such a person appointed to office in the church at so very early a period, even before the conversion of the apostle Paul. The Nicolaitans therefore may have distorted in an antinomian sense the doctrine taught by Nicolaus, who in all probability proclaimed the liberty of the gospel, as his fellow-deacon, Stephen, did (Acts 7:1-60 throughout). But the liberty claimed by the Nicolaitans was liberty to sin. They are mentioned in the Epistle to Ephesus, and their deeds are characterized as deeds which Christ hates (Revelation 2:6). Their name occurs again in the Epistle to Pergamum, and there also their doctrine is described as a doctrine which the Lord hates (Revelation 2:15). Their teaching was one of licentiousness--eating things sacrifical to idols, and committing fornication (Revelation 2:14). Again in the Epistle to Thyatira, the Gnostics are spoken of as practicing the same evil courses, and as holding a doctrine of "the depths of Satan" (Revelation 2:20-21, 24 the King James Version)--see above. The persons mentioned in the Epistle to Philadelphia were also evidently Gnostics. They are described as being "of the synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 3:9).
"In the language of Jude, as in that of Peter, which it closely imitates, we may clearly discern a reference to the Gnostic sect of the Nicolaitans mentioned by name in Revelation. The comparison in all these passages, of the error condemned with that of Balaam, is decisive as to the identity of the persons intended. The other characteristics noted by Peter are also repeated by Jude--their denial of the Lord, their profligate lives, their contempt of government, and evil speaking of dignities and of things that they know not, their pollution of the feasts of charity, their great swelling words. The antinomian, no less than the ascetic side of Gnosticism, seems by this time to have fully manifested itself" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 71).
V. The Christian Antithesis. The principal points of contrast between Gnosticism and Christian teaching in regard to leading doctrines will now be apparent, and can be briefly summarized.
1. God and the World: According to the Gnostics, God is thought of as the ultimate, nameless, unknowable Being, of whom they speak as the "Abyss." He is perfect, but the material world is alien to the Divine nature. How then does it come to exist at all? What is the source of its imperfections and evils?
How Did the World Originate?
The Gnostic answer is that the pleroma or fullness of the Deity (see FULLNESS) could flow out in no other way than in emanations or eons or angels, all of which are necessarily imperfect, the highest of these emanations or eons or angels being more spiritual than the grade immediately below it. Of these eons there is a gradation so numerous, that at length the lowest of them is almost wholly corporeal, the spiritual element having been gradually diminished or eliminated, until at last the world of man and of matter is reached, the abode of evil. In this way the gulf is bridged between God and the world of mankind. The highest eons approximate closely to the Divine nature, so spiritual are they and so nearly free from matter. These form the highest hierarchy of angels, and these as well as many other grades of the angelic host are to be worshipped.
In opposition to this view, Christian faith worships God as the free self-sufficient Creator, infinitely good and wise and powerful and holy, the Author of all things, and affirms creation as an incomprehensible fact revealed to faith, and which rises above the grasp of the understanding. "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3 the King James Version).
2. Evil: The doctrine of evil follows directly from the above account of the relation of God to the world. According to Gnosticism the manifestation of God is possible only through self-limitation on His part, for in His essence God is the unfathomable Abyss. Through this Divine self-limitation are evolved, first, the Divine powers or attributes, which previously were hidden in the Abyss of His being. These Divine powers (the pleroma) become the principles of all further developments of life. Life continues to be unfolded in such a way that its successive grades sink farther and farther from the purity of God, the life is feebler the nearer they come to matter, with which, at length, they blend. Such, according to Gnosticism, is the origin of evil.
Whenever men are not content with acknowledging evil to be the act of their own free will, which has chosen to forsake its absolute dependence upon God; whenever they go beyond this and seek for another origin of evil, then one of two results follows. They either limit the holiness of God, and find the cause of evil in God Himself, thus annihilating all distinction between good and evil--which is Pantheism; or they limit the power of God by granting the existence of an eternal evil power beyond the control of God--which is Dualism. In avoiding Pantheism, Gnosticism accepted the dualistic solution, ascribing to evil an eternal self-subsistent nature, which is to make it absolute as God Himself is. As absolute self-subsistence can be affirmed of none but God, the eternally self-subsistent evil of Dualism must be God, which it cannot possibly be, because it is not good. Here is the self-contradiction on which Gnosticism was wrecked.
(1) The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Directly contrary to this is the Christian doctrine, according to which evil is the refusal of the creature-will to lean absolutely and utterly on God, upon His care and love and upholding grace. Sin is that which ought not to be; it has no right to exist at all; it is defiance of God; it is moral transgression; its magnitude cannot be exaggerated. If it could, it would dethrone God. It has defied His righteousness and wisdom and holiness and even His grace. Sin therefore is dealt with by God in two ways, either by direct punishment or by redemption, in which provision is made for its removal by its being borne by the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.
The Gnostic idea of the origin of evil follows at once from, and is inseparably involved in, their dualistic interpretation of nature. The question "What is sin?" is no mere academic or philosophical discussion, in which one opinion may be as good as another. "Everything in Christianity is connected more or less directly with the great facts of Sin and Redemption; and the plan of Redemption, which is the essence of Christianity, cannot be rightly understood until the doctrine of Sin be adequately recognized and established. Here, certainly, if anywhere, Christian theology must fight pro aris et focis" (Julius Muller, quoted in Dr. Orr's Sin as a Problem of Today, 6).
(2) Sin and the Moral Law. The universality of sin, its persistence, its gravity, its power to destroy and to deprave--these are facts which can hardly be exaggerated. To view sin aright, it is impossible to leave out of sight its relation to moral law, to God, and to His kingdom. Sin is the transgression of moral law; it is transgression also against a holy God, of whose character and will moral law is a transcript or reflection. "Sin is transgression against God, the substitution of the creature-will for the will of the Creator; revolt of the creature-will from God" (Sin as a Problem of Today, 7). It is the resolve of the will to make itself independent of God and to renounce His authority. Sin is self-will, false independence, freedom which ends in bondage and misery.
But in Gnosticism sin is something quite different; it is not the act and the disposition of the human will in rebellion against God; it is only a physical fact or quality inherent in the body and in matter everywhere. Redemption therefore does not consist in the work of Christ for us on the cross, and the applying of the benefits of that work by the Holy Spirit of God in the renewal of the moral nature of man. Redemption is simply each man's efforts to secure emancipation from the flesh--from physical evil.
3. Christ and Redemption: It is easily seen that a system of this kind had no need of Christ and leaves no place for redemption in the Christian sense of that term. Redemption in this scheme of thought is not deliverance from sin, it is not removal of guilt and renewing of the mind. It is something quite different, and consists in the restoration of the cosmic order and illumination of the mind of the select few through knowledge. Christ is not the Saviour who saves His people from their sins, and who gives them unceasingly, through union with Himself, deliverance from the power of sin. He is only one of the eons, the highest of them. He is an originated being, and not God. There is thus no place in Gnosticism either for the creation of the universe by God, or for the incarnation and work of Christ. Once grant that matter is essentially evil, and there is excluded the possibility of Christ's having assumed a true human nature, simply for the one reason that the world and human nature are originally and necessarily evil. Thus, as already seen, we are landed in Docetism.
The Christology of the Gnostics accordingly assumed one of two types. "One class of early Gnostics separated the spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ entered Jesus at the time of His baptism, and left Him at the moment of His crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered as a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connection between the highest spiritual agency and gross corporeal matter, which was involved in the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of another type more effectually set aside by the doctrine of Docetism, i.e. by assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body, and not real flesh and blood. Irenaeus represents the former class as teaching that `Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ,' and that the Christ `descended upon Him from heaven in the form of a dove, and after He had declared to mankind the nameless Father, entered again into the pleroma imperceptibly and invisibly.' Here no names are given. But in another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however naming the pleroma, to Cerinthus" (Lightfoot, Col, 264). How strenuously this doctrine was combated in apostolic circles has already been shown in speaking of John's First Epistle.
4. Asecticism and Antinomianism: The necessary consequence of the Gnostic theory in an ascetic morality which passed over by sure steps into antinomian license has likewise been fully illustrated in the foregoing, and need not be further enlarged on. The whole has its root in a false intellectualism, to which the gospel in its inculcation of humility, faith and dependence upon God's Spirit for guidance into truth is, in its inmost principle, opposed.
VI. Harnack's View of Gnosticism. Harnack's view of Gnosticism differs from that now given in laying the chief emphasis on its Judeo-Hellenistic side. He describes well how, when Christianity appeared, an extensive spiritualizing or allegorizing of the Old Testament had already taken place. "This spiritualizing was the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome of a lasting influence of Greek philosophy, and of the Greek spirit generally, upon Judaism. In consequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the Old Testament in which one could not find his way, were allegorized. Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of something invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here sublimated to a history of the emancipation of reason from passion" (History of Dogma, I, 223). This allegorical interpretation disclosed to the mature mind a wealth of relations, of hints and of intuitions from the Old Testament, which to the uninitiated was only a dry record of fact. This view of the Old Testament gave its readers a strange interest, which proceeded to transfer their ancient Jewish hopes into the world of Greek philosophy, and transformed the result into a metaphysic. When these thinkers entered the Christian church, Christian hopes and terms were added to the already existing Judaic-Greek- Alexandrian compound, and such was Gnosticism. It represented the acute secularizing or Hellenizing of Christianity. The Gnostics "are therefore those Christians, who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenic culture, and Hellenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant between the two powers and make it possible to assert the absoluteness of Christianity" (p. 227).
Harnack indeed grants that there were other elements in Gnosticism, but he strongly asserts that the Greek element was the predominating one. In this he seems to us to be in error. Laying the chief emphasis on Hellenism, he fails to give the due and preponderating place to eastern dualism. As already seen, an eastern dualistic theosophy is the chief element in Gnosticism. This eastern source is also acknowledged by Harnack, but only as if it were subsidiary to Hellenism. As he regards it, "Gnosticism was an acute Hellenizing of Christianity" (p. 230).
In regard to the fundamental philosophic doctrines of Gnosticism, the indefinable nature of the Divine primeval Being, the sinfulness of matter, the fullness of God in eons, the Demiurge, etc., Harnack agrees generally with other writers, and adds, "All these are ideas for which we find the way prepared in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by Philo, and represented in neo-Platonism as the great final result of Greek philosophy" (p. 233).
VII. Influence and Development of Gnosticism. Gnosticism is peculiarly the heresy of the 2nd century, and in itself a proof of the extent to which a knowledge of the Christian faith had, at that early period, penetrated in literary and philosophical circles. Though it is true that Christianity at first influenced chiefly the humbler classes, yet it was not among these persons that the various Gnostic heresies arose.
1. Not a Heresy of the Humbler Classes: Gnosticism "was a product which did not spring up spontaneously in the minds of the mechanics and slaves and women and children, whom most, like Celsus, suppose to have formed the bulk of the Christian communities, but could only have taken its rise in minds of a more cultured and speculative cast. This, indeed, was its claim--to be a religion of gnosis (knowledge), for the more highly trained or elite. It could only exist at all, therefore, as the result of a Christian ferment which had entered these speculative circles, and was there powerfully at work. Baur rightly appreciates the situation, when he says: `Gnosticism gives the clearest proof that Christianity had now come to be one of the most important factors in the history of the time, and it shows especially what a mighty power of attraction the new Christian principles possessed for the highest intellectual life then to be found either in the pagan or in the Jewish world.' Above all, these systems are a striking witness to the impression produced on the heathen mind by the great Christian idea of redemption. `When the Gnostic systems,' says Neander, `describe the movement which was produced in the kingdom of the Demiurge by the appearance of Christ as the manifestation of a new and mighty principle which had entered the precincts of this lower world, they give us to understand how powerful was the impression which the contemplation of the life of Christ and His influence on humanity, had left on the minds of the founders of these systems, making all earlier institutions seem to them as nothing in comparison with Christianity.' We must beware, therefore, of underestimating either the extent or the intensity of this great intellectual ferment set up by the gospel in the heart of heathenism" (Orr, Neglected Factors, etc., 196).
2. Cerinthus: His Teaching: The earliest of the Gnostics known to us by name is Cerinthus, the antagonist of the apostle John. It seems to be beyond reasonable doubt that these two encountered each other at Ephesus. Irenaeus relates on the authority of those who heard the story from Polycarp how the apostle and Cerinthus met in the public baths in that city. When John discovered that Cerinthus was in the same building with him, he instantly left, exclaiming that he could not remain while Cerinthus, the enemy of God and of man, was there. From the accounts which have been preserved of Cerinthus and of his teaching, it can be gathered that he taught that the world was created not by the Supreme God, but by an inferior power, and that he also taught a docetic theory of the Incarnation. Caius of Rome, a disciple of Irenaeus, records that Cerinthus held that there would be a millennium of unrestrained sensuality. Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 260 AD) more than confirms this. "Thus so far as they go, the historical data harmonize with the internal evidence of the Epistle (of John) itself, in giving the impression that the different tendencies it combats are such as were naturally combined in one consistently developed Gnostic system, and that the object of its polemic is, throughout, one and the same" (The Tests of Life, 37).
As regards the Gospel of John there is the testimony of Irenaeus, that it was written to oppose that form of Gnosticism which was taught by Cerinthus, and, before him, by the Nicolaitans. The nature of that heresy may be stated in the words of Irenaeus himself:
"A certain Cerinthus," he says, "in Asia, taught that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by some power altogether separate and distinct from that Sovereign Power which is over the universe, and one ignorant of the God who is over all things. He taught, moreover, that Jesus was not born of a virgin (for this seemed to him to be impossible), but was the son of Joseph and Mary, born after the manner of other men; though preeminent above other men in justice and prudence and wisdom; and that after His baptism the Christ, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him from that Sovereign Power which is over all things; and that He then announced the unknown Father and wrought miracles; but that, at the end, the Christ departed again from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and was raised from the dead, while the Christ continued impassible, as a spiritual being" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 74).
3. The Gospel of John: Such a passage as John 19:34-35 seems to refer to docetic Gnosticism, and to be a personal protest against it. After describing the piercing of Christ's side by the soldier's spear, and how "straightway there came out blood and water," the apostle adds, "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." There are many other passages which seem to be directed against Docetism, e.g. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory)" (John 1:14); "Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well" (John 4:6); "Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27).
Cerinthus seems to have taught that the religion of Christ was identical with undiluted Mosaism, including even circumcision and the earthly kingdom of the future. The Cerinthian theory, however, was held under various forms by its adherents, some teachers holding that the God of the Old Testament was, at the best, a subordinate angel of limited power, wisdom and goodness, and that the creation of the world was very imperfect. Others went so far as to identify the God of the Old Testament with Satan. The ethic of systems such as these was antinomian, sometimes even going the length of libertinism.
Generally, the forms under which Gnosticism appeared varied greatly in different periods. Some went farther than others from the Christian faith.
4. Various Sects: Some communities, such as the Encratites, laid the greatest stress on the necessity for asceticism; other communities were wholly docetic; the Carpocratians taught the philosophy and communism of Plato. One of these teachers, Epiphanes, was honored as a god, and this sect crowned the image of Jesus along with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. Further, there were impostors of all varieties: magicians, soothsayers, jugglers, deceivers and hypocrites, "who appeared using mighty words with a host of unintelligible formulas and taking up with scandalous ceremonies in order to rob men of their money" (Harnack, op. cit., 239), and even for viler purposes.
(1) The Ophites. Gnosticism, before reaching its full development, is chiefly represented by the ophite sects or systems. These were so named from the word ophis, "serpent," to which they paid honor as the symbol of intelligence. They held that the Creator of the world was an ignorant and imperfect being, Ialdaboth, the Son of Chaos; and that it was a meritorious act when the serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to disobey him, There were several of the ophite sects, such as the Cainites, who reversed all the standards of moral judgment, choosing as their heroes the persons whom the Bible condemned, such as Cain, the men of Sodom, Esau and Korah.
(2) Valentinus. By the time of Justin Martyr (circa 150 AD), Gnosticism had become divided into a variety of sects and schools, Valentinians, Basilideans, Saturninians and Marcionites. In the Valentinian system, Christ and the Holy Spirit were two eons. The Valentinians granted that ordinary Christians were better than the heathen, and that they might look forward to a kind of salvation; even now ordinary Christians occupied a middle position, better than the "hylic" or "psychic," but inferior to the "pneumatic" or "spiritual," as the Gnostics termed themselves.
(3) Basilides. The Basilideans take their name from Basilides of Alexandria, a man of powerful intellect. He and his son Isidore taught this system, which was afterward considerably modified for the purpose of popular apprehension. The world is continuously evolved from a pansperma or "seed of the world," in which all things were originally potentially contained. It is ruled by two great Archons, who yet subserve the designs of the Supreme. There are no eons, but the highest "light" descends through the successive spheres till it rests on Jesus of Nazareth. The process is complete when the Divine element ("sonship") is all drawn out and restored to God; oblivion then falls on lower intelligences. Many fine sayings are attributed to Basilides, e.g. "I will say anything rather than doubt the goodness of Providence" (Orr, The Early Church, 75).
(4) Saturninus. The Saturninians were so called from Saturninus, said to be a disciple of Menander, who in turn is said to have been a disciple of Simon Magus. The system of Saturninus is marked both by a strong dualism and by a gloomy asceticism. He is also reported to have been one of the founders of the Encratite heresy, which condemned marriage. Tatian, Justin Martyr's disciple, became a member of this Gnostic sect, holding, it is alleged, the usual theory of eons, and that there was a Demiurge, who was not the Supreme God.
(5) Marcion. Marcion, a native of Pontus, taught in Rome circa 140-55 AD. His system differs much from ordinary Gnostic theories, except that he absolutely distinguished between the God of the Old Testament, who is regarded as merely great, harsh, rigorous, and the good God of the New Testament, who is wholly love. He also held to the usual Gnostic dualism and docetism. Marcion's system has been described as an overstrained Paulinism, as he lays the stress on faith, not on knowledge. Marcion was the author of a book called the Anthitheses, which contrasted the Old Testament with the New Testament. He also drew up a canon of Scripture, which contained only one gospel, namely, Luke in a mutilated state, and ten Epistles of Paul. Marcion was a rigorous ascetic. In the Lord's Supper he allowed only water to be used instead of wine. The Marcionites refused baptism to married persons. This sect or "church" endured for several centuries.
5. Relation to the Old Testament: "All the Gnostic systems had one feature in common, namely, that they regarded the Old Testament and the New Testament as revelations of two different Gods, and considered the mission of Christ to proceed from a higher power than the God of the Jewish religion, who was identified with the Demiurge, or Maker of the world. But under this common assumption there was room for two very opposite estimates of the older revelation and of the God whom it reveals. Some of the Gnostic sects regarded the Demiurge as being altogether alien from and opposed to the Supreme God; others considered him merely as a subordinate power, inferior but not hostile to the Supreme God, and acting before the coming of a more perfect revelation, as his unconscious organ" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 45). "There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organize and discipline churches, which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion" (Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 252). "From about 210 they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though the church of Constantine and Theodosius was alone really able to suppress them" (ibid., 251).
6. The Christian Verities: In contrast to Gnosticism the Christian church held fast to these great facts, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, preexistent before the Incarnation, and manifest in the flesh and crucified for us men and for our salvation; that He rose from the dead; that the Old Testament is a true revelation of the one supreme and holy God, the Creator of all things. Dualism, the eternity of matter and its inherent evil, as well as Docetism and oriental mythologies were accordingly rejected as contrary to the Christian faith.
7. Influence on Theology: During the period of the prevalence of Gnosticism there took place the earlier developments of Christian theology. Gnosticism gave a powerful impetus to the formation of a New Testament canon of Scripture; and to the shaping of the earliest creed.
See APOSTLES' CREED.
8. Truth Underlying Docetism: In the revulsion from Gnosticism and Docetism it should not be forgotten that there is truth to be found even amid the errors of these systems. Docetism was an over-statement of a great truth, an over-statement so large as to destroy the true humanity of our Lord. But the truth in Docetism is that the eternal Christ touches and appeals to and has a definite relationship to and actually influences every human heart; and also, that, to the Christian believer, Christ is more and does more than this; Christ dwells in the believer's heart by faith, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). "Docetism was not all folly. Rather we may regard it as one primitive form of the assertion of that mystical element which has never been wanting to Christianity from the first days until now, and we may be sure, never will be wanting to it" (Sanday, Christologies Ancient and Modern, 9).
VIII. Modern Gnosticism. Gnosticism in its ancient form has passed away, but it is interesting to observe how its spirit reappears from time to time in modern days. Gnosticism, as already seen, is not one aspect of thought alone, but many. And in one form or another it is seen again and again. For example, the modern denial of the virgin birth of our Lord is that form of Gnosticism which taught that the man Jesus became Christ only at His baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him from heaven.
Phases of Gnostic teaching are reproduced in modern pantheistic philosophies and other forms of religious doctrine, which hold that there has been no objective atonement and no resurrection of Christ from the dead. "Basilides with his powerful speculative grasp and all-embracing evolutionary process might be termed the Hegel of the movement; Valentinus with his robe of fantasy and triple fall and redemption was its Schelling; Marcion with his severe practical bent, his doctrine of faith, and his antitheses of the just God and the good, might without straining be termed its Ritschl" (Orr, The Progress of Dogma, 59).
"Fichte said, `There were no external realities at all, they were the mere objectivity of the subject or creations of the inward eye'; after Fichte came Schelling, and Schelling said, `Then this creating eye is God's own eye'; and after Schelling came Hegel, and Hegel said that `God and man are one, and God all men, and all men God, and the whole universe God eternally thinking in the process of development,' and that or something like it is Hegelianism. I feel in studying this philosophy, as Baron Humboldt says he felt, when he experienced the first shock of an earthquake. I feel a dreadful sense of restlessness and insecurity. The ground seems to give way beneath, and the earth and the heaven to dissolve, the universe becomes a dream, a myth" (W.B. Robertson, D.D., Martin Luther, German Student Life, etc., 138).
"Philosophy," says Mansel, "striving after a first principle which shall be one and simple and unconditioned and incapable of all further analysis in thought, is naturally tempted to soar above that complex combination of attributes which is implied in our conception of personality, and in endeavoring to simplify and purify our representation of the Divine nature, ends by depriving it of every attribute which can make God the object of any religious feeling or the source of any moral obligation" (The Gnostic Heresies, 11). God is no longer the author and source of goodness and truth and moral law, but the mind is occupied with the metaphysical relation between God and the world, as absolute and relative, cause and effect, principle and consequence, and God becomes identical with the world.
It is easily seen how teaching of this sort strikes at the root of all religion and morality. The personality of God, the personality and free will of man, the existence of moral evil, the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the redemption which He accomplished for the world, His resurrection, the whole significance of His person and His work--all is denied. This is the spirit and the meaning of Gnosticism.
Dr. Gwatkin sums up the matter thus: "Gnosticism undermined Christian monotheism by its distinction of the Creator from the Supreme, Christian morals by its opposition of the philosopher to the unlearned, Christian practice by its separation of knowledge from action; and it cut away the very basis of the gospel whenever it explained away its history. In every case it had got hold of truth on one side--the reality of evil in the world, the function of knowledge in religion, the difference between the letter and the spirit; but fragments of truth are not enough for a gospel, which is false if all truth is not summed up in Christ. Therefore, there could be no peace between the Gnostic illuminati and the Christian churches" (Early Church History, II, 68).
LITERATURE.
Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism; Neander, Church History, Antignostikus; Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age; Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of Paul, Colossians, Philippians; Gwatkin, Early Church History to 313 AD, II; W. Bousset, article "Gnosticism," Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition; Harnack, History of Dogma, I (English translation); Orr, Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity, Sin as a Problem of Today, The Progress of Dogma, The Early Church; Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies; Robert Law, B.D., The Tests of Life.
John Rutherfurd
Go
Go - (halakh, yalakh, bo', yatsa'; ago, hupago, anabaino, erchomi, aperchomai, poreuomai): "Go" ("went," etc.) occurs very frequently in the English Bible, and is the translation of a great many different Hebrew and Greek terms. As the word implies movement of all kinds, physical and mental, it has naturally many applications.
1. In the Old Testament: In the Old Testament halakh and yalakh are among the commonest words, meaning "to go" in its original sense of "to walk," but also in the most varied senses, according to the verbal conjugations, etc., the preposition attached, and the words in connection with which the terms stand; halakh and yalakh are often used figuratively (translated "to walk," etc.) for to live, to pursue a way of life, e.g. "to walk ever in his ways" (Deuteronomy 19:9; compare Psalms 15:2; 89:30; 1 Kings 2:3 f; 1 Kings 3:3, etc.); to die, "He departed (Hebrew "went") without being desired" (2 Chronicles 21:20); bo', properly "to go in," "to enter" (e.g. Genesis 7:9), is very common, and yatsa', "to go or come out," also occurs frequently; yatsa', has frequently the meaning "to go forth," e.g. Genesis 8:7, "He sent forth a raven, and it went forth." Other frequent words are yaradh, "to go down" (Genesis 11:7, etc.); `alah, "to go or come up" (Genesis 2:6, etc.; Isaiah 15:5, "go it up," the King James Version) ; used also figuratively, e.g. "to rise up or excel" "Thou excellest them all" (Proverbs 31:29), "to come up on the nears," to be remembered, "The former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind" (Isaiah 65:17; compare Jeremiah 3:16); `abhar, "to go or pass over," "to cross" (Genesis 41:46, etc.), also used figuratively "to pass away," e.g. "as chaff that passeth away" (Isaiah 29:5), `passeth by transgression' (Micah 7:18); shubh, "to go again" (Genesis 43:2, etc.); saTah and cur, "to go aside," occur several times with the meaning of wrongdoing (e.g. Numbers 5:12; Deuteronomy 28:14, the Revised Version (British and American) "turn aside"); nasa', "to remove (Exodus 14:15), "Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward" (Exodus 14:19 "removed"; Numbers 2:24 etc.); 'azal (Aramaic), "to go away or about" (Ezra 4:23; Daniel 2:17, etc.). Many other words occur only once or twice, e.g. 'arach, "to travel" Job (34:8); 'ashar, "to go straight or right" (Proverbs 4:14; 9:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "walk"); darakh, "to tread" (Isaiah 59:8); dadhah, "to go softly" (Psalms 42:4; Isaiah 38:15, the Revised Version, margin "as in solemn procession"); raghal, "to stir" "to move" "I taught Enhraim to go" (Hosea 11:3, the Revised Version (British and American) "to walk").
The obsolete expression "go to" (derived from Tyndale) is the translation of yahabh in Genesis 11:3-4, 7; 38:16; Exodus 1:10, "come on," the Revised Version (British and American) "come"; of bo' (2 Kings 5:5 the Revised Version (British and American)), "go now"; na' (Judges 7:3; Isaiah 5:5; Jeremiah 18:11, omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)).
2. In the New Testament: In the New Testament anabaino is "to go up" (Matthew 3:16; 5:1, etc.); erchomai, "to go on" (Matthew 12:9, etc.); aperchomai, "to go off or away" (Matthew 2:22; 4:24, etc.); poreuomai, "to go or pass on" (Matthew 2:8, 20, etc.); hupago, "to go away" (Matthew 5:41; 8:32, etc.). We have also other combinations with different shades of meaning, e.g. huperbaino, "to go over or beyond" (1 Thessalonians 4:6); eiserchomai, "to go into" (Matthew 7:13; 15:11, etc.); proporeuomai, "to go before" (Luke 1:76; Acts 7:40), and other forms; ago (agomen), "Let us go" (Matthew 26:46; John 14:31, etc.); age is rendered "go to" (James 4:13; 5:1), the Revised Version (British and American) "come."
"Go about (to)" the King James Version is the translation of zeteo, "to seek," in John 7:19, "Why go ye about to kill me?" the Revised Version (British and American) "Why seek ye?" and Romans 10:3; of peirazo, "to try," "attempt" (Acts 24:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "assayed"), and of peiraomai (Acts 26:21, the Revised Version (British and American) "assayed"), of epicheireo "to lay hands on" (Acts 9:29), which remains in the English Revised Version unchanged, the American Standard Revised Version "seeking"; "to let go" is the translation of apoluo "to loose off" or "away" (Luke 14:4, etc.), "to go astray," of planao (Matthew 18:12, etc.).
Various other words occurring singly are translated by forms of "go," e.g. phero, "to bear on," the King James Version "Let us go on unto perfection" (Hebrews 6:1, see below); epiduo, "to go in upon," "Let not the sun go down upon your Wrath" (Ephesians 4:26).
Among the many changes in the Revised Version (British and American) are the following: For "go," Exodus 4:26, "alone"; Leviticus 9:7, "draw near"; Numbers 2:31, "set forth"; Numbers 16:46, "carry it"; Isaiah 11:15; 27:4, "march"; Matthew 11:4; John 8:11, "Go your way"; Luke 17:7, "Come straightway"; Luke 18:25, "enter in"; John 21:1-25:John 3:11-36b, "come." "Go" is substituted for "pass" (Exodus 12:12), "came" (Exodus 13:4), "away" (Exodus 19:24), "be put" (Leviticus 6:12), "enter" (Job 34:23), "return" (Ecclesiastes 1:7), "come" (Micah 4:2; compare Zechariah 144:1Zec 8:1-23b,19), "should be cast" (Matthew 5:30); "if I go up" for "I will come up" (Exodus 33:5); "make to go forth" for "bring forth" (Psalms 37:6); "let them go" for "gave them up" (Psalms 81:12). For the phrase, "go a whoring," the American Standard Revised Version has "play the harlot" (Exodus 34:15 f, etc., "commit fornication"); for "go about even now" (Deuteronomy 31:21, the American Standard Revised Version), "frame this day"; for "go well" (Proverbs 30:29), "are stately in their march"; for "suffer us to go" (Matthew 8:31), "send us" (a different text); for "not to think of men above that which is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6), "not (to go) beyond the things which are written"; for "that no man go beyond" (1 Thessalonians 4:6), "transgress," margin "overreach"; for "Let us go on unto perfection" (Hebrews 6:1), the English Revised Version "and press," the American Standard Revised Version "Let us press on unto perfection."
W. L. Walker
Goad
Goad - god (dorebhan, malmadh; kentron): The goad used by the Syrian farmer is usually a straight branch of oak or other strong wood from which the bark has been stripped, and which has at one end a pointed spike and at the other a flat chisel-shaped iron. The pointed end is to prod the oxen while plowing. The flattened iron at the other end is to scrape off the earth which clogs the plowshare. The ancient goad was probably similar to this instrument. It could do villainous work in the hands of an experienced fighter (Judges 3:31). If 1 Samuel 13:21 is correctly translated, the goads were kept sharpened by files.
Figurative: "The words of the wise are as goads" (Ecclesiastes 12:11). The only reference to goads in the New Testament is the familiar passage, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Acts 26:14). It was as useless for Saul to keep on in the wrong way as for a fractious ox to attempt to leave the furrow. He would surely be brought back with a prick of the goad.
James A. Patch
Goah; Goath
Goah; Goath - go'-a, go'-ath (go`ah; the King James Version; Septuagint reads ex eklekton lithon): A place named in describing the boundaries of Jerusalem as restored in the "days to come" (Jeremiah 31:39). If Gareb is the Northeast hill, then probably Goah is to be identified with the Northwest hill, which is called by Josephus "the camp of the Assyrians" (BJ, V, vii, 3; xii, 2).
See JERUSALEM.
Goat
Goat - got:
1. Names: The common generic word for "goat" is `ez (compare Arabic `anz, "she-goat"; aix), used often for "she-goat" (Genesis 15:9; Numbers 15:27), also with gedhi, "kid," as gedhi `izzim, "kid of the goats" (Genesis 38:17), also with sa`ir, "he-goat," as se`ir `izzim, "kid of the goats" or "he-goat," or translated simply "kids," as in 1 Kings 20:27, "The children of Israel encamped before them like two little flocks of kids." Next, frequently used is sa`ir, literally, "hairy" (compare Arabic sha`r, "hair"; cher, "hedgehog"; Latin hircus, "goat"; hirtus, "hairy"; also German Haar; English "hair"), like `ez and `attudh used of goats for offerings. The goat which is sent into the wilderness bearing the sins of the people is sa`ir (Leviticus 16:7-22). The same name is used of devils (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15, the Revised Version (British and American) "he-goats") and of satyrs (Isaiah 13:21; 34:14, the Revised Version, margin "he-goats," the American Standard Revised Version "wild goats"). Compare also se`irath `izzim, "a female from the flock" (Leviticus 4:28; 5:6). The male or leader of the flock is `attudh; Arabic `atud, "yearling he-goat"; figuratively "chief ones" (Isaiah 14:9; compare Jeremiah 50:8). A later word for "he-goat," used also figuratively, is tsaphir (2 Chronicles 29:21; Ezra 8:35; Daniel 8:5, 8, 21). In Proverbs 30:31, one of the four things "which are stately in going" is the he-goat, tayish (Arabic tais, "he-goat"), also mentioned in Genesis 30:35; 32:14 among the possessions of Laban and Jacob, and in 2 Chronicles 17:11 among the animals given as tribute by the Arabians to Jehoshaphat. In Hebrews 9:12-13, 19; 10:4, we have tragos, the ordinary Greek word for "goat"; in Matthew 25:32-33, eriphos, and its diminutive eriphion; in Hebrews 11:37 derma aigeion, "goatskin," from aix (see supra). "Kid" is gedhi (compare En-gedi (1 Samuel 23:29), etc.), feminine gedhiyah (Song of Solomon 1:8), but also `ez, gedhi `izzim, se'-ir `izzim, se`ir `izzim, se`irath `izzim, bene `izzim, and eriphos. There remain ya`el (1 Samuel 24:2; Job 39:1; Psalms 104:18), English Versions of the Bible "wild goat"; ya`alah (Proverbs 5:19), the King James Version "roe," the Revised Version (British and American) "doe"; 'aqqo (Deuteronomy 14:5), English Versions of the Bible "wild goat"; and zemer (Deuteronomy 14:5), English Versions of the Bible "chamois."
2. Wild Goats: The original of our domestic goats is believed to be the Persian wild goat or pasang, Capra aegagrus, which inhabits some of the Greek islands, Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, and Northwestern India. It is called wa'l (compare Hebrew ya`el) by the Arabs, who in the North apply the same name to its near relative, the Sinaitic ibex, Capra beden. The last, doubtless the "wild goat" (ya`el) of the Bible, inhabits Southern Palestine, Arabia, Sinai, and Eastern Egypt, and within its range is uniformly called beden by the Arabs. It is thought by the writer that the "chamois" (zemer) of Deuteronomy 14:5 may be the Persian wild goat. The word occurs only in this passage in the list of clean animals. See CHAMOIS; DEER; ZOOLOGY. Wild goats are found only in Southern Europe, Southwestern Asia, and Northeastern Africa. They include the well-known, but now nearly extinct, Alpine ibex, steinbok, or bouquetin, the markhor, and the Himalayan ibex, which has enormous horns. The so-called Rocky Mountain goat is not properly a goat, but is an animal intermediate between goats and antelopes.
3. Domestic Goats: Domestic goats differ greatly among themselves in the color and length of their hair, in the size and shape of their ears, and in the size and shape of their horns, which are usually larger in the males, but in some breeds may be absent in both sexes. A very constant feature in both wild and domestic goats is the bearded chin of the male. The goats of Palestine and Syria are usually black (Song of Solomon 4:1), though sometimes partly or entirely white or brown. Their hair is usually long, hanging down from their bodies. The horns are commonly curved outward and backward, but in one very handsome breed they extend nearly outward with slight but graceful curves, sometimes attaining a span of 2 ft. or more in the old males. The profile of the face is distinctly convex. They are herded in the largest numbers in the mountainous or hilly districts, and vie with their wild congeners in climbing into apparently impossible places. They feed not only on herbs, but also on shrubs and small trees, to which they are most destructive. They are largely responsible for the deforested condition of Judea and Lebanon. They reach up the trees to the height of a man, holding themselves nearly or quite erect, and even walk out on low branches.
4. Economy: Apart from the ancient use in sacrifice, which still survives among Moslems, goats are most valuable animals. Their flesh is eaten, and may be had when neither mutton nor beef can be found. Their milk is drunk and made into cheese and semn, a sort of clarified butter much used in cooking. Their hair is woven into tents (Song of Solomon 1:5), carpets, cloaks, sacks, slings, and various camel, horse and mule trappings. Their skins are made into bottles (no'dh; Greek askos; Arabic qirbeh) for water, oil, semn, and other liquids (compare also Hebrews 11:37).
5. Religious and Figurative: Just as the kid was often slaughtered for an honored guest (Judges 6:19; 13:19), so the kid or goat was frequently taken for sacrifice (Leviticus 4:23; 9:15; 16:7; Numbers 15:24; Ezra 8:35; Ezekiel 45:23; Hebrews 9:12). A goat was one of the clean animals (seh `izzim, Deuteronomy 14:4). In Daniel, the powerful king out of the West is typified as a goat with a single horn (Deuteronomy 8:5). One of the older goats is the leader of the flock. In some parts of the country the goatherd makes different ones leaders by turns, the leader being trained to keep near the goat-herd and not to eat so long as he wears the bell. In Isaiah 14:9, ".... stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth," the word translated "chief ones" is `attudh, "he-goat." Again, in Jeremiah 50:8, we have "Go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as the he-goats before the flocks." In Matthew 25:32, in the scene of the last judgment, we find "He shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats." It is not infrequent to find a flock including both goats and sheep grazing over the mountains, but they are usually folded separately.
Alfred Ely Day
Goats' Hair
Goats' Hair - ('ez): The word for she-goat is used elliptically to mean goats' hair, which was used in the tabernacle furnishings in the form of curtains (Exodus 26:7; 36:14). Goats' hair was probably used in the Midianite and Israelite camps in much the same way as in the Bedouin camps today (compare Numbers 31:20). The tents, tent ropes and rugs are made of spun goats' hair. The provision sacks which hold wheat, rice, etc., and the saddlebags are made of the same material. A strip of the cloth rolled up furnishes a bolster for the head while sleeping (compare 1 Samuel 19:13, 16). Goats' hair cloth is admirab1y suited to stand the hard usage of a frequently shifting encampment. The children of Israel appreciated its utility, even for the tabernacle, where to the modern critical eye it would have looked out of place, matched against scarlet and fine linen (Exodus 25:4; 6, 26). The fact that goats' hair was used is good indication of the comparative crudeness of the tabernacle, when contrasted with present-day furnishings.
James A. Patch
Goatskins
Goatskins - got'-skinz (en aigeiois dermasin): Such skins are mentioned only once (Hebrews 11:37), where the wearing of goatskins, indicating extreme poverty, is referred to, by implication, as the possible lot of the faithful Christian, even as it had been of others. Ascetics of different religions, especially of the Moslem sects, are frequently seen going about Syria and Palestine today, clad in sheepskins or goatskins, a sign of their renunciation of all things worldly.
Gob
Gob - gob (gobh): A place mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:18 f as the scene of two of David's battles with the Philistines. The name appears here only. In the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 20:4, it is called Gezer (compare Ant,VII , xii, 2). Certain texts read "Nob" for "Gob," while Syriac and Septuagint read "Gath." The latter is probably correct.
Goblet
Goblet - gob'-let ('aggan): A bowl or basin (Song of Solomon 7:2), the only place where the word is used. `Aggan is used in the plural in Exodus 24:6 and Isaiah 22:24, and is translated "basins" and "cups." These "basins" were used to hold the blood of the sacrifices and must have been of moderate size. The "cups" were bowl-shaped vessels and belonged evidently to the smaller class of vessels used in a house.
God, 1
God, 1 - god ('Elohim, 'El, [`Elyon], Shadday, Yahweh; Theos):
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
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" (Psalms 14:1; 53:1), and the wicked nations "that forget God" (Psalms 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" (Acts 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.
Continued in GOD, 2.
God, 2
God, 2 - Continued from GOD, 1.
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 Yahweh (Yahweh (YHWH) is the correct form of the word, Yahweh being a composite of the consonants of Yahweh and the vowels of 'adhonay, 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 (panim) of God is a natural expression for His presence. The place where God is seen is called Peniel, the face of God (Genesis 32:30). The face of Yahweh is His people's blessing (Numbers 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 (Exodus 33:14). To be alienated from God is to be hid from His face (Genesis 4:14), or God hides His face (Deuteronomy 31:17-18; 32:20). In contrast with this idea it is said elsewhere that man cannot see the face of God and live (Exodus 33:20; compare Deuteronomy 5:24; Judges 6:22; 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 (qol) and word (dabhar) 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 (1 Kings 19:12) to the declaration of the entire law of conduct (Deuteronomy 5:22-24), to the message of the prophet (Isaiah 2:1; Jeremiah 1:1-2), and the personification of the whole counsel and action of God (Psalms 105:19; Psalms 147:18-19; Hosea 6:5; Isaiah 40:8).
(3) The Glory of God: The glory (kabhodh) 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" (24:17); it fills and consecrates the tabernacle (29:43; 40:34,35); and it is reflected as beams of light in the face of Moses (34:29). In Ezekiel, it is a frequent term for the prophet's vision, a brightness like the appearance of a rainbow (1:28; 10:4; 43:2). In another place, it is identified with all the manifested goodness of God and is accompanied with the proclamation of His name (Exodus 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 (Exodus 3:8; 6:3). God's presence in creation and history is often expressed in the Psalms as His glory (Psalms 19:1; 5, 11; 63:2; 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'akh) 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 Genesis 16:7 ff; Genesis 22:15-16; Exodus 3:2, 4; Judges 2:4-5); in other passages the idea blurs into varying degrees of differentiation (Genesis 18:1-33; 24:40; Exodus 23:21; Exodus 33:2-3; Judges 13:8-9). 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 (ruach) of God in the earlier period is a form of His activity, as it moves warrior and prophet to act and to speak (Judges 6:34; 13:25; 1 Samuel 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 (shem) 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 (Exodus 6:3; 33:19; Exodus 34:5-6). His servants derive their authority from His name (Exodus 3:13, 15; 1 Samuel 17:45). To worship God is to call upon His name (Genesis 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24-26), to fear it (Deuteronomy 28:58), to praise it (2 Samuel 22:50; Psalms 7:17; 54:6), to glorify it (Psalms 86:9). It is wickedness to take God's name in vain (Exodus 20:7), or to profane and blaspheme it (Leviticus 8:21; 24:16). God's dwelling-place is the place where He chooses "to cause his name to dwell" (2 Samuel 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2; 3, 1; 1 Kings 8:16-19; 18:32; Deuteronomy 12:11, 21). God's name defends His people (Psalms 20:1; Isaiah 30:27). For His name's sake He will not forsake them (1 Samuel 12:22), and if they perish, His name cannot remain (Joshua 7:9). God is known by different names, as expressing various forms of His self-manifestation (Genesis 16:13; 17:1; Exodus 3:6; 34:6). The name even confers its revelation-value upon the angel (Exodus 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 Numbers 12:6-8, it is said that Moses, unlike others, used to see the form (temunah) of Yahweh. Fire smoke and cloud are frequent forms or symbols of God's presence (e.g. Genesis 15:17; Exodus 3:2-4; 19:18; 24:17),and notably "the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night" (Exodus 13:21 f). According to later ideas, the cloud rested upon the tabernacle (Exodus 40:34), and in it God appeared upon the ark (Leviticus 16:2). Extraordinary occurrences or miracles are, in the early period, frequent signs of the power of God (Exodus 7:1-25 ff; 1 Kings 17:1-24 ff).
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 naive 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 'El, with its derivations 'Elim, 'Elohim, and 'Eloah. Like theos, Dens 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 'Elohim to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) and to Aaron (Exodus 4:16; compare Judges 5:8; 1 Samuel 2:25; Exodus 21:5-6; 22:7 ff; Psalms 58:11; 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 'El, and the exact relation to it, and to one another, of 'Elohim and 'Eloah, lie in complete obscurity. By far the most frequent form used by Old Testament writers is the plural 'Elohiym, 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 Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 1 Kings 22:19 f; Isaiah 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 'Elohim, certain qualifying appellations are often added. 'El `Elyon designates the God of Israel as the highest, the most high, among the 'Elohim (Genesis 14:18-20); so do Yahweh `Elyon (Psalms 7:17) and `Elyon alone, often in Psalms and in Isaiah 14:14.
'El Shadday, or Shadday 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 Exodus 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 (Genesis 24:12; Exodus 3:6), of Shem (Genesis 9:26), of the Hebrews (Exodus 3:18), and of Israel (Genesis 33:20).
Other names used to express the power and majesty of God are tsur, "Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 30:29), '¦bhir (construct from 'abhir), "the Strong One" (Genesis 49:24; Isaiah 1:24; Psalms 132:2); melekh, "King"; 'adhon, "lord," and 'adhonay, "my lord" (Exodus 23:17; Isaiah 10:16, 33; Genesis 18:27; Isaiah 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 'Elohim tsebha'oth, "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 (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 7:8). In 1 Samuel 17:45 this title stands in parallelism with "the God of the armies of Israel." So all Israel is called the host of Yahweh (Exodus 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. Isaiah 2:12; 3, 1; 23, 13). It stands in parallelism with Isaiah's peculiar title, the Holy One of Israel (Isaiah 5:16, 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, kurios pantokrator, "Lord Omnipotent."
(3) Yahweh (Yahweh). This is the personal proper name paragraph 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 hayah, "to be." In Exodus 3:14 Yahweh is explained as equivalent to 'ehyeh, which is a short form of 'ehyeh 'asher '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 Isaiah 7:4, 9; Psalms 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 Exodus 3:13 f, and especially Exodus 6:2-3, 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 (Judges 1:16; 4:11). A few passages suggest that Sinai was the original home of Yahweh (Judges 5:4-5; Deuteronomy 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 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. Judges 5:1-31; Deuteronomy 33:1-29; 1 Samuel 4:1-22 through 1 Samuel 6:1-21). 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 (1 Samuel 4:8; 2 Kings 17:27), so Israel did not doubt the reality of other gods (Judges 11:24; Numbers 21:29; Micah 4:5). This limitation involved two others: Yahweh is the God of Israel only; with them alone He makes a COVENANT (which see) (Genesis 15:18; Exodus 6:4-5; 2 Kings 17:344:2 Kings 25:30), and their worship only He seeks (Deuteronomy 4:32-37; 32:9; Amos 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 (Judges 5:4; Deuteronomy 33:2; 1 Kings 19:8-9), but gradually His home and that of His people became identical (1 Samuel 26:19; Hosea 9:3; Isaiah 14:2, 25). Even after the deportation of the ten tribes, Canaan remains Yahweh's land (2 Kings 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 (Genesis 31:30; 1 Samuel 19:13, 16; Hosea 3:4), Ephod (Judges 18:17-20; 1 Samuel 23:6, 9; 30:7), Urim and Thummim (1 Samuel 28:6; 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 (1 Samuel 28:7 ff; Isaiah 8:19; Deuteronomy 18:10, 11). Sorcery and witchcraft were not unknown, but were condemned by the religious leaders (1 Samuel 28:3). The burial places of ancestors were held in great veneration (Genesis 35:20; 50:13; Joshua 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 (Judges 2:13; 3:7; 8:33; 10:10; 1 Samuel 8:8; 12:10; 1 Kings 11:5, 33; Hosea 2:5, 17; Ezekiel 20:1-49; Exodus 20:5; 22:20; Exodus 34:16-17). Under the conditions of life in Canaan, the sole worship of Yahweh was in danger of modification by three tendencies, coordination, 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 2 Kings 5:18). When Solomon had contracted many foreign alliances by marriage, he was also bound to admit foreign worship into Jerusalem (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 18:21, 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" (Exodus 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, 1 Chronicles 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 (1 Kings 12:26 ff) were symbols of Yahweh, and in Judah the Canaanite worship was imitated down to the time of Asa (1 Kings 14:22-24; 1 Kings 15:12-13). 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 (Hosea 2:8, 12-13; compare Amos 2:8; Isaiah 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 (Jeremiah 2:28; 11:13). The vindication of Yahweh's moral supremacy and spiritual unity demanded, among other things, the unification of His worship in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:1-37).
(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 (Judges 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 (Genesis 22:1-24). A further stage is represented where Ahaz' sacrifice of his son is condemned as an "abomination of the nations" (2 Kings 16:3). The sacrifice of children is emphatically condemned by the prophets as a late and foreign innovation which Yahweh had not commanded (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20). Other cases, such as the execution of the chiefs of Shittim (Numbers 25:4), and of Saul's sons "before Yahweh" (2 Samuel 21:9), and the cherem or ban, by which whole communities were devoted to destruction (Judges 21:10; 1 Samuel 15:1-35), 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" (Exodus 15:3). An ancient account of Israel's journey to Canaan is called "the book of the Wars of Yahweh" (Numbers 21:14). By conquest in war He gave His people their land (Judges 5:1-31; 2 Samuel 5:24; Deuteronomy 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 (Judges 5:4, 20-21). The forces of Nature do the bidding of Israel's Deliverer from Egypt (Exodus 8:1-32-Exodus 10:1-29; 14:21). He causes sun and moon to stand while He delivers up the Amorites (Joshua 10:12). Later, He employs the forces of Nature to chastise His people for infidelity and sin (2 Samuel 24:15; 1 Kings 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 (Genesis 7:1-24) and the overthrow of the Cities of the Plain (Genesis 19:1-38) 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 (Genesis 2:1-25), 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 (Genesis 11:5-8; 18:20). The more universal conception of Genesis 1:1-31 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 (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9; 6:15), His wrath and anger (Exodus 32:10-12; Deuteronomy 7:4) and His inviolable holiness (Exodus 19:21-22; 1 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 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 (Judges 5:5); men may see Him in visible form (Exodus 24:10; Numbers 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. Torah and mishpaT, "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" (Exodus 18:15-16). 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 (Judges 3:10; 4:4; Judges 10:2-3; 1 Samuel 7:16). The earliest literary prophets assume the existence of a law which priest and prophet had neglected to administer rightly (Hosea 4:6; 1, 12; Amos 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 (Deuteronomy 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' " (Exodus 11:2-3) (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 (Hosea 4:1; Amos 4:1; Isaiah 1:21-23). The worship of Yahweh had been assimilated to the heathen religions around (Amos 2:8; Hosea 3:1; Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 10:5-6).
(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 (Judges 5:4; 1 Samuel 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 (Isaiah 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?" (Micah 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 (Amos 1:1-15 through Amos 3:1-15). 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 (Amos 7:14-15; Isaiah 6:1-13; Jeremiah 1:6-9; Ezekiel 3:14). Jeremiah and Ezekiel in terms denounced the old idea of collective responsibility (Jeremiah 31:29 ff; Ezekiel 18:1-32). 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 (Hosea 3:1; 11:4; Isaiah 1:18; 30:18; Micah 7:18; Isaiah 43:4; 54:8; Jeremiah 31:3 ff,Jeremiah 34:1-22; 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 (Genesis 33:11; 2 Samuel 24:14). It was enshrined in the Decalogue (Exodus 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" (Exodus 34:6-7).
(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 (Deuteronomy 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 (1 Samuel 6:20; Isaiah 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 (Isaiah 6:1-13; compare Isaiah 1:4; Amos 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" (Isaiah 57:15). It expresses the full Divinity of Yahweh in His uniqueness and self-existence (1 Samuel 2:2; Amos 4:2; Hosea 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" (Isaiah 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 (Amos 1:1-15 through Amos 2:1-16; Isaiah 10:5; 13:5 ff; Isaiah 19:1 ff). 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, 'elilim ("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 (Isaiah 19:24-25; compare Isaiah 2:2-4 = Micah 4:1-3). Yet Hebrew universalism never went beyond the idea that all nations should find their share in Yahweh through Israel (Zechariah 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" (Jeremiah 16:19). It is stated categorically that "Yahweh he is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else" (Deuteronomy 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 (2 Kings 23:4-8, 10-14). The semi-heathen worship of Yahweh in many local shrines, which tended to disintegrate His unity, was swept away (2 Kings 23:8-9). The reform was extended to the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 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 (Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 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" (Isaiah 42:1-7; Isaiah 49:1-6). Israel's world-mission, and the ordering of historical movements to the grand final purpose of universal salvation (Isaiah 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" (Isaiah 42:5; compare Isaiah 40:12, 26; 44:24; 45:18; Genesis 1:1-31). 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 (Isaiah 40:13) Nothing is hid from Him; and the future like the past is known to Him (Isaiah 40:27; 42:9; 44:8; 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 (Isaiah 57:15; 66:1). No force of history or Nature can withstand His purpose (Isaiah 41:17-20; 42:13; 43:13). He is "the First and the Last," an "Everlasting God" (Isaiah 40:28; 41:4; 48:12). Nothing can be likened to Him or compared with Him (Isaiah 46:5). As the heavens are higher than the earth, so His thoughts and ways transcend those of men (Isaiah 55:8-9). But anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions still abound. Eyes, mouth, ears, nostrils, hands, arms and face are His; He is a man of war (Isaiah 42:13; 63:1 ff); He cries like a travailing woman (Isaiah 42:14), and feeds His flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:11). Thus, alone could the prophet express His full concrete Divinity.
(6) 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 (Isaiah 40:11). Her scattered children are His sons and daughters whom He redeems and restores (Isaiah 43:5-7). In wrath for a moment He hides His face, but His mercy and kindness are everlasting (Isaiah 54:8). Greater than a mother's tenderness is Yahweh's love for Israel (Isaiah 49:15; 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 (Psalms 18:31; 24:1 ff; Psalms 115:3 ff). The generic name God is frequently applied to Him, and the tendency appears to avoid the particular and proper name Yahweh (see especially Psalms 73:1-28 through Psalms 89:1-52; 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 Gentilerace 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 (Psalms 90:1-2; 102:27). His omniscience and omnipresence are expressed with every possible fullness (Psalms 139:1-24; Job 26:6). His almighty power is at once the confidence of piety, and the rebuke of blasphemy or frowardness (Psalms 74:12-17; Psalms 104:1-35 et passim; Job 36:1-33; Job 37:1-24 et passim; Ecclesiasticus 16:17 ff). (b) His most exalted and comprehensive attribute is His holiness; by it He swears as by Himself (Psalms 89:35); it expresses His majesty (Psalms 99:3, 19) and His supreme power (Psalms 60:6 ff). (c) His righteousness marks all His acts in relation to Israel and the nations around her (Psalms 119:137-144; 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 (Psalms 51:1-19) 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 (Psalms 15:1-5); purity, diligence, kindliness, honesty, humility and wisdom are the marks of the righteous man (Proverbs 10:1-32 through Proverbs 11:1-31). (e) In Job and Proverbs wisdom stands forth as the preeminent quality of the ideal man, combining in itself all moral and intellectual excellences, and wisdom comes from God (Proverbs 2:6); it is a quality of His nature (Proverbs 8:22) and a mode of His activity (Proverbs 3:19; Psalms 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" (7:25,26). 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" (Psalms 103:13; 145:8; 103:8; Ecclesiastes 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 (Psalms 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 (Psalms 11:4; 103:19), and His glory above the heavens (Psalms 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"
(Psalms 76:1-2; 110:2; compare Ecclesiasticus 24:8 ff).
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 (Psalms 42:1-11; Psalms 43:1-5; compare Psalms 122:1-9).
(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 (Psalms 109:1-31; Psalms 137:7-9). Yet Israel did not wholly forget that it was the servant of Yahweh to proclaim His name among the nations (Psalms 96:2-3; Psalms 117:1-2). Yahweh is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works (Psalms 145:9; Ecclesiasticus 18:13; compare Psalms 104:14; Zechariah 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, 8-9; Proverbs 30:2-4). Even the doctrine of immortality developed with the sense of God's present remoteness and the hope of His future nearness (Psalms 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 (Psalms 104:1-35; Wisdom of Solomon 8:1; 1, 2) and in man's inner experience (Proverbs 15:3, 11; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 1 Chronicles 29:17-18). 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' 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 (Zechariah 1:9, 12, 19; 3:1 ff), the instruments of God's help (Daniel 3:28; 2 Maccabees 11:6), and of His punishment (Apoc Baruch 21:23). The ancient gods of the nations became their patron angels (Daniel 10:13-20); but Israel's hatred of their Gentileenemies 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 Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, and 'Elohim) 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.
Continued in GOD, 3.
God, 3
God, 3 - Continued from GOD, 2.
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 (Matthew 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 He, 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 (Acts 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 (Acts 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 (Acts 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" (Psalms 103:13; compare Deuteronomy 1:31; Deuteronomy 6:1-25; Jeremiah 3:4, 19; 31:20; Isaiah 63:16; Hosea 11:1; Malachi 3:17). Even His chastisements are "as a man chasteneth his son" (Deuteronomy 8:5; Isaiah 64:8). The same idea is expressed under the figure of a mother's tender care (Isaiah 49:15; 66:13; Psalms 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 preeminently 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 (Matthew 5:48; 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 (John 5:17), and all things lie in His power (Luke 22:42). By His preserving power, the least as well as the greatest creature lives (Matthew 6:26; 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 (Matthew 7:11; Mark 10:18). To Him men and beasts turn for all they need, and in Him they find safety, rest and peace (Matthew 6:26, 32; 7:11). His goodness goes forth spontaneously and alights upon all living things, even upon the unjust and His enemies (Matthew 5:45). He rewards the obedient (Matthew 6:1; 7:21), forgives the disobedient (Matthew 6:14; compare Matthew 18:35) and restores the prodigal (Luke 15:11 ff). "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 (Matthew 6:9), and He is the ideal of all perfection, to which they should seek to attain (Matthew 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 (Luke 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" (John 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 (Mark 1:11; 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" (John 3:35; 5:20). The Father sent the Son into the world, and entrusted Him with his message and power (Matthew 11:27). He gave Him those who believed in Him, to receive His word (John 6:37, 44-45; 6, 8). He does the works and speaks the words of the Father who sent Him (John 5:36; 18, 29; 14:24). His dependence upon the Father, and His trust in Him are equally complete (John 11:41; 12:27 f; John 17:1-26). 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" (Matthew 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" (John 14:9; compare John 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" (John 14:10-11). As the Father, so is the Son, for men to honor or to hate (John 5:23; 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 (Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 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" (John 14:6). He is, therefore, rightly called the "only begotten son" (John 3:16), and His contemporaries believed that He made Himself equal to God (John 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" (Matthew 6:4, 18). Their whole conduct should be determined by the consciousness of the Father's intimate presence (Matthew 6:1, 4). To do His will is the ideal of life (Matthew 7:21; 12:50). More explicitly, it is to act as He does, to love and forgive as He loves and forgives (Matthew 5:45); and, finally, to be perfect as He is perfect (Matthew 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 (Matthew 6:26, 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 (John 14:21; 17:23; compare John 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 (Luke 18:16). During childhood, aIl men are objects of His fatherly love and care (Matthew 18:10), and it is not His will that one of them should perish (Matthew 18:14). Even if they become His enemies, He still bestows His beneficence upon the evil and the unjust (Matthew 5:44-45; Luke 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 (John 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 (Matthew 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" (John 3:16), that through His death men might be reconciled to God (Romans 5:10; 8:3). He speaks to men through the Son who is the effulgence of His glory, and the very image of His substance (Hebrews 1:2-3). 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 (Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3). As such He is the source of every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). Through Christ we have access unto the Father (Ephesians 2:18).
(b) Our Father: He is, therefore, God our Father (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3). Believers are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:26). "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Romans 8:14). These receive the spirit of adoption whereby they cry, Abba, Father (Romans 8:15; Galatians 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 (Acts 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 (Romans 5:5, 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" (Ephesians 4:6-7).
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 (Mark 9:1; 13:30; Matthew 16:28; 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 (Matthew 8:11; 31, 43; Matthew 23:37-38; Luke 13:29). They are humility, hunger and thirst after righteousness, and the love of mercy, purity and peace (Matthew 5:3-10; 1, 3; compare Matthew 20:26-28; 25:34; 7:21; John 3:3; Luke 17:20-21). 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 coordination 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 (Luke 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 (Matthew 16:16). He speaks of a time in the immediate future when men shall see "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). As judge of all men, He designates Himself king (Matthew 25:34; Luke 19:38). He accepts the title king from Pilate (Matthew 27:11-12; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:37), and claims a kingdom which is not of this world (John 18:36). His disciples look to Him for the restoration of the kingdom (Acts 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 coordination 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 (Matthew 6:9-10). They enter the kingdom by doing the Father's will (Matthew 7:21). It is their Father's good pleasure to give them the kingdom (Luke 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 (Matthew 4:17, 23; 12:28), and as its king He claims men's allegiance and obedience (Matthew 11:28-29). 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 (Galatians 1:21; Colossians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:5), and to Christ (Colossians 1:13; 2 Timothy 4:1, 18; 2 Peter 1:11), and to both together (Ephesians 5:5; compare 1 Corinthians 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" (John 4:23, 14 margin). Figurative expressions denoting the same truth are the Johannine phrases, `God is life' (1 John 5:20), and "God is light" (1 John 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 (1 John 4:8, 16). With one exception (Luke 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 (John 10:1-42; 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" (Romans 8:39). "God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8; compare Ephesians 2:4). Love was fully made known in Christ's death (1 John 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 (1 John 4:9-10; compare John 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 (1 John 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 (1 John 2:5). "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3). It is manifested especially in brotherly love (1 John 4:12, 20). It cannot dwell with worldliness (1 John 2:15) or callous selfishness (1 John 3:17). Man derives it from God as he is made the son of God, begotten of Him (1 John 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 coordinated 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 (John 17:11; compare 1 Peter 1:15-16). 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" (Hebrews 7:26). Where it dwells, no uncleanness must be (1 Corinthians 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 (Romans 5:5). "The kingdom of God is .... righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17).
(b) Righteousness as a quality of character is practically identical with holiness in the New Testament. It is opposed to sin (Romans 6:13, 10) and iniquity (2 Corinthians 6:14). It is coupled with goodness and truth as the fruit of the light (Ephesians 5:9; compare 1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 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 (John 16:8). In its origin it is the righteousness of God (Matthew 6:33; compare John 17:25). In Paul's theology, "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe" (Romans 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" (1 John 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 (Matthew 11:25). The forces of Nature are at His command (Matthew 5:45; 6:30). He can answer every prayer and satisfy every need (Matthew 7:7-12). All things are possible to Him (Mark 10:27; 14:36). He created all things (Ephesians 3:9). All earthly powers are derived from Him (Romans 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 (Ephesians 1:20-21; compare Matthew 28:18). Every power and condition of existence are subordinated to the might of His love unto His saints (Romans 8:38-39). Neither time nor place can limit Him: He is the eternal God (Romans 16:26). His knowledge is as infinite as His power; He knows what the Son and the angels know not (Mark 13:32). He knows the hearts of men (Luke 16:15) and all their needs (Matthew 6:8, 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" (Ephesians 3:10-11). 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 (Matthew 7:11; Romans 8:28).
8. The Unity of God: It is both assumed through the New Testament and stated categorically that God is one (Mark 12:29; Romans 3:30; Ephesians 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" (Colossians 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 (John 14:16-17; compare John 14:18), and Paul seems also to identify them in at least one passage: "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Corinthians 3:17). But in other places the three names are ranged side by side as representing three distinct persons (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 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 (John 10:30), a unity, too, which might be realized in a wider sphere, where the Father, the Son and believers should form one society (John 17:21, 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" (Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Another writer employs a similar metaphor. Christ is "the effulgence of (God's) glory, and the very image of his substance" (Hebrews 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 (John 16:14). The problems of the coordination 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 (John 16:13). "And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 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 Verhaltnis zur heutigen Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft; Kostlin, article "Gott" in See 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.
T. Rees
God, Children of
God, Children of - See CHILDREN OF GOD.
God, Image of
God, Image of - In Genesis 1:26-27, the truth is declared that God created man in His own "image" (tselem), after His "likeness" (demuth). The two ideas denote the same thing--resemblance to God. The like conception of man, tacit or avowed, underlies all revelation. It is given in Genesis 9:6 as the ground of the prohibition of the shedding of man's blood; is echoed in Psalms 8:1-9; is reiterated frequently in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 11:7; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10; Isaiah 3:9). The nature of this image of God in man is discussed in other articles--see especially ANTHROPOLOGY. It lies in the nature of the case that the "image" does not consist in bodily form; it can only reside in spiritual qualities, in man's mental and moral attributes as a self-conscious, rational, personal agent, capable of self-determination and obedience to moral law. This gives man his position of lordship in creation, and invests his being with the sanctity of personality. The image of God, defaced, but not entirely lost through sin, is restored in yet more perfect form in the redemption of Christ. See the full discussion in the writer's work, God's Image in Man and Its Defacement; see also Dr. J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man.
James Orr
God, Names of
God, Names of - I. INTRODUCTORY
1. The Phrase "His Name"
2. Classification. II. PERSONAL NAMES OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. 'Elohim
2. 'El
3. 'Eloah
4. 'Adhon, 'Adhonay
5. Yahweh (Yahweh)
6. Tsur (Rock)
7. Ka`dhosh
8. Shadday
III. DESCRIPTIVE NAMES OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. 'Abhir
2. 'El-'Elohe-Yisra'el
3. `Elyon
4. Gibbor
5. 'El-ro'i
6. Tsaddiq
7. Qanna'
8. Yahweh Tsebha'oth
9. "I Am That I Am"
IV. New Testament NAMES OF GOD
1. God
2. Lord
3. Descriptive and Figurative Names
LITERATURE
I. Introduction: To an extent beyond the appreciation of modern and western minds the people of Biblical times and lands valued the name of the person. They always gave to it symbolical or character meaning.
While our modern names are almost exclusively designatory, and intended merely for identification, the Biblical names were also descriptive, and often prophetic. Religious significance nearly always inhered in the name, a parent relating his child to the Deity, or declaring its consecration to the Deity, by joining the name of the Deity with the service which the child should render, or perhaps commemorating in a name the favor of God in the gracious gift of the child, e.g. Nathaniel ("gift of God"); Samuel ("heard of God"); Adonijah ("Yahweh is my Lord"), etc. It seems to us strange that at its birth, the life and character of a child should be forecast by its parents in a name; and this unique custom has been regarded by an unsympathetic criticism as evidence of the origin of such names and their attendant narratives long subsequent to the completed life itself; such names, for example, as Abraham, Sarah, etc. But that this was actually done, and that it was regarded as a matter of course, is proved by the name given to Our Lord at His birth: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people" (Matthew 1:21). It is not unlikely that the giving of a character name represented the parents' purpose and fidelity in the child's training, resulting necessarily in giving to the child's life that very direction, which the name indicated. A child's name, therefore, became both a prayer and a consecration, and its realization in character became often a necessary psychological effect. Great honor or dishonor was attached to a name. The Old Testament writings contain many and varied instances of this. Sometimes contempt for certain reprobate men would be most expressively indicated by a change of name, e.g. the change of Esh-baal, "man of Baal," to Ish-bosheth, "man of shame" (2 Samuel 2:8 ff), and the omission of Yahweh from the name of the apostate king, Ahaz (2 Kings 15:38, etc.). The name of the last king of Judah was most expressively changed by Nebuchadnezzar from Mattaniah to Zedekiah, to assure his fidelity to his overlord who made him king (2 Kings 24:17).
1. The Phrase "His Name": Since the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament are essentially for purposes of revelation, and since the Hebrews laid such store by names, we should confidently expect them to make the Divine name a medium of revelation of the first importance. People accustomed by long usage to significant character indications in their own names, necessarily would regard the names of the Deity as expressive of His nature. The very phrase "name of Yahweh," or "His name," as applied to the Deity in Biblical usage, is most interesting and suggestive, sometimes expressing comprehensively His revelation in Nature (Psalms 8:1; compare Psalms 138:2); or marking the place of His worship, where men will call upon His name (Deuteronomy 12:5); or used as a synonym of His various attributes, e.g. faithfulness (Isaiah 48:9), grace (Psalms 23:3), His honor (Psalms 79:9), etc. "Accordingly, since the name of God denotes this God Himself as He is revealed, and as He desires to be known by His creatures, when it is said that God will make a name for Himself by His mighty deeds, or that the new world of the future shall be unto Him for a name, we can easily understand that the name of God is often synonymous with the glory of God, and that the expressions for both are combined in the utmost variety of ways, or used alternately" (Schultz, Old Testament Theology, English translation, I, 124-25; compare Psalms 72:19; Isaiah 63:14; also Davidson, Old Testament Theol., 37-38).
2. Classification: From the important place which the Divine name occupies in revelation, we would expect frequency of occurrence and diversity of form; and this is just that which we find to be true. The many forms or varieties of the name will be considered under the following heads: (1) Absolute or Personal Names, (2) Attributive, or Qualifying Names, and (3) Names of God in the New Testament. Naturally and in course of time attributive names tend to crystallize through frequent use and devotional regard into personal names; e.g. the attributive adjective qadhosh, "holy," becomes the personal, transcendental name for Deity in Job and Isa. For fuller details of each name reference may be made to separate articles.
II. Absolute or Personal Names of God in the Old Testament:
1. 'Elohim: The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is 'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (Genesis 1:1). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Gen alone approximately 200 t. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also 'El and 'Eloah. (1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic.
(2) The derivation is quite uncertain. Gesenius, Ewald and others find its origin in 'ul, "to be strong," from which also are derived 'ayil, "ram," and 'elah, "terebinth"; it is then an expanded plural form of 'el; others trace it to 'alah, "to terrify," and the singular form is found in the infrequent 'eloah, which occurs chiefly in poetical books; BDB inclines to the derivation from 'alah, "to be strong," as the root of the three forms, 'El, `Eloah and 'Elohim, although admitting that the whole question is involved in uncertainty (for full statement see BDB , under the word ...); a somewhat fanciful suggestion is the Arabic root 'ul, "to be in front," from which comes the meaning "leader"; and still more fanciful is the suggested connection with the preposition 'el, signifying God as the "goal" of man's life and aspiration. The origin must always lie in doubt, since the derivation is prehistoric, and the name, with its kindred words 'El and 'Eloah, is common to Semitic languages and religions and beyond the range of Hebrew records.
(3) It is the reasonable conclusion that the meaning is "might" or "power"; that it is common to Semitic language; that the form is plural to express majesty or "all-mightiness," and that it is a generic, rather than a specific personal, name for Deity, as is indicated by its application to those who represent the Deity (Judges 5:8; Psalms 82:1) or who are in His presence (1 Samuel 28:13).
2. 'Eloah: The singular form of the preceding name, 'Eloah, is confined in its use almost exclusively to poetry, or to poetic expression, being characteristic of the Book of Job, occurring oftener in that book than in all other parts of the Old Testament. It is, in fact, found in Job oftener than the elsewhere more ordinary plural 'Elohim. For derivation and meaning see above under 1 (2). Compare also the Aramaic form, 'elah, found frequently in Ezra and Daniel.
3. 'El: In the group of Semitic languages, the most common word for Deity is El ('el), represented by the Babylonian ilu and the Arabic 'Allah. It is found throughout the Old Testament, but oftener in Job and Psalms than in all the other books. It occurs seldom in the historical books, and not at all in Lev. The same variety of derivations is attributed to it as to ELOHIM (which see), most probable of which is 'ul, "to be strong." BDB interprets 'ul as meaning "to be in front," from which came 'ayil, "ram" the one in front of the flock, and 'elah, the prominent "terebinth," deriving ['El] from 'alah, "to be strong." It occurs in many of the more ancient names; and, like ['Elohim], it is used of pagan gods. It is frequently combined with nouns or adjectives to express the Divine name with reference to particular attributes or phases of His being, as 'El `Elyon, 'El-Ro'i, etc. (see below underIII , "Attributive Names").
4. 'Adhon, 'Adhonay: An attributive name, which in prehistoric Hebrew had already passed over into a generic name of God, is 'Adhon, 'Adhonay, the latter formed from the former, being the construct plural, 'adhone, with the 1st person ending -ay, which has been lengthened to ay and so retained as characteristic of the proper name and distinguishing it from the possessive "my Lord." the King James Version does not distinguish, but renders both as possessive, "my Lord" (Judges 6:15; 13:8), and as personal name (Psalms 2:4); the Revised Version (British and American) also, in Psalms 16:2, is in doubt, giving "my Lord," possessive, in text and "the Lord" in the margin. 'Adhonay, as a name of Deity, emphasizes His sovereignty (Psalms 2:4; Isaiah 7:7), and corresponds closely to Kurios of the New Testament. It is frequently combined with Yahweh (Genesis 15:8; Isaiah 7:7, etc.) and with 'Elohim (Psalms 86:12). Its most significant service in Massoretic Text is the use of its vowels to point the unpronounceable tetragrammaton YHWH, indicating that the word "'Adhonay" should be spoken aloud instead of "Yah-weh." This combination of vowels and consonants gives the transliteration "Yahweh," adopted by the American Standard Revised Version, while the other English Versions of the Bible, since Coverdale, represents the combination by the capitals LORD. Septuagint represents it by Kurios.
5. Yahweh (Yahweh): The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is (Yahweh, a combination of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowels of 'Adhonay, transliterated as Yehowah, but read aloud by the Hebrews 'adhonay). While both derivation and meaning are lost to us in the uncertainties of its ante-Biblical origin, the following inferences seem to be justified by the facts: (1) This name was common to religions other than Israel's, according to Friedr. Delitzsch, Hommel, Winckler, and Guthe (EB, under the word), having been found in Babylonian inscriptions. Ammonite, Arabic and Egyptian names appear also to contain it (compare Davidson, Old Testament Theol., 52 f); but while, like 'Elohim, it was common to primitive Semitic religion, it became Israel's distinctive name for the Deity. (2) It was, therefore, not first made known at the call of Moses (Exodus 3:13-16; Exodus 6:2-8), but, being already known, was at that time given a larger revelation and interpretation: God, to be known to Israel henceforth under the name "Yahweh" and in its fuller significance, was the One sending Moses to deliver Israel; "when I shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said .... I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE .... say .... I WILL BE hath sent me" (Exodus 3:13-14 margin). The name is assumed as known in the narrative of Genesis; it also occurs in pre-Mosaic names (Exodus 6:20; 1 Chronicles 2:25; 7:8). (3) The derivation is from the archaic chawah, "to be," better "to become," in Biblical Hebrew hayah; this archaic use of w for y appears also in derivatives of the similar chayah, "to live," e.g. chawwah in Genesis 3:20. (4) It is evident from the interpretative passages (Exodus 3:1-22; Exodus 6:1-30) that the form is the fut. of the simple stem (Qal) and not future of the causative (Hiph`il) stem in the sense "giver of life"--an idea not borne out by any of the occurrences of the word. The fanciful theory that the word is a combination of the future, present and perfect tenses of the verb, signifying "the One who will be, is, and was," is not to be taken seriously (Stier, etc., in Oehler's Old Testament Theology, in the place cited.). (5) The meaning may with some confidence be inferred from Origen's transliteration, Iao, the form in Samaritan, Iabe, the form as combined in Old Testament names, and the evident signification in Exodus 3:1-22 and other passages, to be that of the simple future, yahweh, "he will be." It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future. And thus it became bound up with the Messianic hope, as in the phrase, "the Day of Yahweh," and consequently both it and the Septuagint translation Kurios were applied by the New Testament as titles of Christ. (6) It is the personal name of God, as distinguished from such generic or essential names as 'El, 'Elohim, Shadday, etc. Characteristic of the Old Testament is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Yahweh is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the Old Testament insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. the American Standard Revised Version quite correctly adopts the transliteration "Yahweh" to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed.
6. Tsur (Rock): Five times in the "Song" of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31) the word tsur, "Rock," is used as a title of God. It occurs also in the Psalms, Isa and poetical passages of other books, and also in proper names, Elizur, Zuriel, etc. Once in the King James Version (Isaiah 44:8) it is translated "God," but "Rock" in the American Standard Revised Version and the American Revised Version, margin. The effort to interpret this title as indicating the animistic origin of Old Testament religion is unnecessary and a pure product of the imagination. It is customary for both Old Testament and New Testament writers to use descriptive names of God: "rock," "fortress," "shield," "light," "bread," etc., and is in harmony with all the rich figurativeness of the Scriptures; the use of the article in many of the cases cited further corroborates the view that the word is intended to be a descriptive title, not the name of a Nature-deity. It presents the idea of God as steadfast: "The appellation of God as tsur, `rock,' `safe retreat,' in Deuteronomy refers to this" (Oehler, Old Testament Theology). It often occurs, in a most striking figure, with the pers. suffix as "my rock," "their rock," to express confidence (Psalms 28:1).
7. Kadhosh: The name (qadhosh, "holy") is found frequently in Isaiah and Psalms, and occasionally in the other prophets. It is characteristic of Isaiah, being found 32 times in that book. It occurs often in the phrase qedhosh yisra'el, "Holy One of Israel." The derivation and meaning remain in doubt, but the customary and most probable derivation is from qadhash, "to be separate," which best explains its use both of man and of the Deity. When used of God it signifies: (1) His transcendence, His separateness above all other beings, His aloneness as compared to other gods; (2) His peculiar relation to His people Israel unto whom He separated Himself, as He did not unto other nations. In the former sense Isaiah used it of His sole deity (40:25), in the latter of His peculiar and unchanging covenant-relation to Israel (43:3; 48:17), strikingly, expressed in the phrase "Holy One of Israel." Qadhosh was rather attributive than personal, but became personal in the use of such absolute theists as Job and Isaiah. It expresses essential Deity, rather than personal revelation.
8. Shadday: In the patriarchal literature, and in Job particularly, where it is put into the mouths of the patriarchs, this name appears sometimes in the compound 'el shadday, sometimes alone. While its root meaning also is uncertain, the suggested derivation from shadhadh, "to destroy," "to terrify," seems most probable, signifying the God who is manifested by the terribleness of His mighty acts. "The Storm God," from shadha', "to pour out," has been suggested, but is improbable; and even more so the fanciful she, and day, meaning "who is sufficient." Its use in patriarchal days marks an advance over looser Semitic conceptions to the stricter monotheistic idea of almightiness, and is in accord with the early consciousness of Deity in race or individual as a God of awe, or even terror. Its monotheistic character is in harmony with its use in the Abrahamic times, and is further corroborated by its parallel in Septuagint and New Testament, pantokrator, "all-powerful."
III. Descriptive Names of God in the Old Testament:
It is often difficult to distinguish between the personal and the attributive names of God, the two divisions necessarily shading into each other. Some of the preceding are really attributive, made personal by usage. The following are the most prominent descriptive or attributive names.
1. 'Abhir: This name ('abhir), translated in English Versions of the Bible "Mighty One," is always combined with Israel or Jacob; its root is 'abhar, "to be strong" from which is derived the word 'ebher, "pinion," used of the strong wing of the eagle (Isaiah 40:31), figuratively of God in Deuteronomy 32:11. It occurs in Jacob's blessing (Genesis 49:24), in a prayer for the sanctuary (Psalms 132:2, 5), and in Isa (Psalms 1:6; 49:20; 60:12), to express the assurance of the Divine strength in behalf of the oppressed in Israel (Isaiah 1:24), or in behalf of Israel against his oppressors; it is interesting to note that this name was first used by Jacob himself.
2. 'El-'Elohe-Israel: The name 'El is combined with a number of descriptive adjectives to represent God in His various attributes; and these by usage have become names or titles of God. For the remarkable phrase 'EL-'ELOHE-ISRAEL (Genesis 33:20), see separate article
3. `Elyon: This name (`elyon, "highest") is a derivative of `alah, "to go up." It is used of persons or things to indicate their elevation or exaltation: of Israel, favored above other nations (Deuteronomy 26:19), of the aqueduct of "the upper pool" (Isaiah 7:3), etc. This indicates that its meaning when applied to God is the "Exalted One," who is lifted far above all gods and men. It occurs alone (Deuteronomy 32:8; Psalms 18:13), or in combination with other names of God, most frequently with El (Genesis 14:18; Psalms 78:35), but also with Yahweh (Psalms 7:17; 97:9), or with Elohim (Psalms 56:2 the King James Version; Psalms 78:56). Its early use (Genesis 14:18 f) points to a high conception of Deity, an unquestioned monotheism in the beginnings of Hebrew history.
4. Gibbor: The ancient Hebrews were in constant struggle for their land and their liberties, a struggle most intense and patriotic in the heroic days of Saul and David, and in which there was developed a band of men whose great deeds entitled them to the honorable title "mighty men" of valor (gibborim). These were the knights of David's "Round Table." In like manner the Hebrew thought of his God as fighting for him, and easily then this title was applied to God as the Mighty Man of war, occurring in David's psalm of the Ark's Triumphant Entry (Psalms 24:8), in the allegory of the Messiah-King (Psalms 45:3), either alone or combined with El (Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 32:18), and sometimes with Yahweh (Isaiah 42:13).
5. 'El-Ro'i: When Hagar was fleeing from Sarah's persecutions, Yahweh spoke to her in the wilderness of Shur, words of promise and cheer. Whereupon "she called the name of Yahweh that spake unto her, Thou art El roi" (Genesis 16:13 margin). In the text the word ro'i, deriv. of ra'ah, "to see," is translated "that seeth," literally, "of sight." This is the only occurrence of this title in the Old Testament.
6. Tsaddiq: One of the covenant attributes of God, His righteousness, is spoken of so often that it passes from adjective to substantive, from attribute to name, and He is called "Righteous" (tsaddiq), or "the Righteous One." The word is never transliterated but always translated in English Versions of the Bible, although it might just as properly be considered a Divine name as `Elyon or Qadhosh. The root tsadhaq, "to be straight" or "right," signifies fidelity to a standard, and is used of God's fidelity to His own nature and to His covenant-promise (Isaiah 41:10; 42:6; compare Hosea 2:19); it occurs alone (Psalms 34:17), with El (Deuteronomy 32:4), with Elohim (Ezra 9:15; Psalms 7:9; 116:5), but most frequently with Yahweh (Psalms 129:4, etc.). In Exodus 9:27 Pharaoh, in acknowledging his sin against Yahweh, calls Him `Yahweh the Righteous,' using the article. The suggestive combination, "Yahweh our Righteousness," is the name given to David's "righteous Branch" (Jeremiah 23:6) and properly should be taken as a proper noun--the name of the Messiah-King.
7. Kanna: Frequently in the Pentateuch, most often in the 3 versions of the Commandments (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 5:9), God is given the title "Jealous" (qanna'), most specifically in the phrase "Yahweh, whose name is Jealous" (Exodus 34:14). This word, however, did not bear the evil meaning now associated with it in our usage, but rather signified "righteous zeal," Yahweh's zeal for His own name or glory (compare Isaiah 9:7, "the zeal of Yahweh," qin'ah; also Zechariah 1:14; 8:2).
8. Yahweh Tsebha'-oth: Connected with the personal and covenant name Yahweh, there is found frequently the word Sabaoth (tsebha'oth, "hosts"). Invariably in the Old Testament it is translated "hosts" (Isaiah 1:9; Psalms 46:7, 11, etc.), but in the New Testament it is transliterated twice, both in the Greek and English (Romans 9:29; James 5:4). The passage in Roman is a quotation from Isaiah 1:9 through Septuagint, which does not translate, but transliterates the Hebrew. Origin and meaning are uncertain. It is used of heavenly bodies and earthly forces (Genesis 2:1); of the army of Israel (2 Samuel 8:16); of the Heavenly beings (Psalms 103:21; 148:2; Daniel 4:35). It is probable that the title is intended to include all created agencies and beings, of which Yahweh is maker and leader.
9. "I Am That I Am": When God appeared to Moses at Sinai, commissioning him to deliver Israel; Moses, being well aware of the difficulty of impressing the people, asked by what name of God he should speak to them: "They shall say to me, What is his name?" Then "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM .... say .... I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exodus 3:14). The name of the Deity given here is similar to Yahweh except that the form is not 3rd person future, as in the usual form, but the 1st person ('ehyeh), since God is here speaking of Himself. The optional reading in the American Revised Version, margin is much to be preferred: "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE," indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow. For further explanation see above,II , 5.
IV. New Testament Names of God. The variety of names which characterizes the Old Testament is lacking in the New Testament, where we are all but limited to two names, each of which corresponds to several in the Old Testament. The most frequent is the name "God" (Theos) occurring over 1,000 t, and corresponding to El, Elohim, etc., of the Old Testament.
1. God: It may, as ['Elohim], be used by accommodation of heathen gods; but in its true sense it expresses essential Deity, and as expressive of such it is applied to Christ as to the Father (John 20:28; Romans 9:5).
2. Lord: Five times "Lord" is a translation of despotes (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 2:1 the King James Version; Jude 1:4; Revelation 6:10 the King James Version). In each case there is evident emphasis on sovereignty and correspondence to the 'Adhon of the Old Testament. The most common Greek word for Lord is Kurios, representing both Yahweh and 'Adhonai of the Old Testament, and occurring upwards of 600 times. Its use for Yahweh was in the spirit of both the Hebrew scribes, who pointed the consonants of the covenant name with the vowels of Adhonay, the title of dominion, and of the Septuagint, which rendered this combination as Kurios. Consequently quotations from the Old Testament in which Yahweh occurs are rendered by Kurios. It is applied to Christ equally with the Father and the Spirit, showing that the Messianic hopes conveyed by the name Yahweh were for New Testament writers fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and that in Him the long hoped for appearance of Yahweh was realized.
3. Descriptive and Figurative Names: As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament various attributive, descriptive or figurative names are found, often corresponding to those in the Old Testament. Some of these are: The "Highest" or "Most High" hupsistos), found in this sense only in Lk (1:32,35,76; 2:14, etc.), and Equivalent to 'Elyon (see III , 3, above); "Almighty," Pantokrator (2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8, etc.), corresponding to Shadday (see II , 8 above; see also ALMIGHTY); "Father," as in the Lord's Prayer, and elsewhere (Matthew 6:9; 11:25; John 17:25; 2 Corinthians 6:18); "King" (1 Timothy 1:17); "King of kings" (1 Timothy 6:15); "King of kings," "Lord of lords" (Revelation 17:14; 19:16); "Potentate" (1 Timothy 6:15); "Master" (Kurios, Ephesians 6:9; 2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 6:10); "Shepherd," "Bishop" (1 Peter 2:25).
LITERATURE.
Theology of Old Testament by various authors: Oehler, Schultz, Davidson; Delitzsch, Psychology of the Old Testament; H.P. Smith, "Theophorous Names of OT" in Old Testament and Semitic Studies; Gray, HPN; "God" in HDB and EB.
Edward Mack
God, Son (Sons) of
God, Son (Sons) of - See SONS OF GOD( OLD TESTAMENT); SONS OF GOD( NEW TESTAMENT).
God, Strange
God, Strange - stranj: The word "strange," as used in this connection in the Old Testament, refers to the fact that the god or gods do not belong to Israel, but are the gods which are worshipped by other families or nations. In several cases a more exact translation would give us the "gods of the stranger" or foreigner. So in Genesis 35:2, 4; Joshua 24:2; Judges 10:16; Deuteronomy 31:16; 32:12, etc. In a few passages like Deuteronomy 32:16; Psalms 44:20; 81:9; Isaiah 43:12, the word is an adjective, but the idea is the same: the gods are those which are worshipped by other peoples and hence are forbidden to Israel, which is under obligation to worship Yahweh alone (compare 2 Esdras 1:6).
In the New Testament the phrase occurs only once, in the account of Paul's experiences in Athens (Acts 17:18), when some of his auditors said, "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods" (xena daimonia). Here the thought is clearly that by his preaching of Jesus he was regarded as introducing a new divinity, that is one who was strange or foreign to the Athenians and of whom they had never heard before. Like the Romans of this period the Athenians were doubtless interested in, and more or less favorable to, the numerous new cults which were coming to their attention as the result of the constant intercourse with the Orient. See preceding article.
Walter R. Betteridge
God, the Father
God, the Father - See FATHER,GOD THE .
God, the Unknown
God, the Unknown - See UNKNOWN GOD.
Goddess
Goddess - god'-es ('elohim, thea): There is no separate word for "goddess" in the Old Testament. In the only instance in which the word occurs in English Versions of the Bible (1 Kings 11:5, 33), the gender is determined by the noun--"Ashtoreth, the god (goddess) of the Sidonians." In the New Testament the term is applied to Diana of Ephesus (Acts 19:27, 35, 37).
Godhead
Godhead - god'-hed: The word "Godhead" is a simple doublet of the less frequently occurring "Godhood." Both forms stand side by side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 AD), and both have survived until today, though not in equally common use. They are representatives of a large class of abstract substantives, formed with the suffix "-head" or "-hood", most of which formerly occurred in both forms almost indifferently, though the majority of them survive only, or very preponderatingly (except in Scottish speech), in the form -hood. The two suffixes appear in Middle English as "-hede" and "-hod", and presuppose in the Anglo-Saxon which lies behind them a feminine "haeda" (which is not actually known) by the side of the masculine had. The Anglo-Saxon word "was originally a distinct substantive, meaning `person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank' " (Bradley, in A New English Dict. on a Historical Basis, under the word "-hood"), but its use as a suffix early superseded its separate employment. At first "-hede" appears to have been appropriated to adjectives, "-hod" to substantives; but, this distinction breaking down and the forms coming into indiscriminate use, "-hede" grew obsolete, and remains in common use only in one or two special forms, such as "Godhead," "maidenhead" (Bradley, as cited, under the word "-head").
The general elimination of the forms in -head has been followed by a fading consciousness, in the case of the few surviving instances in this form, of the qualitative sense inherent in the suffix. The words accordingly show a tendency to become simple denotatives. Thus, "the Godhead" is frequently employed merely as a somewhat strong synonym of "God" although usually with more or less emphasis upon that in God which makes Him God. One of its established usages is to denote the Divine essence as such, in distinction from the three "hypostases" or "persons" which share its common possession in the doctrine of the Trinity. This usage is old: Bradley (op. cit.) is able to adduce instances from the 13th century. In this usage the word has long held the rank of a technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1571, Art. I: "And in the unity of this Godhead, there be three persons" (compare the Irish Articles of 1615, and the Westminster Confession,II , 3); Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: "There are three persons in the Godhead." Pursuant to the fading of the qualitative sense of the word, there has arisen a tendency, when the qualitative consciousness is vivid, to revive the obsolescent "Godhood," to take its place; and this tendency naturally shows itself especially when the contrast with humanity is expressed. Carlyle, for example (French Revolution, III, Book vi, chapter iv, section 1), speaking of the posthumous reaction against Marat, writes: "Shorter godhood had no divine man"; and Phillips Brooks (Sermons, XIII, 237) speaks of Christ bridging the gulf "between the Godhood and the manhood." "Godhood" seems, indeed, always to have had a tendency to appear in such contrasts, as if the qualitative consciousness were more active in it than in "Godhead." Thus, it seems formerly to have suggested itself almost as inevitably to designate the Divine nature of Christ, as "Godhead" did to designate the common Divine essence of the Trinity. Bradley cites instances from 1563 down.
The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him. "Godhead" is thus the Saxon equivalent of the Latin "Divinity," or, as it is now becoming more usual to say, "Deity." Like these terms it is rendered concrete by prefixing the article to it. As "the Divinity," "the Deity," so also "the Godhead" is only another way of saying "God," except that when we say "the Divinity," "the Deity," "the Godhead," we are saying "God" more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call "God."
The word "Godhead" occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9), and oddly enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek words, to theion theiotes, theotes.
To theion means "that which is Divine," concretely, or, shortly, "the Deity." Among the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of "the Divine Being," and particularly as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by Paul (Acts 17:29) in an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in which it is flanked by the simple term "God" (ho Theos) on both sides. It is obviously deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into which it is brought with the term "man." "Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that it is to gold or silver or stone graven by art and device of man that the Godhead is like." In an effort to bring out this qualitative emphasis, the Revised Version, margin suggests that we might substitute for "the Godhead" here the periphrastic rendering, "that which is Divine." But this seems both clumsy and ineffective for its purpose. From the philological standpoint, "the Godhead" is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the simple "God" precisely by its qualitative emphasis. It may be doubted, however, whether in the partial loss by "Godhead" of its qualitative force in its current usage, one of its synonyms, "the Divinity" (which is the rendering here of the Rhemish version) or "the Deity," would not better convey Paul's emphasis to modern readers.
Neither of these terms, "Divinity," "Deity," occurs anywhere in the King James Version, and "Deity" does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) either; but the Revised Version (British and American) (following the Rhemish version) substitutes "Dignity" for "Godhead" in Romans 1:20. Of the two, "Dignity" was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. "Deity" was introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be emphasized. Perhaps "Divinity" retains even in its English usage something of its traditional weaker connotation, although, of course, in a monotheistic consciousness the two terms coalesce in meaning. There exists a tendency to insist, therefore, on the "Deity" of Christ, rather than his mere "Divinity," in the feeling that "Divinity" might lend itself to the notion that Christ possessed but a secondary or reduced grade of Divine quality. In Acts 17:29 Paul is not discriminating between grades of Divinity, but is preaching monotheism. In this context, then, to theion does not lump together "all that is called God or is worshipped," and declare that all that is in any sense Divine should be esteemed beyond the power of material things worthily to represent. Paul has the idea of God at its height before his mind, and having quickened his hearers' sense of God's exaltation by his elevated description of Him, he demands of them whether this Deity can be fitly represented by any art of man working in dead stuff. He uses the term to theion, rather than ho theos, not merely in courteous adoption of his hearers' own language, but because of its qualitative emphasis. On the whole, the best English translation of it would probably be "the Deity." "The Godhead" has ceased to be sufficiently qualitative: "the Godhood" is not sufficiently current: "the Divine" is not sufficiently personal: "the Divinity" is perhaps not sufficiently strong: "Deity" without the article loses too much of its personal reference to compensate for the gain in qualitativeness: "the Deity" alone seems fairly to reproduce the apostle's thought.
The Greek term in Romans 1:20 is theiotes, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by "Godhead." What Paul says here is that "the everlasting power and Godhead" of God "are clearly perceived by means of His works." By "Godhead" he clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by "God." By coupling the word with "power," Paul no doubt intimates that his mind is resting especially upon those qualities which enter most intimately into and constitute the exaltation of God; but we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term--all of God's attributes are glorious. The context shows that the thought of the apostle was moving on much the same lines as in Acts 17:29; here, too, the contrast which determines the emphasis is with "corruptible man," and along with him, with the lower creatures in general (Romans 1:23). How could man think of the Godhead under such similitudes--the Godhead, so clearly manifested in its glory by its works! The substitution for "Godhead" here of its synonym "Divinity" by the Revised Version (British and American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive renderings to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly than "Godhead" in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication which is so strong in theiotes. Perhaps, however, the substitution is not altogether felicitous. "Divinity," in its contrast with "Deity," may have a certain weakness of connotation clinging to it, which would unsuit it to represent theiotes here. It is quite true that the two terms, "Divinity" and "Deity," are the representatives in Latin Patristic writers respectively of the Greek theiotes and theotes. Augustine (The City of God, VII, 1; compare X, 1) tells us that "Deity" was coined by Christian writers as a more accurate rendering of the Greek theotes than the current "Divinity." But it does not follow that because "Deity" more accurately renders theotes, therefore "Divinity" is always the best rendering of theiotes. The stress laid by the Greek Fathers on the employment of theotes to express the "Deity" of the Persons of the Trinity was in sequence to attempts which were being made to ascribe to the Son and the Spirit a reduced "Divinity"; and it was the need the Latin Fathers felt in the same interests which led them to coin "Deity" as a more accurate rendering, as they say, of theotes. Meanwhile theiotes and "Divinity" had done service in the two languages, the former as practically, and the latter as absolutely, the only term in use to express the idea of "Deity." Theotes is very rare in classical Greek, "Deity" non- existent in classical Latin. To represent theiotes uniformly by "Divinity," if any reduced connotation at all clings to "Divinity," would therefore be to represent it often very inadequately. And that is the case in the present passage. What Paul says is clearly made known by God's works, is His everlasting power and all the other everlasting attributes which form His Godhead and constitute His glory.
It is theotes which occurs in Colossians 2:9. Here Paul declares that "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ "bodily." The phrase "fullness of the Godhead" is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ "bodily," that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not "bodily"; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotes may mean all that theotes can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotes means; but theotes must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotes refers to the essence and theiotes to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It it not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which "heroes" might aspire, and "demons" attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term "Godhead," in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert--that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term "God," dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.
Benjamin B. Warfield
Godless
Godless - god'-les: This word is not found in the text of the King James Version. It is found, however, in Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 7:34, "O godless (the Revised Version (British and American) "unholy") man"). the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes the word "godless" for the word "hypocrite" in the following passages: Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13; Proverbs 11:9; Isaiah 33:14. the Revised Version (British and American) does not seem to be consistent in carrying out the idea of "godless" for "hypocrite," for in Isaiah 9:17; 10:6; Psalms 35:16 this same Hebrew word chaneph is translated "profane." The principal idea lying at the root of the word is that of pollution and profanity; a condition of not merely being without God but assuming an attitude of open and blatant opposition toward God. The godless man is not merely the atheistic, unbelieving or even irreligious, but the openly impious, wicked and profane man. Indeed it can hardly be rightly claimed that the idea of hypocrisy is involved in the meaning of the word, for the "godless" man is not the one who professes one thing and lives another, but the one who openly avows not only his disbelief in, but his open opposition to, God. Doubtless the idea of pollution and defilement is also to be included in the definition of this word; see Jeremiah 3:9; Numbers 35:33; Daniel 11:31.
William Evans
Godliness; Godly
Godliness; Godly - god'-li-nes, god'-li (eusebeia, eusebes, eusebos): In the Old Testament the word rendered "godly" in Psalms 4:3; 32:6 (chacidh) is literally, "kind," then "pious" (the Revised Version, margin renders it in the former passage, "one that he favoreth"). Sometimes in both the Old Testament and the New Testament a periphrasis is employed, "of God," "according to God" (e.g. "godly sorrow," 2 Corinthians 7:10). Godliness, as denoting character and conduct determined by the principle of love or fear of God in the heart, is the summing up of genuine religion. There can be no true religion without it: only a dead "form" (2 Timothy 3:5). The term is a favorite one in the Pastoral Epistles. The incarnation is "the mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16).
James Orr
Gods
Gods - ('elohim; theoi):
I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
1. Superhuman Beings (God and Angels)
2. Judges, Rulers
3. Gods of the Nations
4. Superiority of Yahweh to Other Gods
5. Regulations Regarding the Gods of the Nations
6. Israel's Tendency to Idolatry
II. IN THE APOCRYPHA
III. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The Hebrew plural 'elohim is generally known as the plural of "majesty" and is the ordinary name for God. The meaning of the plural seems to be "plenitude of powers." It denotes the fullness of those attributes of power which belonged to the Divine Being. Thus it is usually translated in the singular, "God," when referring to the God of Israel. When reference is made to the gods of the other nations the word is translated in the plural, "gods." The heathen nations usually had a plurality of gods. Among the Semites it was customary for one nation or tribe to have its own particular god. Often there were many tribes, or families, or communities, in one nation, each having a particular god. Thus, even among Semites a nation may have many gods and be polytheistic. Among the other nations, Iranian, Hamitic, etc., there were always a number of deities, sometimes a multitude. There are many references to these in the Old Testament. In a few cases where the plural is used, the singular would be better, e.g. Genesis 3:5 the King James Version; Exodus 32:4, 8, 23; Ruth 1:15 the King James Version; Judges 17:5; 18:24; 1 Samuel 17:43. This, however, might be disputed.
I. In the Old Testament. 1. Superhuman Beings (God and Angels): The following are the more important usages of the word in the Old Testament: The translation of Psalms 8:5 is disputed. The Septuagint and the King James Version translate it "angels," the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version, "God," with "angels" in the margin. The Epistle to the He has the word "angels." This seems to be more in keeping with the Old Testament ideas of the relation between God, men and angels. Genesis 1:26 has the plural "us," but it is not certain to whom it refers, most probably to the angels or mighty ones which surrounded the throne of God as servants or counselors; compare Job 38:7, and see SONS OF GOD. In Psalms 97:7 the expression "worship him, all ye gods," may possibly refer to the gods of the nations, but more probably to the angels or mighty ones.
2. Judges, Rulers: Judges, rulers, are regarded "either as Divine representatives at sacred places, or as reflecting Divine majesty and power" (see BDB , under the word). Exodus 21:6 might better be translated as in the margin, "the judges." These were men appointed to represent God and adjudicate on important matters of law. Septuagint has "Criterion of God." In Exodus 22:8 the word is used in the same sense, and Exodus 22:9 would also be better translated "the judges"; Exodus 22:28 likewise. See also 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalms 82:1, 6, where the reference is to those who act as judges.
3. Gods of the Nations: (1) The ancestors of Israel "beyond the River" had their gods (Joshua 24:14 f). While there is no mention of idolatry before the Deluge, the ancestors and kindred of Abraham were idolaters. Ur of the Chaldees was the center for the worship of Sin, the Moon-god. Many others were worshipped in the various cities of Babylon.
See BABYLONIA.
(2) The gods of Laban and his family (Genesis 31:30, 32; 2, 4) were household gods or teraphim, and were stolen by Rachel and carried off in her flight with Jacob.
See TERAPHIM.
(3) Gods of Egypt: For many centuries before the time of Abraham there had been numerous objects of worship in Egypt. Many of these were animals, birds and natural objects. Horus, the hawk, was one of the earliest of all. The cat, the bull, etc., were worshipped at times. The plagues of Egypt were specially directed against these wretched deities (Numbers 33:4; Exodus 12:12). Yahweh took vengeance on all the gods of Egypt. These terrible events showed that "Yahweh is greater than all gods" (Exodus 18:11). He redeemed His people from the nations and its gods (2 Samuel 7:23). Jeremiah predicted the time when Yahweh should destroy the gods of Egypt (Jeremiah 43:12 f; Jeremiah 46:25).
(4) Of the gods of the Amorites (Judges 6:10) no names are given, but they probably were the same as the gods of the Canaanites.
(5) The gods of the Canaanites were Nature-gods, and their worship was that of the productive and chiefly reproductive powers of Nature. Their service was perhaps the most immoral and degrading of all. The high places and altars of the different Baals, Ashtoreths, etc., were numerous throughout Canaan. These deities were always represented by images and Moses makes frequent reference to them with warnings against this seductive worship (Deuteronomy 7:25; 3, 10, 31; 13:7; 20:18; 29:18; 32:16, etc.).
See also IDOLATRY; BAAL; ASHTORETH; ASHERAH, etc.
(6) Gods of the Philis: The champion Goliath cursed David by his gods (1 Samuel 17:43). Perhaps it would be better rendered "god." Saul's and his son's armor was put into the house of their gods (1 Chronicles 10:10).
(7) The two golden calves erected by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel to keep the people from going to Jerusalem to worship are called gods (1 Kings 12:28; 2 Chronicles 13:8 f).
(8) The gods of Damascus: Ben-hadad was accustomed to worship in the house of the god Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18). No other names are mentioned, but from 2 Chronicles 28:23 it is clear that there were many gods in Syria.
See RIMMON.
(9) Solomon's many wives worshipped their own gods, and he provided the means for their worship. Chief among these were Chemosh of Moab and Molech of Ammon (1 Kings 11:2, 4, 8).
(10) The mixed peoples transplanted into Samaria by Sargon had their various gods and mingled their service with that of Yahweh, after being taught by a priest of Yahweh. The names of some of these gods were Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz, Tartak, Adrammelech (2 Kings 17:29-30, 31, 33). See separate articles.
(11) Of the gods of Seir, which were brought to Jerusalem by Amaziah, the names are not given (2 Chronicles 25:14).
(12) The gods of the nations conquered by Sennacherib and his fathers, namely, Hamoth, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena, Ivvah (2 Kings 18:33-35; 19:13). Also those conquered by Sennacherib's fathers, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, Eden or Telassar (2 Kings 19:12; Isaiah 36:18-19, 20; 2 Chronicles 32:13 f).
(13) Gods of Moab are mentioned in Ruth 1:15; 1 Kings 11:1, 7. Possibly Ruth 1:15 should be translated "god."
See CHEMOSH.
(14) Gods of Babylon: The graven images of her gods referred to in Isaiah 21:9; 42:17; Bel and Nebo mentioned in Isaiah 46:1; other gods of silver and gold (Ezra 1:7; Daniel 4:8-9, 18; 4, 11, 14, 23).
(15) Nineveh's gods are merely referred to in Nahum 1:14. Sennacherib was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god when slain by his sons (2 Kings 19:37).
(16) The coastlands or borders and peninsulas of the Aegean Sea had numerous idol gods, shrines and devotees. Isaiah challenges them to prove that they are gods (Isaiah 41:22 f).
Yahweh was "greater than all gods" (Exodus 15:11; 18:11); "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deuteronomy 10:14, 17); "The Mighty One" (Joshua 22:22); "to be feared above all gods" (1 Chronicles 16:25; 2 Chronicles 2:5; Psalms 96:4 f);
4. Superiority of Yahweh to Other Gods: "King above all gods" (Psalms 95:3; 7, 9; 86:8; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; Jeremiah 10:11; Zephaniah 2:11; Daniel 2:18, 47). Jeremiah advances so far toward a pure and well-defined monotheism that he speaks of all other gods as "not gods." They have no existence to him (Jeremiah 2:11; 5:7; 16:20). A similar position is taken in Isaiah 41:1-29; Isaiah 43:1-28, etc.
5. Regulations Regarding the Gods of the Nations: The laws of Moses give no uncertain sound concerning them. The Decalogue begins: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Whatever may be the exact meaning of this, it is perfectly clear that Israel was to have nothing to do with any God but Yahweh (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7). No images shall be made of them (Exodus 20:4, 23; 34:17; Leviticus 19:4; Deuteronomy 5:8 f). No mention shall be made of them (Exodus 23:13; Joshua 23:7). They are not to be worshipped but destroyed (Exodus 23:24). They are to make no covenant with the people or their gods would be a snare to them (Exodus 23:32; Deuteronomy 6:14; 4, 25). A curse will follow any defection from Yahweh to them (Deuteronomy 11:28; 28:14 ff; Deuteronomy 12:3, 10; 13:7; 20:18; 29:17). These gods are an abomination to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 12:31; 20:18; 29:17; 32:37; Ezekiel 7:20; 1 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:13). They are to be as foreign gods to Israel (1 Samuel 7:3 f; Joshua 24:20, 23; Judges 10:16; 2 Chronicles 14:3; 33:15).
6. Israel's Tendency to Idolatry: The constant tendency of Israel to go after other gods was first made manifest at Sinai (Exodus 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 11; 34:15). Hosea says (Exodus 11:2), "The more the prophets called them, the more they went from them." Ezekiel declares (Exodus 16:3), "The Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite," referring doubtless to the idolatrous taint in the blood of Israel. The tendency manifested itself also at Baal-peor where Israel was led into the licentious rites of the Moabites (Numbers 25:2 f). Moses saw the taint in the blood, foresaw the danger and repeatedly warned them (Deuteronomy 17:3; 18:20; 29:26; 30:17; 31:18). Perhaps the most striking passages in Dt are chapters 13; 28; 30, where are pictured the consequences of going after other gods. Joshua also warns them (23:7), and the history of the period of the Judges is the story of their periodical defection from Yahweh and the punishment resulting therefrom (Judges 2:12, 17, 19; 5:8; 10:6 f; 1 Samuel 8:8). Solomon himself gave an impetus in that direction (1 Kings 11:5-8). After the disruption, the religion of the Northern Kingdom became very corrupt (1 Kings 14:9; 2 Chronicles 13:8 f). The golden calves of Jeroboam opened the door for an inrush of idols and other gods. Ahab's marriage to Jezebel threatened to wipe out Yahweh-worship and substitute Baal-worship, and, but for the powerful ministry of Elijah and Elisha, might have effected such a result. Partly checked for a time, the evil broke out in other forms, and even the preaching of Amos and Hosea failed to turn the tide of idolatry. The result was the destruction of the kingdom (2 Kings 17:7 ff; Jeremiah 3:6-8; 1 Chronicles 5:25). The Southern Kingdom fared better. Other gods were countenanced by Rehoboam, Abijah, Athaliah, Jehoram, Ahaz, Amon, Manasseh, Jehoiakim, etc. Reform movements were attempted by Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah, but did not wholly avail. In the reign of Manasseh the nation plunged into the worship of other gods. The ministries of Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., availed not to stop the tide (2 Chronicles 34:25; Jeremiah 11:13; 5:19; 2 Kings 22:17; Jeremiah 1:16; 19:4; 7:6; 13:10; 16:11; 5, 8). The nation was carried into exile because of its going after other gods (2 Kings 22:17; Deuteronomy 29:25 f). The captivity had its desired effect. The Israel that returned and perpetuated the nation never again lapsed into the worship of other gods.
II. In the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha reiterates much of the Old Testament teaching: the defection of Israel (2 Esdras 1:6); the gods of the nations (Judith 3:8; 8:18); the gods which their fathers worshipped (Judith 5:7 f); the sin of Israel (Additions to Esther 14:7). The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon refers to the "creatures which they supposed to be gods" (12:27; 13:2,3,10; 15:15). Mention is made of the gods of Babylon (Baruch 1:22; Baruch 6:6-57 passim; Bel and the Dragon 1:27).
III. In the New Testament. The expression "gods" occurs in six places in the New Testament: (1) Jesus, in reply to the Pharisees, who questioned His right to call Himself the son of God, quoted Psalms 82:6: "I said, Ye are gods." He argues from this that if God Himself called them gods to whom the word of God came, i.e. the judges who acted as representatives of God in a judicial capacity, could not He who had been sanctified and sent into the world justly call Himself the Son of God? It was an argumentum ad hominem (John 10:34-37). (2) When Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel in Lystra they healed a certain man who had been a cripple from birth. The Lycaonians, seeing the miracle, cried out in their own dialect, "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury" (Acts 14:11 f). Their ascription of deity to the apostles in such times shows their familiarity with the Greek pantheon. (3) As Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection at Athens the people said he seemed to be a setter forth of strange gods. The conception of only one God seemed to be wholly foreign to them (Acts 17:18). (4) In 1 Corinthians 8:5 Paul speaks of "gods many, and lords many," but the context shows that he did not believe in the existence of any god but one; "We know that no idol is anything in the world." (5) While at Ephesus, Paul was said to have "persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they are no gods, that are made with hands" (Acts 19:26). (6) The Galatians had been "in bondage to them that by nature are no gods" (Galatians 4:8). Indirect references are also found in Acts 17:16, where Paul observed the city full of idols. Likewise in Romans 1:22 f,25 ff. Paul refers to the numerous gods of the heathen world. These were idols, birds, four-footed beasts and creeping things. The results of this degrading worship are shown in the verse following.
See also IDOLATRY; GOD, NAMES OF.
J. J. Reeve
Godspeed
Godspeed - god'-sped (chairo): "Godspeed" occurs only in 2 John 1:10-11 the King James Version as the translation of chairein, the infin. of chairo, and is rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "greeting." It means "rejoice," "be of good cheer," "be it well with thee"; chaire, chairete, chairein, were common forms of greeting, expressive of good-will and desire for the person's prosperity, translated in the Gospels, "Hail!" "All Hail!" (Matthew 26:49; 27:29; 28:9, etc.); chairein is the Septuagint for shalom (Isaiah 48:22; 57:21; compare 2 Maccabees 1:10). "Godspeed" first appears in Tyndale's version; Wycliffe had "heil!" Rheims "God save you."
In the passage cited Christians are forbidden thus to salute false teachers who might come to them. The injunction does not imply any breach of charity, since it would not be right to wish anyone success in advocating what was believed to be false and harmful. We should be sincere in our greetings; formal courtesy must yield to truth, still courteously, however, and in the spirit of love.
W. L. Walker
Goel
Goel - go'-el (go'el, "redeemer"): Goel is the participle of the Hebrew word gal'al ("to deliver," "to redeem") which aside from its common usage is frequently employed in connection with Hebrew law, where it is the technical term applied to a person who as the nearest relative of another is placed under certain obligations to him. (1) If a Jew because of poverty had been obliged to sell himself to a wealthy "stranger or sojourner," it became the duty of his relatives to redeem him. Compare Leviticus 25:47 ff and the article JUBILEE. (2) The same duty fell upon the nearest kinsman, if his brother, being poor, had been forced to sell some of his property. Compare Leviticus 25:23 ff; Ruth 4:4 ff, and the article JUBILEE. (3) It also devolved upon the nearest relative to marry the ú childless widow of his brother (Ruth 3:13; Tobit 3:17). (4) In Numbers 5:5 ff a law is stated which demands that restitution be made to the nearest relative, and after him to the priest, if the injured party has died (Leviticus 6:1 ff). (5) The law of blood-revenge (Blut-Rache) made it the sacred duty of the nearest relative to avenge the blood of his kinsman. He was called the go'el ha-dam, "the avenger of blood." This law was based upon the command given in Genesis 9:5 f: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and was carried out even if an animal had killed a man; in this case, however, the payment of a ransom was permitted (Exodus 21:28 ff). A clear distinction was made between an accidental and a deliberate murder. In both cases the murderer could find refuge at the altar of the sanctuary; if, however, the investigation revealed presumptuous manslaughter, he was taken from the altar to be put to death (Exodus 21:12 ff; 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28). In Numbers 35:9 ff definite regulations as to the duties of the Goel are given. Six cities were to be appointed as "cities of refuge," three on each side of the Jordan. The congregation has judgment over the murderer. There must be more than one witness to convict a man. If he is found guilty, he is delivered to the Goel; if murder was committed by accident he is permitted to live within the border of the city of refuge; in case the manslayer leaves this city before the death of the high priest, the avenger of blood has a right to slay him. After the death of the high priest the murderer may return to his own city. Ransom cannot be given for the life of a murderer; no expiation can be made for a murder but by the blood of the murderer (Deuteronomy 19:4 ff; Joshua 20:1-9; 2 Samuel 14:6 ff). According to the law the children of a murderer could not be held responsible for the crime of their father (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6), but see 2 Samuel 21:1 ff. The order in which the nearest relative was considered the Goel is given in Leviticus 25:48 f: first a brother, then an uncle or an uncle's son, and after them any other near relative. This order was observed in connection with (1) above, but probably also in the other cases except (4).
For the figurative use of Goel ("redeemer") see Psalms 119:154; Proverbs 23:11; Job 19:25; Isaiah 411:1Isa 4:1-6b.
See also AVENGE; MURDER; REFUGE, CITIES OF.
Arthur L. Breslich
Gog
Gog - gog (gogh; Goug):
(1) A son of Joel, and descendant of the tribe of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:4).
(2) The prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:2 f; Ezekiel 39:1-16). His territory was known as the land of Magog, and he was the chief of those northern hordes who were to make a final onslaught upon Israel while enjoying the blessings of the Messianic age. He has been identified with Gagi, ruler of Sakhi, mentioned by Ashurbanipal, but Professor Sayce thinks the Hebrew name corresponds more closely to Gyges, the Lydian king, the Gugu of the cuneiform inscriptions. According to Ezekiel's account Gog's army included in its numbers Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer or the Cimmerians, and Togarmah, from the extreme North. They are represented as a vast mixed horde from the far-off parts of the North, the limits of the horizon, completely armed and equipped for war. They were to come upon the mountains of Israel and cover the land like a cloud. Their purpose is plunder, for the people of Israel are rich and dwell in towns and villages without walls. His coming, which had been prophesied by the seers of Israel, shall be accompanied by a theophany and great convulsions in Nature. A panic shall seize the hosts of Gog, rain, hailstones, pestilence, fire and brimstone shall consume them. Their bodies shall be food for the birds, their weapons shall serve as firewood for seven years and their bones shall be buried East of the Jordan in Hamon-gog and thus not defile the holy land. The fulfillment of this strange prophecy can never be literal. In general it seems to refer to the last and desperate attempts of a dying heathenism to overturn the true religion of Yahweh, or make capital out of it, profiting by its great advantages.
(3) In Revelation 20:7 Satan is let loose and goes to the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to muster his hosts for the final struggle against God. In Ezekiel the invasion of Gog occurs during the Messianic age, while in Revelation it occurs just at the close of the millennium. In Ezekiel, Gog and Magog are gathered by Yahweh for their destruction; in Rev they are gathered by Satan. In both cases the number is vast, the destruction is by supernatural means, and is complete and final.
See MAGOG.
J. J. Reeve
Goiim
Goiim - goi'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In Genesis 14:1 where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in Joshua 12:23.
Going; Goings
Going; Goings - go'-ing, go'-ingz: Besides, occasionally, forms of the common words for "go" (see Go), for "going" and "goings," the Hebrew has 'ashshur ('ashur, 'ashur), "step," motsa', totsa'oth, "goings out," "outgoings." The word "goings" is sometimes used literally, as in Numbers 33:2, "Moses wrote their goings out" (Hebrew motsa'). "Going up," ma`aleh, is in many passages rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (as in Numbers 34:4; 2 Samuel 15:30 the King James Version) "ascent," as e.g. Joshua 15:7; Judges 1:36; Nehemiah 12:37 (the American Standard Revised Version only). In Ezekiel 44:5, the American Standard Revised Version substitutes "egress" (way out or place of exit) for "going forth." "The goings out (place of exit; hence, boundary) of it" (Numbers 34:4-5, 9, 12 the King James Version) occurs frequently. The verbal forms bo', mabho', also me`al (Daniel 6:14), are used of the sunset, "the going down of the sun." Thus Joshua 8:29 the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version "as soon as the sun was down."
In the New Testament, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "going out" for "gone out" (sbennumi) (Matthew 25:8); "going up" for "ascending" (Luke 19:28); "going in" for "coming in" (Acts 9:28); "going about" for "wandering" (1 Timothy 5:13); "seeking" for "going about" (Romans 10:3).
Metaphorically: "Goings" is used for a man's ways or conduct (Psalms 17:5, the Revised Version (British and American) "steps"; Psalms 40:2; Proverbs 14:15, etc.). In Psalms 17:5 "Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not" becomes in the Revised Version (British and American) "My steps have held fast to thy paths, my feet have not slipped"; Proverbs 5:21, "He pondereth all his goings," is in the Revised Version (British and American) "He maketh level all his paths," in "weigheth carefully"; conversely, in Psalms 37:23, the Revised Version (British and American) has "goings" for "steps"; in James 1:11 "goings" for "ways." In the important prophetic passage, Micah 5:2, it is said of the Ruler from Bethlehem, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," the Revised Version (British and American) "are from of old, from everlasting," margin "from ancient days." Of God it is said in Habakkuk 3:6 "His ways are everlasting," the Revised Version (British and American) "His goings were as of old," margin "His ways are everlasting."
W. L. Walker
Golan; Gaulonitis
Golan; Gaulonitis - go'-lan (golan), (Gaulanitis): Golan was a city in the territory allotted to Manasseh in Bashan, the most northerly of the three cities of refuge East of the Jordan (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 20:8); assigned with its "suburbs" to the Gershonite Levites (Joshua 21:27; 1 Chronicles 6:71). It must have been a great and important city in its day; but the site cannot now be determined with any certainty. It was known to Josephus (Ant., XIII, xv, 3). Near Golan Alexander was ambushed by Obodas, king of the Arabians; and his army, crowded together in a narrow and deep valley, was broken in pieces by the multitude of camels (BJ, I, iv, 4). This incident is located at Gadara in Ant, XIII, xiii, 5. Later, Golan was destroyed by Alexander. It had already given its name to a large district, Gaulonitis (BJ, III, iii, 1, 5; IV, i, 1). It formed the eastern boundary of Galilee. It was part of the tetrarchy of Philip (Ant., XVII, viii, 1; XVIII, iv, 6). The city was known to Eusebius as "a large village," giving its name to the surrounding country (Onomasticon, under the word Gaulon). This country must have corresponded roughly with the modern Jaulan, in which the ancient name is preserved. The boundaries of the province today are Mt. Hermon on the North, Jordan and the Sea of Galilee on the West, Wady Yarmuk on the South, and Nahr `Allan on the East. This plateau, which in the North is about 3,000 ft. high, slopes gradually southward to a height of about 1,000 ft. It is entirely volcanic, and there are many cone-like peaks of extinct volcanoes, especially toward the North It affords good pasturage, and has long been a favorite summer grazing-ground of the nomads. Traces of ancient forests remain, but for the most part today it is treeless. To the East of the Sea of Galilee the soil is deep and rich. Splendid crops of wheat are grown here, and olives flourish in the hollows. The country is furrowed by deep valleys that carry the water southwestward into the Sea of Galilee. This region has not yet been subjected to thorough examination, but many important ruins have been found, which tell of a plentiful and prosperous population in times long past. The best description of these, and of the region generally, will be found in Schumacher's The Jaulan, and Across the Jordan. To him also we owe the excellent maps which carry us eastward to the province of el-Chauran.
Schumacher inclines to the belief that the ancient Golan may be represented by Sahm el-Jaulan, a large village fully 4 miles East of Nahr `Allan, and 4 miles Southeast of Tsil. The extensive ruins probably date from early in the Christian era. The buildings are of stone, many of them of Spacious dimensions, while the streets are wide and straight. The inhabitants number not more than 280. The surrounding soil is rich and well watered, bearing excellent crops. The present writer, after personal examination, corroborates Dr. Schumacher's description. Standing in the open country, it would be seen from afar; and it was easily accessible from all directions.
W. Ewing
Gold
Gold - gold (zahabh; chrusos):
1. Terms: No metal has been more frequently mentioned in Old Testament writings than gold, and none has had more terms applied to it. Among these terms the one most used is zahabh. The Arabic equivalent, dhahab, is still the common name for gold throughout Palestine, Syria and Egypt. With zahabh frequently occur other words which, translated, mean "pure" (Exodus 25:11), "refined" (1 Chronicles 28:18), "finest" (1 Kings 10:18), "beaten" (1 Kings 10:17), "Ophir" (Psalms 45:9).
Other terms occurring are: paz, "fine gold" (Job 28:17; Psalms 19:10; 21:3; 119:127; Proverbs 8:19; Song of Solomon 5:11, 15; Isaiah 13:12; Lamentations 4:2); charuts (Psalms 68:13; Proverbs 3:14; 10, 19; 16:16; Zechariah 9:3); kethem, literally, "carved out" (Job 28:16, 19; 31:24; Proverbs 25:12; Lamentations 4:1; Daniel 10:5); ceghor (1 Kings 6:20; 7:50; Job 28:15); betser (in the King James Version only: Job 22:24; the Revised Version (British and American) "treasure").
2. Sources: Sources definitely mentioned in the Old Testament are: Havilah (Genesis 2:11-12); Ophir (1 Kings 9:28; 10:11; 22:48; 1 Chronicles 29:4; 2 Chronicles 8:18; 9:10; Job 22:24; 28:16; Psalms 45:9; Isaiah 13:12); Sheba (1 Kings 10:2, 10; 2 Chronicles 9:1, 9; Psalms 72:15; Isaiah 60:6; Ezekiel 27:22; 38:13); Arabia (2 Chronicles 9:14). We are not justified in locating any of these places too definitely. They probably all refer to some region of Arabia.
The late origin of the geological formation of Palestine and Syria precludes the possibility of gold being found in any quantities (see METALS), so that the large quantities of gold used by the children of Israel in constructing their holy places was not the product of mines in the country, but was from the spoil taken from the inhabitants of the land (Numbers 31:52), or brought with them from Egypt (Exodus 3:22). This gold was probably mined in Egypt or India (possibly Arabia), and brought by the great caravan routes through Arabia to Syria, or by sea in the ships of Tyre (1 Kings 10:11, 22; Ezekiel 27:21-22). There is no doubt about the Egyptian sources. The old workings in the gold-bearing veins of the Egyptian desert and the ruins of the buildings connected with the mining and refining of the precious metal still remain. This region is being reopened with the prospect of its becoming a source of part of the world's supply. It might be inferred from the extensive spoils in gold taken from the Midianites (œ100,000 HDB, under the word) that their country (Northwestern Arabia) produced gold. It is more likely that the Midianites had, in turn, captured most of it from other weaker nations. The tradition that Northwestern Arabia is rich in gold still persists. Every year Moslem pilgrims, returning from Mecca by the Damascus route, bring with them specimens of what is supposed to be gold ore. They secure it from the Arabs at the stopping-places along the route. Samples analyzed by the writer have been iron pyrites only. No gold-bearing rock has yet appeared. Whether these specimens come from the mines mentioned by Burton (The Land of Midian Revisited) is a question.
3. Forms: Gold formed a part of every household treasure (Genesis 13:2; 24:35; Deuteronomy 8:13; 17:17; Joshua 22:8; Ezekiel 28:4). It was probably treasured (a) in the form of nuggets (Job 28:6 the Revised Version, margin), (b) in regularly or irregularly shaped slabs or bars (Numbers 7:14, 20, 84, 86; Joshua 7:21, 24; 2 Kings 5:5), and (c) in the form of dust (Job 28:6). A specimen of yellow dust, which the owner claimed to have taken from an ancient jar, unearthed in the vicinity of the Hauran, was once brought to the writer's laboratory. On examination it was found to contain iron pyrites and metallic gold in finely divided state. It was probably part of an ancient household treasure. A common practice was to make gold into jewelry with the dual purpose of ornamentation and of treasuring it. This custom still prevails, especially among the Moslems, who do not let out their money at interest. A poor woman will save her small coins until she has enough to buy a gold bracelet. This she will wear or put away against the day of need (compare Genesis 24:22, 53). It was weight and not beauty which was noted in the jewels (Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). Gold coinage was unknown in the early Old Testament times.
4. Uses: (1) The use of gold as the most convenient way of treasuring wealth is mentioned above. (2) Jewelry took many forms: armlets (Numbers 31:50), bracelets (Genesis 24:22), chains (Genesis 41:42), crescents (Judges 8:26), crowns (2 Samuel 12:30; 1 Chronicles 20:2), earrings (Exodus 32:2-3; Numbers 31:50; Judges 8:24, 26), rings (Genesis 24:22; 41:42; James 2:2). (3) Making and decorating objects in connection with places of worship: In the description of the building of the ark and the tabernacle in Exodus 25:1-40 ff, we read of the lavish use of gold in overlaying wood and metals, and in shaping candlesticks, dishes, spoons, flagons, bowls, snuffers, curtain clasps, hooks, etc. (one estimate of the value of gold used is œ90,000; see HDB ). In 1 Kings 6 ff; 1 Chronicles 28:1-21 f; 2 Chronicles 1:1-17 ff are records of still more extensive use of gold in building the temple. (4) Idols were made of gold (Exodus 20:23; 32:4; Deuteronomy 7:25; 29:17; 1 Kings 12:28; Psalms 115:4; 135:15; Isaiah 30:22; Revelation 9:20). (5) Gold was used for lavish display. Among the fabulous luxuries of Solomon's court were his gold drinking-vessels (1 Kings 10:21), a throne of ivory overlaid with gold (1 Kings 10:18), and golden chariot trimmings (1 Chronicles 28:18). Sacred treasure saved from votive offerings or portions dedicated from booty were principally gold (Exodus 25:36; Numbers 7:14, 20, 84, 86; 50, 52, 54; Joshua 6:19, 24; 1 Samuel 6:8, 11, 15; 2 Samuel 8:11; 1 Chronicles 18:7, 10-11; 14, 16; Matthew 23:17). This treasure was the spoil most sought after by the enemy. It was paid to them as tribute (1 Kings 15:15; 2 Kings 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 2 Kings 18:14-16; 33, 15), or taken as plunder (2 Kings 24:13; 25:15).
5. Figurative: Gold is used to symbolize earthly riches (Job 3:15; 22:24; Isaiah 2:7; Matthew 10:9; Acts 3:6; 20:33; Revelation 18:12). Finer than gold, which, physically speaking, is considered non-perishable, typifies incorruptibility (Acts 17:29; 1 Peter 1:7, 18; 3:3; James 5:3). Refining of gold is a figure for great purity or a test of (Job 23:10; Proverbs 17:3; Isaiah 1:25; Malachi 3:2; 1 Peter 1:7; Revelation 3:18). Gold was the most valuable of metals. It stood for anything of great value (Proverbs 3:14; 10, 19; 16, 22; 25:12), hence was most worthy for use in worshipping Yahweh (Exodus 25:1-40 ff; Revelation 1:12-13, 10, etc.), and the adornment of angels (Revelation 15:6) or saints (Psalms 45:13). The head was called golden as being the most precious part of the body (Song of Solomon 5:11; Daniel 2:38; compare "the golden bowl," Ecclesiastes 12:6). "The golden city" meant Babylon (Isaiah 14:4), as did also "the golden cup," sensuality (Jeremiah 51:7). A crown of gold was synonymous with royal honor (Esther 2:17; 6:8; Job 19:9; Revelation 4:4; 14:14). Wearing of gold typified lavish adornment and worldly luxury (Jeremiah 4:30; 10:4; 1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3; Revelation 17:4). Comparing men to gold suggested their nobility (Lamentations 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:20).
James A. Patch
Golden Calf
Golden Calf - gold'-'-n: Probably a representation of the sun in Taurus.
See ASTROLOGY, 7; CALF, GOLDEN.
Golden City
Golden City - gold'-'-n: The translation "golden city" (Isaiah 14:4) is an attempt to render the received text (madhhebhah), but can hardly be justified. Almost all the ancient versions read (marhebhah), a word which connotes unrest and insolence, fitting the context well.
Golden Number
Golden Number - gold'-'-n num'-ber: Used in the regulation of the ecclesiastical calendar, in the "Metonic cycle" of 19 years, which almost exactly reconciles the natural month and the solar year.
See ASTRONOMY, sec. I, 5.
Goldsmith
Goldsmith - gold'-smith (tsreph): Goldsmiths are first mentioned in connection with the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:4; 36:1). Later, goldsmiths' guilds are mentioned (Nehemiah 3:8, 32). The art of refining gold and shaping it into objects was probably introduced into Palestine from Phoenicia (see CRAFTS). Examples of gold work from the earliest Egyptian periods are so numerous in the museums of the world that we do not have to draw on our imaginations to appreciate the wonderful skill of the ancient goldsmiths. their designs and methods were those later used by the Jews. The goldsmiths' art was divided into (1) the refining of the impure gold (Job 28:1; Proverbs 17:3; 25:4; 27:21; Isaiah 1:25; Malachi 3:3); (2) shaping of objects, (a) casting idols (Numbers 33:52; Hosea 13:2), (b) making graven images (2 Chronicles 34:3-4; Jeremiah 10:14; Nahum 1:14), (c) the making of beaten or turned work (Exodus 25:18), (d) plating or overlaying (Exodus 25:11; 1 Kings 6:20), (e) soldering (Isaiah 41:7), (f) making of wire (Exodus 28:6; 39:3). Most of these processes are carried on in Bible lands today. In Damascus there is a goldsmiths' quarter where the refining, casting and beating of gold are still carried on, probably in much the same way as in Solomon's time. Jews are found among the goldsmiths. In Beirut, it is a Jew who is especially skilled in making refiners' pots. Daily, one can see the gold being refined, cast into lumps, beaten on an anvil, rolled between rollers into thin sheets, cut into narrow strips (wire), and wound on bobbins ready for the weaver. are houses in Damascus and Aleppo still possessing beautiful gold overlaid work on wooden walls and ceilings, the work of goldsmiths of several centuries ago. grazing-ground of the nomads. Traces of ancient forests remain, but for the most part today it is treeless. To the East of the Sea of Galilee the soil is deep and rich. Splendid crops of wheat are grown here, and olives flourish in the hollows. The country is furrowed by deep valleys that carry the water southwestward into the Sea of Galilee. This region has not yet been subjected to thorough examination, but many important ruins have been found, which tell of a plentiful and prosperous population in times long past. The best description of these, and of the region generally, will be found in Schumacher's The Jaulan, and Across the Jordan. To him also we owe the excellent maps which carry us eastward to the province of el-Chauran.
James A. Patch
Golgotha
Golgotha - gol'-go-tha (Golgotha, from "a skull"): In three references (Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17) it is interpreted to mean kraniou topos, "the place of a skull." In Luke 23:33 the King James Version it is called "Calvary," but in the Revised Version (British and American) simply "The skull." From the New Testament we may gather that it was outside the city (Hebrews 13:12), but close to it (John 19:20), apparently near some public thoroughfare (Matthew 27:39), coming from the country (Mark 15:21). was a spot visible, from some points, from afar (Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49).
1. The Name: Four reasons have been suggested for the name Golgotha or "skull": (1) That it was a spot where skulls were to be found lying about and probably, therefore, a public place of execution. This tradition apparently originates with Jerome (346-420 AD), who refers to (3), to condemn it, and says that "outside the city and without the gate there are places wherein the heads of condemned criminals are cut off and which have obtained the name of Calvary--that is, of the beheaded." This view has been adopted by several later writers. Against it may be urged that there is no shadow of evidence that there was any special place for Jewish executions in the 1st century, and that, if there were, the corpses could have been allowed burial (Matthew 27:58; John 19:38), in conformity with Jewish law (Deuteronomy 21:23) and with normal custom (Josephus, BJ, IV, v, 2). (2) That the name was due to the skull-like shape of the hill--a modern popular view. No early or Greek writer suggests such an idea, and there is no evidence from the Gospels that the Crucifixion occurred on a raised place at all. Indeed Epiphanius (4th century) expressly says: "There is nothing to be seen on the place resembling this name; for it is not situated upon a height that it should be called (the place) of a skull, answering to the place of the head in the human body." It is true that the tradition embodied in the name Mons Calvary appears as early as the 4th century, and is materialized in the traditional site of the Crucifixion in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, but that the hill was skull-like in form is quite a modern idea. Guthe combines (2) and (3) and considers that a natural skull-like elevation came to be considered, by some folklore ideas, to be the skull of the first man. One of the strangest ideas is that of the late General Gordon, who thought that the resemblance to a skull lay in the contours of the ground as laid down in the ordinance survey map of Jerusalem. (3) That the name is due to an ancient pre-Christian tradition that the skull of Adam was found there. The first mention of this is by Origen (185-253 AD), who himself lived in Jeremiah 20:1-18 years. He writes: "I have received a tradition to the effect that the body of Adam, the first man, was buried upon the spot where Christ was crucified," etc. This tradition was afterward referred to by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil of Caesarea, Chrysostom and other later writers. The tomb and skull of Adam, still pointed out in an excavated chamber below the traditional Calvary, marks the survival of this tradition on the spot. This is by far the most ancient explanation of the name Golgotha and, in spite of the absurdity of the original tradition about Adam, is probably the true one.
(4) The highly improbable theory that the Capitolium of AElia Capitolina (the name given by Hadrian to his new Jerusalem) stood where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher now is, and gave rise to the name Golgotha, is one which involves the idea that the site first received the name Golgotha in the 2nd century, and that all the references in the Gospels were inserted then. This is only mentioned to be dismissed as incompatible with history and common sense.
2. The Site: With regard to the position of the site of the Crucifixion (with which is bound up the site of the Tomb) the New Testament gives us no indication whatever; indeed, by those who abandon tradition, sites have been suggested on all sides of the city--and West Two views hold the field today: (1) that the site of the Crucifixion, or at any rate that of the Tomb itself, is included within the precincts of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; and (2) that a prominent, rounded, grassy hill above the so-called "Grotto of Jeremiah," Northeast of the Modern Damascus Gate, has at least a very high probability of being the true site. It is impossible here to go into the whole question, which requires minute and long elaboration, but excellent review of the whole evidence may be consulted in "Golgotha and the Holy Sepulcher," by the late Sir Charles W. Wilson, of PEF. Here only a few points can be touched upon. (1) For the traditional view it may be said that it seems highly improbable that so sacred a spot as this, particularly the empty tomb, could have been entirely forgotten. Although it is true that Jews and Christians were driven out of Jerusalem after the second great revolt (130-33 AD), yet GentileChristians were free to return, and there was no break long enough to account for a site like this being entirely lost. Indeed there are traditions that this site was deliberately defiled by pagan buildings to annoy the Christians. Eusebius, at the time of Constantine, writes as if it were well known that a Temple of Aphrodite lay over the tomb.
He gives an account of the discovery of the spots still venerated as the Golgotha and the Tomb, and of the erection of churches in connection with them (Life of Constantine, III, 25-40). From the time of Constantine there has been no break in the reverence paid to these places. Of the earlier evidence Sir C. Wilson admits (loc. cit.) that "the tradition is so precarious and the evidence is undoubtedly so unsatisfactory as to raise serious doubts."
The topographical difficulties are dealt with in the JERUSALEM. It is difficult for the visitor to Jerusalem sufficiently to realize that the center of gravity of the city has much changed; once it was on the Hill Ophel, and the southern slopes, now bare, were in Christ's time crammed with houses; in later times, from the 4th century, it was the Church of the Holy Sepulcher round which the city tended to center. There is no insurmountable difficulty in believing that the site of the Crucifixion may be where tradition points out. As Sir C. Wilson says at the end of his book, "No objection urged against the sites (i.e. Golgotha and the Tomb) is of such a convincing nature that it need disturb the minds of those who accept, in all good faith, the authenticity of the places which are hallowed by the prayers of countless pilgrims since the days of Constantine" (loc. cit.).
(2) The so-called "Skull Hill" or "Green Hill" appears to have appealed first to Otto Thenius (1842), but has received its greatest support through the advocacy of the late Col. Conder and of the late Dr. Selah Merrill, U.S.A. consul at Jerusalem. The arguments for this site are mainly: (a) its conspicuous and elevated position--a position which must impress every reverent pilgrim as strikingly suitable for an imaginary reconstruction of the scene. The very greenness of the hill--it is the first green spot in the neighborhood of the city--may influence the subconsciousness of those who have been brought up from childhood to think of the "green hill far away," as the popular hymn puts it. When, however, we consider the question historically, there is not the slightest reason to expect that the crucifixion of Jesus, one of many hundreds, should have been dramatically located in a setting so consonant with the importance with which the world has since learned to regard the event. There is no evidence whatever that the crucifixion was on a hill, much less on such a conspicuous place. (b) The supposed resemblance to a human skull strikes many people, but it may be stated without hesitation that the most arresting points of the resemblance, the "eyeholes" and the rounded top, are not ancient; the former are due to artificial excavations going back perhaps a couple of centuries. Probably the whole formation of the hill, the sharp scarp to the South and the 10 or more feet of earth accumulated on the summit are both entirely new conditions since New Testament times. (c) The nearness of the city walls and the great North road which make the site so appropriate today are quite different conditions from those in New Testament times. It is only if the present North wall can be proved to be on the line of the second wall that the argument holds good. On this see JERUSALEM. (d) An argument has been based upon a supposed tradition that this spot was the Jewish place of stoning. This so-called tradition is worthless, and not a trace of it can be found outside interested circles, and even if it were the "place of stoning," it would be no argument for its being "Golgotha." To the Oriental, with his great respect for traditional sites, the church of the Holy Sepulcher, covering at once the Tomb, the Calvary, and other sacred spots, will probably always appeal as the appropriate spot: to the western tourist who wishes to visualize in the environs of Jerusalem in an appropriate setting the great world's tragedy, such a site as this "Skull Hill" must always make the greater appeal to his imagination, and both may find religious satisfaction in their ideas; but cold reason, reviewing the pro's and con's, is obliged to say "not proven" to both, with perhaps an admission of the stronger case for the traditional spot.
E. W. G. Masterman
Goliath
Goliath - go-li'-ath (golyath; Goliath):
(1) The giant of Gath, and champion of the Philistine army (1 Samuel 17:4-23; 21:9; 22:10; 2 Samuel 21:19; 1 Chronicles 20:5 ff). He defied the armies of Israel, challenging anyone to meet him in single combat while the two armies faced each other at Ephesdammim. He was slain by the youthful David. Goliath was almost certainly not of Philistine blood, but belonged to one of the races of giants, or aboriginal tribes, such as the Anakim, Avvim, Rephaim, etc. The Avvim had lived at Philistia, and most probably the giant was of that race. His size was most extraordinary. If a cubit was about 21 inches, he was over 11 feet in height; if about 18 inches, he was over 9 feet in height. The enormous weight of his armor would seem to require the larger cubit. This height probably included his full length in armor, helmet and all. In either case he is the largest man known to history. His sword was wielded by David to slay him and afterward carried about in his wanderings, so it could not have been excessively heavy. The story of his encounter with David is graphic, and the boasts of the two champions were perfectly in keeping with single combats in the Orient.
(2) The Goliath of 2 Samuel 21:19 is another person, and quite probably a son of the first Goliath. He was slain by Elhanan, one of David's mighty men. The person mentioned in 1 Chronicles 20:5 is called Lachmi, but this is almost certainly due to a corruption of the text. "The brother of Goliath" is the younger Goliath and probably a son of the greater Goliath, who had four sons, giants, one of them having 24 fingers and toes.
J. J. Reeve
Gomer (1)
Gomer (1) - go'-mer (gomer): Given in Genesis 10:2 f; 1 Chronicles 1:5 f as a son of Japheth. The name evidently designates the people called Gimirra by the Assyrians, Kimmerians by the Greeks. They were a barbaric horde of Aryans who in the 7th century BC left their abode in what is now Southern Russia and poured. through the Caucasus into Western Asia, causing serious trouble to the Assyrians and other nations. One division moved eastward toward Media, another westward, where they conquered Cappadocia and made it their special abode. They fought also in other parts of Asia Minor, conquering some portions. The Armenian name for Cappadocia, Gamir, has come from this people. In Ezekiel 38:6 Gomer is mentioned as one of the northern nations.
George Ricker Berry
Gomer (2)
Gomer (2) - go'-mer (gomer; Gamer): Wife of Hosea. Hosea married Gomer according to Divine appointment, and this was the beginning of God's word to him (Hosea 1:3; Hosea 3:1-4). She was to be a wife of whoredom and they were to have children of whoredom. This need not mean that at the time of marriage she was thus depraved, but she had the evil taint in her blood, had inherited immoral instincts. These soon manifested themselves, and the unfaithful, depraved wife of the prophet went deeper into sin. She seems to have left him and become the slave of her paramour (Hosea 3:1). Hosea is now commanded by Yahweh to buy her back, paying the price of the ordinary slave. The prophet keeps her in confinement and without a husband for some time. This experience of the prophet was typical of Israel's unfaithfulness, of Israel's exile, and of God bringing her back after the punishment of the exile.
See HOSEA.
J. J. Reeve.
Gomorrah
Gomorrah - go-mor'-a (`amorah; Septuagint and New Testament Gomorra, or Gomorra; Arabic Ghamara, "to overwhelm with water"): One of the CITIES OF THE PLAIN (which see) destroyed by fire from heaven in the time of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 19:23-29). It was located probably in the plain South of the Dead Sea, now covered with water. See ARABAH; CITIES OF THE PLAIN; DEAD SEA. De Saulcy, however, with others who place the Cities of the Plain at the North end of the Dead Sea, fixes upon Khumran (or Gumran), marked on the Survey Map of Palestine North of Ras Feshkeh, where there are ruins about a mile from the Dead Sea. But there is nothing to support this view except the faint resemblance of the name and the inconclusive arguments placing the Cities of the Plain at that end of the sea.
George Frederick Wright
Good
Good - good (Tobh, Tubh, yaTabh; agathos, agathon, kalos, kalon): In English "good" is used in various senses, most of which are represented in the Bible.
(1) In the Old Testament the commonest word is Tobh, occurring very frequently and translated in a great variety of ways. Of the different shades of meaning, which frequently run into each other, the following may be distinguished: (a) Possessing desirable qualities, beneficial, agreeable, e.g. "good for food" (Genesis 2:9); "We will do thee good" (Numbers 10:29); Who will show us any good?" (Psalms 4:6); "good tidings of good" (Isaiah 52:7). (b) Moral excellence, piety: "to know good and evil" (Genesis 3:22); "that which is right and good" (Deuteronomy 66:1De 8:1-20a; 1 Samuel 12:23); "good and bad" (1 Kings 3:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "evil"); "Depart from evil and do good" (Psalms 37:27); "a good man" (Proverbs 12:2); compare Isaiah 5:20; Micah 6:8, etc. (c) Kind, benevolent: "The men were very good unto us" (1 Samuel 25:15); "Give thanks unto Yahweh; for he is good" (1 Chronicles 16:34); "the good Yahweh" (2 Chronicles 30:18); "God is good to Israel" (Psalms 73:1); "Yahweh is good to all" (Psalms 145:9), etc. (d) Serviceable, adequate, sufficient: "saw the light that it was good" (Genesis 1:4; so Genesis 1:10, 12 etc.); "not good that the man should be alone" (Genesis 2:18); in the frequent phrase, "if it seem good" (1 Chronicles 13:2; Esther 5:4, etc.), sometimes rendered, "if it please" (Nehemiah 2:5, 7; Esther 1:19, etc.). (e) Not small or deficient (full, complete): "a good old age" (Genesis 15:1-21, 15; 25:8); "a good dowry" (Genesis 30:20); "good ears," "years," "kine" (Genesis 41:24, 26, 35); "good understanding" (1 Samuel 25:3); "good trees--"land" (2 Kings 3:19, 25), etc. (f) Not blemished, fair, honorable: "tender and good" (Genesis 18:7); "good kids" (Genesis 27:9); "good report" (1 Samuel 2:24; compare 2 Kings 20:3; Jeremiah 24:2); and the renderings "fair" (Genesis 26:7, etc.), "beautiful" (2 Samuel 11:2), "pleasant" (2 Kings 2:19), etc. (g) Pleasure-giving, happy: "glad of heart" (1 Kings 8:66; Esther 5:9); sometimes in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) translated "merry" (Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 25:36; 2 Samuel 13:28; Proverbs 15:15, the Revised Version (British and American) "cheerful"), etc.
Changes that may be noted in the Revised Version (British and American) are such as, "good" for "ready" (Isaiah 41:7); "I have no good beyond thee" for "My goodness extendeth not to thee" (Psalms 16:2); "goodly" for "good" (Psalms 45:1); "good" for "goodness" (Psalms 107:9); "good" for "well" (Zechariah 8:15).
Tubh means something good, e.g. "the good of the land" (Genesis 45:18, 20; Deuteronomy 6:11; Job 21:16, the Revised Version (British and American) "prosperity").
YaTabh, "to do good," occurs several times, as, I will surely do thee good" (Genesis 32:12); "to do good" (Leviticus 5:4); "Make your ways and your doings good," the Revised Version (British and American) "amend" (Jeremiah 18:11; Zephaniah 1:12, etc.).
Numerous other Hebrew words are rendered "good" in various verbal connections and otherwise, as "to bring good tidings" (2 Samuel 4:10; Isaiah 40:9, etc.); "take good heed" (Deuteronomy 2:4; 4:15; Joshua 23:11); "make good" (Exodus 21:34), etc.; "good will" (ratson, Deuteronomy 33:16; Malachi 2:13); "what good?" the Revised Version (British and American) "what advantages?" (kishron, Ecclesiastes 5:11); "good for nothing," the Revised Version (British and American) "profitable" (tsaleah, Jeremiah 13:10), etc. In Jeremiah 18:4, "as seemed good to the potter," the word is yahsar, which means literally, "right."
(2) In the New Testament the words most frequently translated "good" are agathos and kalos. The former, agathos, denotes good as a quality, physical or moral. Thus, "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good" (Matthew 5:45); "good gifts" (Matthew 7:11); "Good Master (the Revised Version (British and American) "Teacher") .... Why callest thou me good? none is good save one" (Mark 10:17 f; Luke 18:18 f; compare Matthew 19:16 f); "they that have done good" (John 5:29). Sometimes it is equivalent to "kind" (thus Titus 2:5 the Revised Version (British and American)); to agathon is "that which is good" (Luke 6:45; Romans 7:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:13), etc.; "that which is honest," the Revised Version (British and American) "honorable " (2 Corinthians 13:7); "meet" (Matthew 15:26; Mark 7:27); "worthy," the Revised Version (British and American) "honorable" (James 2:7); agathon is "a good thing," as "good things to them that ask him" (Matthew 7:11); Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46), etc.; agathoergeo (1 Timothy 6:18), and agathopoieo (Mark 3:4; Acts 14:17), etc., "to do good."
Kalos is properly, "beautiful," "pleasing," "useful," "noble," "worthy" in a moral sense, e.g. "that they may see your good works" (Matthew 5:16); "She hath wrought a good work on me" (Matthew 26:10; Mark 14:1-72, 6); "the good shepherd" (John 10:11, 14); "Many good works have I showed you" (John 10:32); "good and acceptable before God" (1 Timothy 5:4; the Revised Version (British and American) omits "good"); "the good fight" (2 Timothy 4:7); "good works" (Titus 2:7); "the good word of God" (Hebrews 6:5). But it is often practically equivalent to agathos, e.g. "good fruit" (Matthew 3:10); "good ground" (Matthew 13:23); "good seed" (Matthew 13:24); but the idea of useful may underlie such expressions; to kalon is properly "that which is beautiful." It occurs in Romans 7:18, 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "Hold fast that which is good." In Romans 7:1-25 it seems to be used interchangeably with to agathon. In Romans 5:7, "the good man" (ho agathos) is distinguished from "a righteous man" (dikaios): "For the good man some one would even dare to die" (compare Romans 7:16; Hebrews 5:14; James 4:17); kalos, "well," "pleasantly," is translated "good" (Luke 6:27; James 2:3); kalodidaskalos (Titus 2:3), "teachers of good things," the Revised Version (British and American) "of that which is good."
"Good" occurs in the rendering of many other Greek words and phrases, as eudokia, "good pleasure" (Ephesians 1:9); "good will" (Luke 2:14; Philippians 1:15); sumphero, "to bear together," "not good to marry" (Matthew 19:10), the Revised Version (British and American) "expedient"; philagathos, "a lover of good" (Titus 1:8); chrestologia, "good words" (Romans 16:18, the Revised Version (British and American) "smooth speech," etc.).
The following changes in the Revised Version (British and American) may be noted. In Luke 2:14 for "men of good will" (eudokia) the Revised Version (British and American) reads "in whom he is well pleased," margin "good pleasure among men, Greek men of good pleasure." The meaning is "men to whom God is drawing nigh in goodwill or acceptance"; compare Luke 4:19, "the acceptable year of the Lord"; Luke 4:43, "Preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God." In Matthew 11:5; Luke 4:43; 7:22; 1 Peter 1:25 and (American Standard Revised Version) Revelation 14:6 "the gospel" is changed into "good tidings." In Matthew 18:8 f; Mark 9:43, 15, 47; Luke 5:39, good is substituted for "better"; on the last passage in notes "Many authorities read `better' "; in 1 Corinthians 9:15 "good .... rather" for "better"; "good" is substituted in Luke 1:19; 8:1 and Acts 13:32 for "glad"; in Acts 6:3 for "honest"; in Hebrews 13:9 for "a good thing." In 2 Thessalonians 1:11, all the good pleasure of his goodness" becomes "every desire of goodness" (m "Gr good pleasure of goodness"); in 1 Timothy 3:2, "good" (kosmios) becomes "orderly." There are many other instances of like changes.
W. L. Walker
Good, Chief
Good, Chief - What this consisted in was greatly discussed in ancient philosophy. Varro enumerated 288 answers to the question. By Plato "the good" was identified with God.
In the Old Testament while the "good" of the nation consisted in earthly well-being or prosperity (Deuteronomy 28:1-68 etc.), that of the individual was to be found only in God Himself (Psalms 16:2 the Revised Version (British and American), "I have no good beyond thee"; Psalms 41:1-5; 43:5; Psalms 73:25-28; Jeremiah 31:33 f; Habakkuk 3:17-19). This implied godly conduct (Micah 6:8, etc.), and led to the experience described as "blessedness" (Psalms 1:1-6, etc.; Jeremiah 17:7, etc.). It is the "Wisdom" extolled in Proverbs 1:20; 8:1 f (compare Ecclesiastes 1:1 f; Ecclesiastes 5:1 f), elsewhere described as "the fear of Yahweh." That God alone can be the true "good" of man is implied in the fact that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).
In the New Testament the true "good" is placed by Jesus in "the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:33; 13:44 f, etc.). This means nothing earthly merely (Matthew 6:19), but heavenly and eternal. It implies the Old Testament conception that God is the true "good"; for to seek the Kingdom supremely means whole-hearted devotion to God as our heavenly Father and to His righteousness. It was also spoken of by Jesus, as sonship to the heavenly Father (Matthew 5:45, etc.). This "good" is not something merely to be given to men, but must be sought after and won through taking up a right attitude toward God and our fellows, cherishing the Love that God is, and acting it out in kindness and righteousness, in resemblance to our God and Father (Matthew 5:43-48; here Genesis 1:27 is implied).
In some of the epistles Christ is represented as the true "good" (Philippians 3:8 f; Colossians 3:1-4, 11). This is because in Him God was manifested in His Truth and Grace; in Him "the Kingdom" was present; through His cross the world is so reconciled to God that men can find acceptance and rest in Him as their "good"; Christ Himself in the Spirit is our Life; in Him we have "God with us." Having God as our "good," nothing but good, in the truest and highest sense, can come to us. Even the most seemingly adverse things are turned into good "to them that love God" (Romans 8:28).
Our true "good" is found thus in God even in this present life; but its fullness can be realized only in the eternal life beyond. Placing our "good" in God leads to such life in devotion to the "good" that God is, as tends to bring all that is best to this present world. It is men's failure to do this that is the source of our misery (Jeremiah 2:13, etc.). The ultimate ideal is that God shall be "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28).
W. L. Walker
Goodliness
Goodliness - good'-li-nes: This word is found in Isaiah 40:6 as the translation of checedh, commonly translated "mercy," "kindness," etc.: "All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness (beauty, charm, comeliness) thereof is as the flower of the field." The rendering is retained by the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version as appropriate in this place; checedh is frequently translated goodness.' In Isaiah 40:6 Septuagint has doxa, "glory" (so also 1 Peter 1:24), which also fitly expresses the idea of the passage.
Goodly
Goodly - good'-li Tobh; kalos, lampros): In the Old Testament various words are translated "goodly," the most of them occurring only once; Tobh (the common word for "good") is several times translated "goodly," chiefly in the sense of form or appearance e.g "a goodley child" (Exodus 2:2); "that goodly mountain" (Deuteronomy 3:25); yapheh ("fair") is similarly translated in Genesis 39:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "comely," and mar'oh in 2 Samuel 23:21. Other words, such as 'addir imply excellence, honor, etc., e.g. Ezekiel 17:23, "bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar"; hodh, "his goodly horse" (Zechariah 10:3); others imply beauty, ornament, such as peer "goodly bonnets," the Revised Version (British and American) "headtires" (Exodus 39:28); shaphar ("bright," "fair"), "a goodly heritage" (Psalms 16:6); once 'El ("God of might") is employed, the Revised Version (British and American) "cedars of God," margin "goodly cedars" (Psalms 80:10); renanim ("joyous soundings or shoutings") is translated in Job 39:13 "goodly wings," probably from the sound made in flying or flapping; the English Revised Version has "The wing of the ostrich rejoiceth," the American Standard Revised Version (wings) "wave proudly." For "goodly castles" (Numbers 31:10) the Revised Version (British and American) has "encampments"; "goodly vessels" (2 Chronicles 32:27) for "pleasant jewels"; "goodly" is substituted for "good" (Psalms 45:1; Song of Solomon 1:3); "goodly things" for "all the goods" (Genesis 24:10); "goodly frame," the American Standard Revised Version for "comely proportion" (Job 41:12).
In the New Testament kalos ("beautiful") is translated "goodly" in Matthew 13:45, "goodly pearls" and Luke 21:5 "goodly stones"; lampros ("bright") in James 2:2, "goodly apparel," the Revised Version (British and American) "fine clothing," and Revelation 18:14, "dainty and goodly" the Revised Version (British and American) "dainty and sumptuous." In Hebrews 11:23, the Revised Version (British and American) ~bstitutes "goodly" for "proper."
"Goodly" occurs in Apocrypha, 1 Esdras 4:18; Judith 8:7 (horaios); 2 Maccabees 9:16, "goodly gifts," kallistos, the Revised Version (British and American) "goodliest."
W. L. Walker
Goodly Trees
Goodly Trees - (peri`ets hadhar, "the fruit (the King James Version "boughs") of goodly (= beautiful or noble) trees"): One of the four species of plants used in the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:40). In the Talmud (Cukkdh 35a) this is explained to be the citron (Citrus medica) known in Hebrew as 'ethrogh. This tradition is ancient, at least as old as the Maccabees. Josephus (Ant., XIII, xiii, 5) records that Alexander Janneus, while serving at the altar during this feast, was pelted by the infuriated Jews with citrons. This fruit also figures on coins of this period. It is probable that the citron tree (Malum Persica) was imported from Babylon by Jews returning from the captivity. A citron is now carried in the synagogue by every orthodox Jew in one hand, and the lalabh (of myrtle, willow, and palm branch) in the other, on each day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
Originally the "goodly trees" had a much more generic sense, and the term is so interpreted by the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)
See FEASTS AND FASTS; BOOTH.
E. W. G. Masterman
Goodman
Goodman - good'-man ('ish; oikodespotes): The word occurs once in the Old Testament and is a translation of the ordinary word for "man," 'ish (Proverbs 7:19). "The goodman is not at home," so the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), but the American Standard Revised Version, more correctly, "The man is not at home"; i.e. the husband is not at home; the Geneva and Douay versions have "My husband is not at home": so Wycliffe; while the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has "There is not a man in her house." In the New Testament "goodman" is a translation of oikodespotes. This word occurs 12 times in the Synoptists, and nowhere else. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have 3 translations of the word, the American Standard Revised Version 2. In 4 places the King James Version has "goodman" while the American Standard Revised Version has "householder" or "'master of the house" (Matthew 20:11; 24:43; Luke 12:39; 22:11). In all the other places, it is translated "householder" or "master of the house." the Revised Version (British and American) retains "goodman" in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11. The word liteerally means "master of the house," or "husband." The adjective is a mark of respect, and is used somewhat as our word "Mr.," an appellative of respect or civility. Relationship by marriage was distinguished by this epithet, as "good-father," "good-sister," both in England and Scotland. Later the adjective lost its distinguishing force and was swallowed up in the word.
J. J. Reeve
Goodness
Goodness - good'-nes: This word in the Old Testament is the translation of Tobh (Exodus 18:9; Psalms 16:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "good"; Psalms 23:6), etc.; of Tubh (Exodus 33:19; Psalms 31:19; Jeremiah 31:14; Hosea 3:5), etc.; of checedh (Exodus 34:6), "abundant in goodness," the English Revised Version "plenteous in mercy," the American Standard Revised Version "abundant in loving kindness"; "The goodness of God endureth continually," the Revised Version (British and American) "mercy," the American Standard Revised Version "loving kindness" (Psalms 52:1), etc.
In the New Testament it is the translation of chrestotes ("usefulness," benignity); "the riches of his goodness" (Romans 2:4; 11:22, thrice); of chrestos ("useful," "benign," "kind," in Luke 6:35); "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" (Romans 2:4); of agathosune (found only in the New Testament and Septuagint and writings based thereon), "full of goodness." (Romans 15:14); "gentleness, goodness, faith" (Galatians 5:22); "in all goodness and righteousness and truth" (Ephesians 5:9); "all the good pleasure of his goodness," the Revised Version (British and American) "every desire of goodness." (2 Thessalonians 1:11).
The thought of God as good and the prominence given to "good" and "goodness" are distinctive features of the Bible. In the passage quoted above from Galatians 5:22, "goodness" is one of the fruits of the indwelling Spirit of God, and in that from Ephesians 5:9 it is described as being, along with righteousness and truth, "the fruit of the light" which Christians had been "made" in Christ. Here, as elsewhere, we are reminded that the Christian life in its truth is likeness to God, the source and perfection of all good. 2 Thessalonians 1:11 regards God Himself as expressing His goodness in and through us.
W. L. Walker
Goods
Goods - goodz (rekhush, Tubh; ta huparchonta): In the Old Testament rekhush ("substance") is most frequently translated "goods," as in Genesis 14:11-12, 16, 21, etc.; Tubh is also 3 times so translated in the King James Version (Genesis 24:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "goodly things," margin "all the goods"; Nehemiah 9:25, the Revised Version (British and American) "good things"; Job 20:21, the Revised Version (British and American) "prosperity"). Other words, are 'on (Job 20:10, the Revised Version (British and American) "wealth"); Chayil ("force," Numbers 31:9; Zephaniah 1:13, the Revised Version (British and American) "wealth"); Tobh (Deuteronomy 28:11, the Revised Version (British and American) "for good"; Ecclesiastes 5:11); mela'khah ("work," Exodus 22:8, 11); nikhcin (Aramaic "riches," Ezra 6:8; 7:26); Qinyan, "getting" (Ezekiel 38:12 f). We have ta huparchonta (literally, "the things existing") in Matthew 24:47, "ruler over all his goods," the Revised Version (British and American) "all that he hath," etc. Agathos is translated "goods" in Luke 12:18 f; skeuos ("instrument") in Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27; ta sa ("the things belonging to thee") in Luke 6:30; ousia ("substance") in Luke 15:12, the Revised Version (British and American) "substance"; huparxis ("existence," "substance") in Acts 2:45; plouteo ("to be rich") in Revelation 3:17, the Revised Version (British and American) "have gotten riches." In the Revised Version (British and American) "goods" stands instead of "carriage" (Judges 18:21), of "stuff" (Luke 17:31), of "good" (1 John 3:17). "Goods" was used in the sense of "possessions" generally; frequently in this sense in Apocrypha (1 Esdras 6:32); ta huparchonta (Tobit 1:20); Ecclesiastes 5:1, "Set not thy heart upon thy goods" (chrema), etc.
W. L. Walker
Gopher Wood
Gopher Wood - go'-fer wood (`atse ghopher): The wood from which Noah's ark was made (Genesis 6:14). Gopher is a word unknown elsewhere in Hebrew or allied languages. Lagarde considered that it was connected with gophrith, meaning "brimstone," or "pitch," while others connect it with kopher, also meaning "pitch"; hence, along both lines, we reach the probability of some resinous wood, and pine, cedar, and cypress have all had their supporters. A more probable explanation is that which connects gopher with the modern Arabic kufa, a name given to the boats made of interwoven willow branches and palm leaves with a coating of bitumen outside, used today on the rivers and canals of Mesopotamia. In the Gilgames story of the flood it is specially mentioned that Noah daubed his ark both inside and out with a kind of bitumen.
See DELUGE OF NOAH.
E. W. G. Masterman
Gore
Gore - gor (naghach): "Gore" occurs only three times in the King James Version, namely, Exodus 21:28, 31 bis, "if an ox gore a man or a woman," etc.; in Exodus 21:29, 32, 36, the King James Version has "push" (with his horn), the Revised Version (British and American) "gore." The same verb in Piel and HithpaeI is elsewhere translated "push" and "pushing" (Deuteronomy 33:17, "He shall push the peoples," the Revised Version, margin "gore"; 1 Kings 22:11; Psalms 44:5; Ezekiel 34:21; Daniel 8:4; 11:40, the Revised Version (British and American) "contend," margin "Hebrew push at," as an ox pushes with his horns so should the king fight--a fitting description of warfare).
Gorgeous; Gorgeously
Gorgeous; Gorgeously - gor'-jus, gor'-jus-li (mikhlol; lampros): Mikhlol occurs twice in the Old Testament, translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "most gorgeously" (Ezekiel 23:12); in Ezekiel 38:4, the King James Version translates "all sorts" (of armor), the Revised Version (British and American) "clothed in full armor." Lampros ("shining," "bright"), is only once translated "gorgeous" (Luke 23:11); "Herod .... arrayed him in a gorgeous robe," the Revised Version (British and American) "gorgeous apparel." We have also in Luke 7:25, "They that are gorgeously appareled ([~endoxos, "splendid," "glorious") .... are in kings' courts." They were scarcely to be looked for among the prophets, or in the new community of Jesus.
W. L. Walker
Gorget
Gorget - gor'-jet: Appears only once in the King James Version (1 Samuel 17:6), being placed in the margin as an alternative to "target (of brass)" in the description of the armor worn by Goliath of Gath. The Hebrew word thus translated (kidhon) really means a "javelin," and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version here and in 1 Samuel 17:45 ("Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin"). See ARMOR, sec. I, 4, (3). Gorget, though so rarely used in Scripture and now displaced in our revised versions, occurs not infrequently and in various senses in English literature. In the meaning of "a piece of armor for the gorge or throat" which seems to have been in the mind of King James's translators, it is found in early English writers and down to recent times. Spenser has it in Faerie Queene, IV, iii, 12:
"His weasand-pipe it through his gorget cleft";
Scott, Marmion, V, ii:
"Their brigantines and gorgets light";
and Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, III, 47: "The gorget gave way and the sword entered his throat."
T. Nicol.
Gorgias
Gorgias - gor'-ji-as (Gorgias): A general in the service of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 3:38; 2 Maccabees 8:9). Lysias, who had been left as regent during the absence of Antiochus in Persia, appointed Gorgias to take the command against Judea in 166 BC. In 1 Maccabees 4:1-24 is recorded a night attack by Gorgias with 5,000 foot and 1,000 horse upon the camp of Judas Maccabeus in the neighborhood of Emmaus, in which Judas was completely victorious. The victory was all the more striking as the force of Judas was considerably smaller in number and had "not armor nor swords to their minds" (1 Maccabees 4:6). Later on (164 BC) he held a garrison in Jamnia, and gained a victory over the forces of Joseph and Azarias who, envying the glory of Judas and Jonathan, in direct disobedience to the orders of Judas, attacked Gorgias and were defeated.
Jamnia as given in Josephus, Ant, XII, viii, 6, is probably the correct reading for Idumaea in 2 Maccabees 12:32. The doings of Gorgias in 2macc are recorded with some confusion. He was regarded with special hostility by the Jews. In 2 Maccabees 12:35 he is described as "the accursed man."
J. Hutchinson
Gortyna
Gortyna - gor-ti'-na (Gortunai): A city in Crete, next in importance to Gnossus. It is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 15:23.
See CRETE.
Goshen (1)
Goshen (1) - go'-shen (goshen; Gesem):
1. Meaning of Name: The region where the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt. If the Septuagint reading Gesem be correct, the word, which in its Hebrew form has no known meaning, may mean "cultivated"--comparing the Arabic root jashima, "to labor." Egyptologists have suggested a connection with the Egyptian word qas, meaning "inundated land" because Goshen was apparently the same region, called by the Greeks the "Arabian nome," which had its capital at Phakousa representing the Egyptian Pa-qas (Brugsch, Geog., I, 298), the name of a town, with the determinative for "pouring forth." Van der Hardt, indeed, more than a century ago (see Sayce, Higher Criticism, 235), supposed the two words to be connected. Dr. Naville in 1887 found the word as denoting the vicinity of Pi-sopt (now Saft el Henneh), 6 miles East of Zagazig--in the form Q-s-m. He concludes that this was the site of Phakousa, but the latter is usually placed at Tell el Faqus, about 15 miles South of ZOAN (which see), and this appears to be the situation of the "City of Arabia" which Silvia, about 385 AD, identifies with Gesse or Goshen; for she reached it in her journey from Heroopolis, through Goshen to Tathnis or Taphnis (Daphnai), and to Pelusium.
2. Situation: It is generally agreed that Goshen was the region East of the Bubastic branch of the Nile; and in Psalms 78:12, 43, it seems to be clearly identified with the "field (or pastoral plain) of Zoan," which was probably also the "land of Rameses" mentioned (Genesis 47:11) as possessed by Jacob's family (see RAAMSES; ZOAN). Where first mentioned (Genesis 45:10), Goshen is promised by Joseph to Jacob as a land fit for flocks, and the Septuagint here reads, "Gesem of Arabia," probably referring to the Arabian nome which took its name from the "desert" which defended the East border of Egypt. In the second notice (Genesis 46:28 f), the boundary of the land of Goshen, where Joseph met his father, is called in the Septuagint Heroo(n)-polis, and also (Genesis 46:28) "the land of Ramesse(s)"; so that in the 3rd century BC Goshen seems to have been identified with the whole region of the Arabian nome, as far South as Heroopolis which (see PITHOM) lay in Wady Tumeilat. Goshen included pastoral lands (Genesis 46:3447:1; 4, 6, 27; 50:8) and was still inhabited by the Hebrews at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 8:22; 9:26), after which it is unnoticed in the Old Testament. The name, however, applied to other places which were probably "cultivated" lands, including a region in the South of Palestine (Joshua 10:41; 11:16), "all the country of Goshen Septuagint Gosom), even unto Gibeon," and a city of Judah (Joshua 15:51) in the mountains near Beersheba. These notices seem to show that the word is not of Egyptian origin.
3. Description: The region thus very clearly indicated was not of any great extent, having an area of only about 900 square miles, including two very different districts. The western half, immediately East of the Bubastic branch of the Nile, stretches from Zoan to Bubastis (at both of which cities records of the Hyksos ruler Apepi have been found), or a distance of about 35 miles North and South. This region is an irrigated plain which is still considered to include some of the best land in Egypt. The description of the land of Rameses (see RAAMSES), in the 14th centuryBC , shows its fertility; and Silvia says that the land of Goshen was 16 miles from Heroopolis, and that she traveled for two days in it "through vineyards, and balsam plantations, and orchards, and tilled fields, and gardens." The region narrows from about 15 miles near the seashore to about 10 miles between Zagazig and Tell el Kebir on the Southeast of this, a sandy and gravelly desert lies between the Nile plain and the Suez Canal, broadening southward from near Daphnai (Tell Defeneh) to Wady Tumeilat, where it is 40 miles across East and West. South of this valley an equally waterless desert stretches to Suez, and from the Bitter Lakes on the East to the vicinity of Heliopolis (Southeast of Cairo) on the West. Thus, Wady Tumeilat, which is fertilized by the Nile waters (see PI-HAHIROTH), and contains villages and corn fields, is the only natural route for a people driving with their flocks and herds by which the vicinity of the Red Sea can be reached, the road leading from the South end of the "field of Zoan" near Bubastis, and 40 miles eastward to the "edge of the wilderness" (see ETHAM) and the head of the Bitter Lakes. This physical conformation is important in relation to the route of the Israelites (see EXODUS); and Wady Tumeilat may very possibly be intended to be included in Goshen, as the Septuagint translators supposed.
C. R. Conder
Goshen (2)
Goshen (2) - go'-shen (goshen):
(1) Mentioned as a country ('erets) in the South of Judah distinct from the "hill country," the Negeb and the Shephelah (Joshua 10:41; 11:16). Unidentified.
(2) A town in the Southwest part of the hill country of Judah (Joshua 15:51), very probably connected in some way with the district (1).
(3) See preceding article.
Gospel
Gospel - gos'-pel (to euaggelion): The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant "the story concerning God." In the New Testament the Greek word euaggelion, means "good news." It proclaims tidings of deliverance. The word sometimes stands for the record of the life of our Lord (Mark 1:1), embracing all His teachings, as in Acts 20:24. But the word "gospel" now has a peculiar use, and describes primarily the message which Christianity announces. "Good news" is its significance. It means a gift from God. It is the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and sonship with God restored through Christ. It means remission of sins and reconciliation with God. The gospel is not only a message of salvation, but also the instrument through which the Holy Spirit works (Romans 1:16).
The gospel differs from the law in being known entirely from revelation. It is proclaimed in all its fullness in the revelation given in the New Testament. It is also found, although obscurely, in the Old Testament. It begins with the prophecy concerning the `seed of the woman' (Genesis 3:15), and the promise concerning Abraham, in whom all the nations should be blessed (Genesis 12:3; 15:5) and is also indicated in Acts 10:43 and in the argument in Romans 4:1-25.
In the New Testament the gospel never means simply a book, but rather the message which Christ and His apostles announced. In some places it is called "the gospel of God," as, for example, Romans 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 2:2, 9; 1 Timothy 1:11. In others it is called "the gospel of Christ" (Mark 1:1; Romans 1:16; 15:19; 1 Corinthians 9:12, 18; Galatians 1:7). In another it is called "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24); in another "the gospel of peace" (Ephesians 6:15); in another "the gospel of your salvation" (Ephesians 1:13); and in yet another "the glorious gospel" (2 Corinthians 4:4 the King James Version). The gospel is Christ: He is the subject of it, the object of it, and the life of it. It was preached by Him (Matthew 4:23; 11:5; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:18 margin), by the apostles (Acts 16:10; Romans 1:15; 2:16; 1 Corinthians 9:16) and by the evangelists (Acts 8:25).
We must note the clear antithesis between the law and the gospel. The distinction between the two is important because, as Luther indicates, it contains the substance of all Christian doctrine. "By the law," says he, "nothing else is meant than God's word and command, directing what to do and what to leave undone, and requiring of us obedience of works. But the gospel is such doctrine of the word of God that neither requires our works nor commands us to do anything, but announces the offered grace of the forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. Here we do nothing, but only receive what is offered through the word." The gospel, then, is the message of God, the teaching of Christianity, the redemption in and by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, offered to all mankind. And as the gospel is bound up in the life of Christ, His biography and the record of His works, and the proclamation of what He has to offer, are all gathered into this single word, of which no better definition can be given than that of Melanchthon: "The gospel is the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ's sake." To hold tenaciously that in this gospel we have a supernatural revelation is in perfect consistency with the spirit of scientific inquiry. The gospel, as the whole message and doctrine of salvation, and as chiefly efficacious for contrition, faith, justification, renewal and sanctification, deals with facts of revelation and experience.
David H. Bauslin
Gospel According to the Hebrews
Gospel According to the Hebrews - See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
Gospels of the Childhood
Gospels of the Childhood - child'-hood.
See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
Gospels, Spurious
Gospels, Spurious - spu'-ri-us.
See APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.
Gospels, the Synoptic
Gospels, the Synoptic - si-nop'-tik:
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. Scope of This Article
2. The Gospels in Church Tradition
II. THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
1. Nature of the Problem
2. Proposed Solutions
(1) Oral Gospel
(2) Mutual Use
(3) Hypothesis of Sources
(4) Other Sources
III. LITERARY ANALYSIS AND ORAL TRADITION
1. The Problem not Solely a Literary One
2. Influence of Oral Instruction
IV. ORDER OF EVENTS AND TIME OF HAPPENINGS IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
1. Range of Apostolic Witness
2. Bearing on Order
3. Time of Happenings
V. DATING OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
1. Return to Earlier Dating
2. The Material Still Older
VI. THE MESSIANIC IDEA IN ITS BEARINGS ON HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS
1. The Jewish and Christian Messiah
2. Originality of the Christian Conception
3. The Messianic Hope
VII. THE OLD TESTAMENT IN ITS BEARINGS ON THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
VIII. THE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS AS THINKER
1. The Ethics of Jesus
2. Jesus as Thinker
IX. THE PROBLEM OF THE GOSPELS
LITERATURE
I. Introductory. 1. Scope of Article: The present article is confined to the consideration of the relations and general features of the first 3 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)--ordinarily named "the Synoptic Gospels," because, in contrast with the Fourth Gospel, they present, as embodying a common tradition, the same general view of the life and teaching of Jesus during His earthly ministry, and of His death and resurrection. The Fourth Gospel, in itself and in its relation to the Synoptics, with the Johannine literature and theology generally, are treated in special articles.
See JOHN,GOSPEL OF ; JOHANNINE THEOLOGY, etc.
2. The Gospels in Church Tradition: The place of the Gospels in church tradition is secure. Eusebius places the 4 Gospels among the books that were never disputed in the church (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 25). It is acknowledged that by the end of the 2nd century these 4 Gospels, and none else, ascribed to the authors whose names they bear, were in universal circulation and undisputed use throughout the church, stood at the head of church catalogues and of all VSS, were freely used, not only by the Fathers of the church (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, etc.), but by pagans and heretics, and by these also were ascribed to the disciples of Christ as their authors. Justin Martyr, in the middle of the century, freely quotes from "Memoirs of the Apostles," "which are called Gospels," "composed by the apostles and those that followed them" (1 Apol. 66-67; Dial. with Trypho, 10, 100, 103). What these Gospels were is made apparent by the Diatessaron, or Harmony of Four, of his disciple Tatian (circa 170), constructed from the 4 Gospels we possess. The first to mention Matthew and Mark by name is Papias of Hierapolis (circa 120-30; in Euseb., HE, III, 39). Dr. Sanday is disposed to carry back the extracts from Papias to about 100 AD (Fourth Gospel, 151); Dr. Moffatt likewise says, "These explanations of Matthew and Mark must have been in circulation by the end of the 1st century" (Introduction to Lit. of New Testament, 187). The gist of the testimony of Papias is: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though he did not record in order, that which was either said or done by Christ"; "Matthew composed the Oracles (Logia) in Hebrew (Aramaic), and each one interpreted them as he was able." Eusebius evidently took what he quotes about Matthew and Mark from Papias to refer to our present Gospels, but a problem arises as to the relation of the Aramaic "Logia" said to be composed by Matthew to our canonical Greek Gospel, which was the only Gospel of Mt known to the early Fathers. There is no ground for the supposition that the Jewish-Christian GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS (which see) was the original of the Greek Matthew; it was on the other hand derived from it. The Gnostic Marcion used a mutilated Luke. Compare further, below on dating, and for details see special articles on the respective Gospels; also BIBLE; CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
II. The Synoptic Problem. 1. Nature of the Problem: Arising from their peculiar nature, there has always been a Synoptic problem, ever since the 3 Gospels appeared together in the Canon of the New Testament. No one could read these Gospels consecutively with attention, without being aware of the resemblances and differences in their contents. Each writer sets forth his own account without reference to the other two, and, with the partial exception of Luke (1:1-4), does not tell his readers anything about the sources of his Gospel. A problem thus arose as to the relations of the three to one another, and the problem, though it approaches a solution, is not yet solved. A history of the Synoptic problem will be found in outline in many recent works; the most elaborate and best is in Zahn's Introduction, III. In it Zahn briefly indicates what the problem was as it presented itself to the church in the earlier centuries, and gives in detail the history of the discussion from the time of Lessing (1778) to the present day. It is not possible within the limits of this article to refer otherwise than briefly to these discussions, but it may be remarked that, as the discussion went on, large issues were raised; every attempt at solution seemed only to add to the difficulty of finding an adequate one; and at length it was seen that no more complex problem was ever set to literary criticism than that presented by the similarities and differences of the Synoptic Gospels.
2. Proposed Solutions: Of the hypotheses which seek to account for these resemblances and differences, the following are the most important.
(1) Oral Gospel: The hypothesis of oral tradition: This theory has rather fallen into disfavor among recent critics. Dr. Stanton, e.g., says, "The relations between the first 3 Gospels cannot be adequately explained simply by the influence of oral tradition" (Gospels as Historical Documents, II, 17; similarly Moffatt, in the work quoted 180 ff). Briefly stated, theory is this. It assumes that each of the evangelists wrote independently of the others, and derived the substance of his writing, not from written sources, but from oral narratives of sayings and doings of Jesus, which, through dint of repetition, had assumed a relatively fixed form. The teaching of the apostles, first given in Jerusalem, repeated in the catechetical schools (compare Luke 1:4, the Revised Version (British and American)), and entrusted to the trained memories of the Christian converts, is held to be sufficient to account for the phenomena of the 3 Gospels. The oral Gospel took its essential form in Palestine, and written editions of it would by and by appear in more or less complete form (Luke 1:1). The first distinguished advocate of the oral hypothesis was Gieseler (1818). It was upheld in Britain by Alford and Westcott, and is today advocated, with modifications, by Dr. A. Wright in his Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek (2nd edition, 1908).
(2) Mutual Use: As old as Augustine, this hypothesis, which assumes the use of one of the Gospels by the other two, has been frequently advocated by scholars of repute in the history of criticism. There have been many variations of theory. Each of the 3 Gospels has been put first, each second, and each third, and each in turn has been regarded as the source of the others. In fact, all possible permutations (6 in number) have been exhausted. As the hypothesis has few advocates at the present day, it is not necessary to give a minute account of these permutations and combinations. Two of them which may be regarded as finally excluded are (a) those which put Luke first; and (b) those which put Mark last (the view of Augustine; in modern times, of F. Baur and the Tubingen school).
(3) Hypothesis of Sources: This is theory which may be said to hold the field at the present time. The tendency in criticism is toward the acceptance of two main sources for the Synoptic Gospels. (a) One source is a Gospel like, if not identical with, the canonical Gospel of Mark. As regards this 2nd Gospel there is a consensus of opinion that it is prior to the other two, and the view that the 2nd and 3rd used it as a source is described as the one solid result of literary criticism. Eminent critics of various schools of thought are agreed on this point (compare W.C. Allen, Matthew, Pref. vii; F.C. Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 37). It has been shown that most of the contents of Mark have been embodied in the other two, that the order of events in Mark has been largely followed by Matthew and Luke, and that the departures from the style of Mark can be accounted for by the hypothesis of editorial amendment. (b) The other source (now commonly named Q) is found first by an examination of the matter not contained in the 2nd Gospel, which is common to Matthew and Luke. While there are differences as to the extent and character of the 2nd source, there is something like general agreement as to its existence. It is not agreed as to whether this source contained narratives of events, as well as sayings, or whether it was a book of sayings alone (the former is thought to be the more probable view), nor is it agreed as to whether it contained an account of the Passion week (on the differing views of the extent of Q, see Moffatt, op. cit., 197 ff); but while disagreement exists as to these and other points, the tendency, as said, is to accept a "two-source" theory in some form as the only sufficient account of the phenomena of the Gospels.
(4) Other Sources: To make the source-theory probable, some account must be taken of other sources beyond the two enumerated above. Both the 1st and the 3rd Gospels contain material not borrowed from these sources. There is the fore-history of Matthew 1:2, which belongs to that Gospel alone, with other things likewise recorded by Mt (Matthew 9:27-34; 12:22; Matthew 14:28-33; 17:24 ff, etc.). Then not only has Luke a fore-history (chapters 1; 2), but a large part of his Gospel consists of material found nowhere else (e.g. 7:11-16,36-50; 10:25 ff; parables in chapters 15; 16; 18:1-14, etc.). This Sondergut of Matthew and Luke will be more appropriately treated in the articles which deal with these Gospels respectively. Here it is sufficient to point out that the criticism of the Synoptic Gospels is not complete till it has found a probable source (a) for what is common to them all, (b) for what is common to any two of them, and (c) for what is peculiar to each. The literature on the subject is so voluminous that only a few references can be given. In addition to those named, the following works may suffice to set forth the present condition of the Synoptic problem: B. Weiss, Introduction to New Testament, and other works; Harnack, Luke the Physician, The Sayings of Jesus, The Acts of the Apostles, Date of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Synoptic Gospels (English translations); Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, and works on each of the Synoptic Gospels, especially Studies in the Synoptic Problem, edited by Dr. Sanday.
III. Literary Analysis and Oral Tradition. 1. The Problem Not Solely a Literary One: Looked at merely as a problem of literary analysis, it is scarcely possible to advance farther than has been done in the works of Harnack, of Sanday and his co-adjutors, and of Stanton, referred to above. The work done has been of the most patient and persevering kind. No clue has been neglected, no labor has been spared, and the interrelations of the three Gospels have been almost exhaustively explored. Yet the problem remains unsolved. For it must not be forgotten that the materials of the Synoptic Gospels were in existence before they assumed a written form. Literary analysis is apt to forget this obvious fact, and to proceed by literary comparison alone. The Gospel was confessedly at first and for some years a spoken Gospel, and this fact has to be taken into account in any adequate attempt to understand the phenomena. It is not enough to say with Dr. Stanton that "the relations of the first three Gospels cannot be adequately explained simply by the influence of oral tradition"; for the question arises, Can the relations between the first three Gospels be explained simply by the results of literary analysis, be it as exhaustive and thorough as it may? Let it be granted that literary analysis has accomplished a great deal; that it has almost compelled assent to the two-source hypothesis; that it has finally made good the priority of Mk; that it has made out a probable source consisting mainly of sayings of Jesus, yet many problems remain which literary analysis cannot touch, at least has not touched. There is the problem of the order of events in the Gospels, which is so far followed by all three. How are we to account for that sequence? Is it sufficient to say, as some do, that Mark set the style of the Gospel narrative, and that the others so far followed that style? All Gospels must follow the method set by Mark, so it is affirmed. But if that is the case, how did Matthew and Luke depart from that copy by writing a fore-history? Why did they compile a genealogy? Why did they give so large a space to the sayings of Jesus, and add so much not contained in the Gospel which, on the hypothesis, set the pattern of what a Gospel ought to be? These questions cannot be answered on the hypothesis that the others simply followed a fashion set by Mark. Sometimes the 2nd Gospel is described as if it were suddenly launched on the Christian world; as if no one had ever heard of the story contained in it before Mark wrote it. From the nature of the case, it is obvious that the church had knowledge of many of the facts in the life of Christ, and was in possession of much of His teaching before any of the Gospels were written. So much is plain from the Epistles of Paul. How many facts about Jesus, and how much of His teaching may be gathered from these epistles, we do not inquire at present. But we do learn much from Paul about the historical Jesus.
2. Influence of Oral Instruction: The Christian church in its earlier form arose out of the teaching, example and influence of the apostles at Jerusalem. It was based on apostolic testimony as to the life, character, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That testimony told the church what Jesus had done, what He had taught, and of the belief of the apostles as to what He was, and what He continued to be. We read that the early church "continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship" (Acts 2:42). The "teaching" consisted of reminiscences of the Lord, of interpretations of the facts about Jesus and of agreements between these and the Old Testament. The first instruction given to the church was oral. Of this fact there can be no doubt. How long oral teaching continued we may not say, but it is likely that it continued as long as the apostles dwelt together at Jerusalem. To them an appeal could constantly be made. There was also the strictly catechetical teaching given to the converts, and this teaching would be given after the manner to which they had been accustomed in their earlier education. It consisted mainly in committing accurately to memory, and in repetition from memory (see CATECHIST;CATECHUMEN ). There would thus be a stricter tradition, as it was taught in the catechetical classes, and a looser tradition which consisted of as much as the people could carry with them from the preaching of the apostles at the weekly assemblies. Those, besides, who were present at the day of Pentecost, and others present at the feasts at Jerusalem, who had passed under Christian influence, would carry with them on their return to their homes some knowledge of the life and death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. It may have been a meager Gospel that these carried with them to Antioch, to Rome, or to other cities in which the diaspora dwelt. But that they did carry a Gospel with them is plain, for from their testimony arose the church at Antioch, where the Christians had without question a knowledge of the Gospel, which informed their faith and guided their action.
IV. Order of Events and Time of Happenings in the Synoptic Gospels.
1. Range of Apostolic Witness: It is known from Acts that the main topic of the preaching of the apostles was the resurrection of the Lord. "With great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 4:33). It is evident, however, that the apostolic witness would not be limited to the events of the Passion week, or to the fact of the resurrection. There would arise a thirst for information regarding the life of Jesus, what He had done, what He had said, what manner of life He had lived, and what teaching He had given. Accounts of Him and of His work would be given by the apostles, and once these accounts were given, they would continue to be given in the same form. Tell a story to a child and he will demand that it be always given in the form in which he first knew it. Hearers of a story are impatient of variations in the subsequent telling of it. Memory is very tenacious and very conservative.
2. Bearing on Order: It is clear that the first lessons of the apostles were accounts of the Passion week, and of the resurrection. But it went backward to events and incidents in the life of Jesus, and as we read the Synoptic Gospels, we soon see that the order was dictated by the events themselves. They are grouped together for no other reason than that they happened so. Most of the incidents are hung on a geographical thread. In the 2nd Gospel, which seems to preserve most faithfully the traditional order, this is obvious to every attentive reader; but in all the 3 Gospels many of the narratives go in well-established cycles. To take only one illustration, where many might be instanced, the healing of the woman with the issue of blood is represented as occurring in the course of the walk to the house of Jairus (Mark 5:21 ff). The only explanation is that this was the actual mode of its happening. Events happened, incidents arose, in the course of the journeys of Jesus and His disciples, words were also spoken, and in the memories of the disciples, when the journey was recalled, there arose also what had happened in the course of the journey. In fact, as we follow the journey through Galilee, to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, through Samaria, down the valley of the Jordan, through Jericho to Jerusalem, we find that the grouping of the material of the Gospels is determined by the facts. Most of what is recorded happened in the course of the journeys, and was borne in the memories of the disciples in the order of its happening. The order, then, is not arbitrary, nor is it the product of reflection; it is the outcome of the facts. It is true that in pursuance of their several plans, Luke sometimes, Matthew frequently, deserts the order of Mark, but it is noteworthy that they never do so together. As Professor Burkitt says, "Matthew and Luke never agree against Mark in transposing a narrative. Luke sometimes deserts the order of Mark, and Matthew often does so; but in these cases Mark is always supported by the remaining Gospel" (op. cit., 36). In Matthew, after 19:1, the events follow each other quite as in Mark.
3. Time of Happenings: When one studies the rather kaleidoscopic political geography of Palestine in the first 40 years of our era, he will find many confirmations of the historic situation in the Synoptic Gospels. The birth of Jesus was in the time of Herod the Great, when the whole of Palestine was under one government. After the death of Herod, Palestine was under several rulers. Archelaus had possession of Judea until the year 9 AD. Galilee was under Herod Antipas until the year 37, and the tetrarchy of Philip had a distinct government of its own. About the year 40 Palestine was again under one government under Herod Agrippa. Now it is clear that the events of the Gospels happened while Herod Antipas ruled in Galilee and Peraea, and while Pilate was procurator in Judea (see CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, and JESUS CHRIST). Nor is the significance of this environment exhausted by the reference to the time. As Professor Burkitt has shown (op. cit., in his chapter entitled "Jesus in Exile"), in the itinerary recorded in Mark 5:1-43, the parts avoided are the dominions of Herod Antipas. It is said in Mark 3:6, "And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him." The significance of this alliance between the Pharisees and the Herodians is well drawn out by Professor Burkitt in the work cited above. It is simply noted by Mark, and on it the evangelist makes no remark. But the conspiracy had a great effect on the work of Jesus. A little later we find Jesus no more in any of the synagogues. He devotes Himself to the training of the Twelve, and is outside of the dominions of Herod Antipas. It is not to be forgotten that during these months Jesus is an exile from His own land, and it was during that period of exile that the issue of His work became clear to Him, and from the time of the great confession at Caesarea-Philippi He began to tell His disciples of the decease that He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Matthew 16:13 ff parallel).
V. Dating of the Synoptic Gospels. 1. Return to Earlier Dating: The question as to the dates at which the Synoptic Gospels appear in a published form may more suitably be dealt with in connection with the articles on the separate Gospels. It need only be observed here that opinion is tending toward much earlier dates than were common till lately. By all but extreme writers it is now admitted that the first 3 Gospels fall well within the limits of the apostolic age. In the Preface to his work on Luke (1906), Harnack reminded his readers that 10 years before he had told them that "in the criticism of the sources of the oldest Christianity we are in a movement backward to tradition." The dates he formerly favored were, for Mark between 65 and 70 AD, for Matthew between 70 and 75, for Luke between 78 and 23. Harnack's more recent pronouncement as to the date of Acts, which he states with all the emphasis of italics, "It seems now to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical work were written while Paul was yet alive" (Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, 124, English translation), must have a determining influence on critical opinion. If Acts were written during the lifetime of Paul (compare Acts 28:30 f), then the 3rd Gospel must have been written earlier. It is likely that Lk had all his material in hand during the imprisonment of Paul at Caesarea. If he made use of the 2nd Gospel, then Mark must have had a still earlier date, and the whole problem of the dating of the Gospels is revolutionized. The essential thing is that the 3 Gospels were probably written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). There is nothing in their contents that makes this view untenable.
2. The Material Still Older: It is still to be remembered, however, that the materials of which the Gospels are composed existed before they were put into a written form. Every discussion must take note of that fact. The literature of the New Testament presupposes just such accounts of the life of Jesus as we find in the Synoptic Gospels, and readers of the Gospels have a right to rest on their veracity and sufficiency as accounts of Jesus, of what He was, what He said, and what He did. They are their own best witnesses.
VI. The Messianic Idea in Its Bearings on Historicity of the Gospels.
1. The Jewish and the Christian Messiah: In a striking passage in his Das Evangelium Marci (65, 66), Wellhausen vividly sets forth the significant contrast between the Jewish and the Christian conceptions of the Messiah. We quote the words, notwithstanding the fact that Wellhausen does not regard the passage, Mark 8:31 ff, as historical. With him what is set forth there is not the figure of the historical Jesus, but a picture of the persecuted church.
"The confession of Peter, `Thou art the Messiah,' affords," he says, "the occasion for the setting forth of what up to this time was latent. He has elicited the confession and accepted it. Nevertheless, He accepts it with a correction; a correction that follows as a matter of course. He is not the Messiah who will restore the kingdom of Israel, but another Messiah altogether. Not to set up the kingdom does He go to Jerusalem, but He goes in order to be crucified. Through sorrow and death He goes into glory, and only by this way can others also enter. The kingdom of God is no Judaistic kingdom; the kingdom is destined only for some chosen individuals, for disciples. The thought of the possibility of a metanoia of the people has wholly disappeared. Into the place of a command to repent addressed to all steps the command to follow, and that can be obeyed only by a very few. The conception of following loses now its proper forces and takes a higher meaning. It does not mean what it meant up to this time, namely, to accompany and to follow Him during His lifetime; it overflows that meaning; one is to follow Him even unto death. The following is an imitatio possible only after His death, and this is to be attained only by a very few. One must bear his cross after Him. .... The situation of the oldest congregation and its tone is here foreshadowed by Jesus as He goes to meet his fate."
A similar passage occurs in the Einleitung, which ends with the significant sentence, "All these are noteworthy signs of the time in which He takes His standpoint" (81).
2. Originality of the Christian Conception: Elsewhere Wellhausen admits that the sections of the Gospels following the scene at Caesarea-Philippi contain what was known as the distinctive Gospel of the apostolic church. But this Gospel owed its origin to the apostolic church itself. It is a question of the highest importance, and the answer cannot be determined by mere literary criticism: Is the Christian conception of the Messiah due to Jesus? or is it due to the reflection of the church? Which is the more probable? It is agreed, Wellhausen being witness, that the Christian conception was subversive of the Jewish outlook, that the two were in contradiction in many ways. One can understand the Christian conception, and its triumph over the Jewish among the Christian people, if it had been set forth by the Master; but it is unintelligible as a something which originated in the congregation itself. The conception of a crucified Messiah, of a suffering Saviour, was a conception which was, during the years of His earthly ministry, in the mind of Jesus alone. It was not in the minds of the disciples, until He had risen from the dead. And it was not in the minds of His contemporaries. But it was the ruling conception in the Jerusalem church as it is in the Epistles of Paul. No: the conception of the suffering Saviour was not the invention of the church, nor did it rise from her thought of her own needs; it was a gift to her from the suffering and risen Lord. Not without a great impulse, nor without a strong source of persuasion, do men displace notions which they have cherished for generations, and substitute notions which are contradictory and subversive of those fiercely and firmly held.
We take these chapters therefore as historical, and as descriptive of the historical Jesus. If we can do so, then the matter is intelligible, not otherwise. It is also to be observed in this relation that the needs of the church are new needs. There is no provision in the New Testament for the needs of the natural man. The critical view often puts the cart before the horse, and this is one illustration of the fact. The needs of the church are the creation of Christ. They are new needs, or needs only imperfectly felt by humanity before Jesus came.
3. The Messianic Hope: Be the needs of the church as great as they may, they are not creative; they are only responsive to the higher call. Nor is it a possible hypothesis that lies at the basis of the criticism of Wellhausen and of many others. Since the time of Baur it has often been said or assumed that it was the Messianic hope that gave concreteness to Christianity; that through the prevalence of the Messianic hope, Christianity was enabled to enter on its career of victory. This is another case of the husteron proteron. It is the historical Jesus that has given concreteness and definiteness to the Messianic conceptions which were current in His time. Because at the heart of the Christian conception there was this concrete gracious figure, and because of the commanding influence of Jesus Christ, this form of Messianism entered into human life, flourished and endured, and is with us today. Other forms of Messianism have only an antiquarian value. They may be discussed as of literary interest, but their practical significance is as nothing. No doubt Messianic categories were ransacked by the church to see if they could be used in order more fully to set forth the significance of Jesus Christ. But the essence of the matter did not lie in them but in Him, whom they had known, loved and served. It is time that a newer critical assumption should be found than the obsolete, worn-out one that the church invented the Christ. We know a little of the early church, and we know its immaturity and its limitations. We have learned something, too, of the Jews at the time of our Lord, and we note that in the Gospels their limitations have been transcended, their immaturity has been overcome, and how? By the fact of Christ. He is so great that He must be real.
VII. The Old Testament in Its Bearing on the Synoptic Gospels.
It is always to be remembered that the Old Testament was the Bible of the early Christians. They accepted it as the Word of God, and as authoritative for the guidance of life and conduct. It is one thing to admit and assert this; it is another thing to say that the story of the Old Testament molded and directed the story of Jesus as it is in the Synoptic Gospels. This has been widely asserted, but without adequate proof. As a matter of fact Christianity, when it accepted the Old Testament as the word of God, interpreted it in a fashion which had not been accented before. It interpreted it in the light of Jesus Christ. Tendencies, facts, meanings, which had been in the Old Testament came into light, and the Bible of the Christians was a Bible which testified of Christ. That on which the Jews laid stress passed into the background, and that which they had neglected came into prominence. This view is set forth by Paul: "Unto this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart" (2 Corinthians 3:15). Or as it is put in Luke, "O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?" (24:25 f). In the Christian interpretation stress was laid on meanings which Jewish readers had neglected, and so the church read the Old Testament in the new light, and things formerly hidden leaped into view. So the suffering servant of Yahweh became for them the keystone of the Old Testament, and the ritual sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Testament obtained a new meaning. The story of Israel and of its patriarchs, lawgivers, priests, kings and prophets, became full of significance for the new religion, and its psalms and prophecies were searched because they testified of Christ. This is not the place to inquire into the truth of the Christian interpretation, but the fact is undeniable. The inference is that the Old Testament did not, as it was understood by the Jews, influence the conceptions which the church had of Christ; rather the influence of Christ, His commanding personality, and His history gave a new meaning to the Old Testament, a meaning undreamed of before. The Epistle to the Hebrews might have as an alternative title, "How to find Christ in the Old Testament." So powerful was the impression made on the disciples by the personality of Jesus, by His whole demeanor, by His teaching, His life, death and resurrection, that they saw all things in the light of it. The difficulty we have in justifying the references to prophecy, in the light of historical criticism, is a testimony to the fact that the prophecy did not dictate the fact; it was the fact that dictated the accommodation of the prophecy. In this relation also, the supreme fact is the personality of Jesus.
VIII. The Jesus of the Gospels as Thinker. 1. The Ethics of Jesus: Turning from the conception of the suffering Saviour in the Synoptics, we come to the aspect of Jesus as teacher and thinker, and here also we find abundant evidence of the historical character of the Gospel presentation. As the ethics of Jesus are treated in another article, it is sufficient to say here that the conception of the ethical man and His conduct set forth in His teaching is of unusual breadth, and when worked out in detail, yields an ideal of man in himself, and in relation to others, which transcends all other ethical teaching known to mankind. This, too, we must trace to His unique personality, and not to the reflection of the church.
2. Jesus as Thinker: A glance may be taken at Jesus under His more general aspect as thinker. As thinker, Jesus stands alone. He speaks with authority, and whoever understands must obey. The Synoptic Gospels, in this respect, are unique. There is nothing like them in literature. Not even in the Bible is there anything to compare with them. Even in the other books of the New Testament we do not find anything like the attitude of Jesus to the common things of life. The world's literature shows no parallel to the parables of the Gospels. Here, at any rate, we are on safe ground in saying that these are not due to the reflection of the church. They have an individual stamp which accredits them as the product of one mind. But a great deal more may be said on the characteristic features of the thinking of Jesus. He is the only thinker who goes straight from the common things of daily life and daily experience into the deepest mysteries of life. The deepest thoughts which man can think are suggested to Him by what everybody sees or does. It is not easy within reasonable limits to do justice to this feature of the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus is at home amid the common things and common occupations of life, because He discerns the Father's presence in them all. What a series of pictures of the world, and of occupations of men, could be gathered from these Gospels! This feature of them was neglected until men under the teaching of poets and painters returned into sympathy with external Nature. We are only beginning to see what wealth, from this point of view, is in the Gospels. Poetic sympathy with Nature is a comparatively modern attainment, yet it is in the Gospels. Wind and weather, mountain and valley, seedtime and harvest, summer and winter, sowing and reaping, buying and selling, all are there, transfigured into higher meanings, and made vocal of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Other thinkers rise gradually, and by many steps, from common experience, into what they have to describe of the higher thought and wider generalizations through which they seek to interpret the mystery of life and of the universe. But this thinker needs no middle terms. He sees, e.g., a woman preparing bread for the use of the family, and in this process perceives the mystery of the kingdom of heaven. Whenever He touches on these common things, immediately they are transfigured. They become luminous with the presence of the spiritual world, and earth becomes full of heaven, and every bush is aflame with God.
We note these things because they have a close bearing on the origin and character of the Synoptic Gospels. They bear the stamp of a unique, a creative personality. Be the processes through which the materials of the Gospels have passed what they may, yet these have not obliterated nor blurred the essential characteristics of that unique personality. When the comparisons of the similarities and differences of the Gospels have been exhausted, the problem of their origin remains, and that problem can be solved only by the recognition of a creative personality who alike by word and work was unlike any other that the world has ever seen.
IX. The Problem of the Gospels. The Jesus of the Gospels is the Son of God. Stated in its highest form, the problem which the evangelists had in hand was how to represent a Divine being under human conditions, and to set Him forth in such a way that in that presentation there should be nothing unworthy of the Divine, and nothing inconsistent with the human conditions under which He worked and lived. This was the greatest problem ever set to literature, and how the evangelists presented and solved it is found in the Gospels. There it has been solved. Even a writer like Bousset admits: "Already for Mk is Jesus not only the Messiah of the Jewish people, but the miraculous eternal Son of God, whose glory shone in the world. .... For the faith of the community, which the oldest evangelist already shares, Jesus is the miraculous Son of God, in whom men believe, whom men put wholly on the side of God" (Was wissen wir von Jesus? 54, 57). The contrast between the Jesus of the Synoptics and the Pauline and Johannine Christ, so often emphasized, thus begins to disappear. The purpose of the Synoptics, as of John, is to lead men to "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God," that, believing, they "may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
LITERATURE.
Besides the works mentioned in the article, reference may be made to the following: E.A. Abbott, article "Gospels" in Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition), edition 9 (with Rushbrooke), Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, and other works; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, The Life of Christ in Recent Criticism; Sir John Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; G. Salmon, Introduction to New Testament; H. Chase, "The Gospels in the Light of Historical Criticism," Essay X in Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by Dr. Swete (1905); H. L. Jackson, "The Present State of the Synop, tic Problem," Essay XIII in Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by Dr. Swete (1909); Peake, Introduction to New Testament; A. Loisy, Les evangiles synoptiques (1907-8); J.M. Thomson, The Synoptic Gospels, Arranged in Parallel Cols. (1910; this scholarly work does for English Versions of the Bible what such works as Greswell's Harmonia Evangelica, Rushbrooke's Synopticon and Wright's Synopsis have done for the Greek texts); A.A. Hobson, The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem (The University of Chicago Press, 1904).
James Iverach
Gothic, Version
Gothic, Version - goth'-ik.
See VERSIONS.
Gotholias
Gotholias - goth-o-li'-as (Gotholias): Father of Josias, one of the sons of Elam who returned from Babylon with Ezra (1 Esdras 8:33). The name corresponds to Athaliah, the Greek Gotholias being substituted for the Hebrew guttural `ayin, as in Gomorrah, Gaza, etc. Taken with 2 Kings 11:1, the name would seem to have been used for both men and women.
Gothoniel
Gothoniel - go-tho'-ni-el (Gothoniel): The same as Othniel, father of Chabris who was one of the governors of the city of Bethulia (Judith 6:15).
Gourd
Gourd - gord, goord (qiqayon): The Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has hedera ("ivy"), which is impossible. Philologically qiqayon appears to be connected with kiki, which was the Egyptian name for the castor oil plant (Ricinus communis). This grows plentifully all over the Orient, and under favorable conditions may reach a height of 10 to 15 ft.; its larger leaves afford a grateful shade. The requirements of the narrative in Jonah 4:6 ff are, however, much more suitably met by the "bottle gourd" (Cucurbita lagenaria), the Arab qar`ah. This is a creeping, vinelike plant which may frequently be seen trained over the rough temporary sun-shelters erected in fields or by the roadside in Palestine and Mesopotamia.
E. W. G. Masterman
Gourd, Wild
Gourd, Wild - wild (paqqu`oth sadheh, 2 Kings 4:39): The root paqa`, means "to split" or "burst open," and on this ground these "wild gourds" have been identified with the fruit of the squirting cucumber (Ecballium elaterium). This little gourd, 1 1/2 to 2 inches long, when fully ripe falls suddenly when touched or shaken, the bitter, irritating juice is squirted to a considerable distance, and the seeds are thrown all around. It is exceedingly common in Palestine, and its familiar poisonous properties, as a drastic cathartic, made it unlikely that under any circumstances its fruit could be mistaken for any edible gourd; it is, too, in no way vinelike ("wild vine," 2 Kings 4:39) in appearance; the stem is stiff and upright, and there are no tendrils. The traditional plant, Cucumis prophetarium, which grows in the desert, and has very small "gourds," has nothing really to recommend it. By far the most probable plant is the Colocynth (Citrullus colocynthis), belonging like the last two, to Natural Order, Cucurbitaceae. This view has the support of the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) It is a vinelike plant which spreads over the ground or attaches itself by its spiral tendrils to other plants. The rounded "gourds" are 3 inches or more in diameter, and contain a pulp intensely bitter and, in any but minute quantities, extremely poisonous.
E. W. G. Masterman
Government
Government - guv'-ern-ment: The government of the Hebrews varied at different periods, of which we may distinguish seven: (1) the nomadic period, from the Exodus to the entrance into Palestine; (2) the period of transition from nomadic to civil life; (3) the monarchy; (4) the period of subjection to other oriental nations; (5) the period from Ezra to the Greeks; (6) Greek rule; (7) Roman rule.
1. The Nomadic Period: The government of the primitive period is that proper to nomadic tribes composed of families and clans, in no wise peculiar to the Hebrews, but shared in its essential features by the most diverse peoples at a corresponding stage of civilization. Though we might draw illustrations from many sources, the government of the Bedouins, Semitic nomads inhabiting the steppes of Arabia, affords the most instructive parallel. In the patriarchal state the family is the household (including slaves and concubines) of the father, who is its head, having power of life and death over his children (Genesis 22:1-24; Judges 11:31 ff). A clan is a collection of families under a common chieftain, chosen for his personal qualifications, such as prowess and generous hospitality. The composition of the clan was essentially shifting, subject, according to circumstances, to the loss or accession of individuals and families. Although the possession of the same grazing-grounds doubtless played a large part in determining the complexion of the clan, the fiction of descent from a common ancestor was maintained, even when kinship was established by the blood covenant. In all probability community of worship, which cemented the tribe, served as the most effective bond of union also in the clan. Vestiges of such clan cults are still to be detected (1 Samuel 20:5 ff; Judges 18:19). The familiar tradition of the twelve tribes must not be allowed to blind us to the evidence that the tribe also was not constant. Mention of the Kenites (Judges 1:16) and the list of tribes in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5:1-31) remind us that such organizations vanished. In the readjustment incident to the change from the pastoral life of the nomad to that of the settled agricultural population of Palestine, many units were doubtless shifted from one tribe to another, and the same result may be assumed as following from the endless strife between the tribes before and during the period of the kings. The large and powerful tribe of Judah seems to have originated comparatively late. The union of the tribes under the leadership of Moses was essentially similar to the formation of a new tribe out of a group of clans actuated by a desire to accomplish a common end. Many such temporary aggregations must have originated, only to succumb to the centrifugal forces of jealousy and conflicting interests. Even after the entrance of the Hebrews into Palestine, their history for long is that of kindred tribes, rather than that of a nation. The leadership of Moses rested on personal, not on constitutional, authority, and was rendered precarious by the claims of family and of clan, as in the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16:1-50). The authority of Moses naturally extended to the administration of justice, as well as to matters pertaining to war and religion. He appointed officers to assist him in this judicial function (Exodus 18:21 ff), but the laws according to which they rendered judgment were those of custom and usage, not those of a written code. As among the tribal chieftains, important matters were referred to the leader, who, in cases of doubt or in default of recognized custom, resorted to the lot or to the oracle.
2. The Period of Transition: When the nomad tribes settled in Palestine to become an agricultural people, there ensued a period of unrest due to the necessity for read-justment to changed conditions. The old tribal organization, admirably adapted to the former, ill suited the new requirements. These may be summed up in the demand for the substitution of local organization, based on the rights of individuals, for the tribal government, which had regard solely to the interests of family, clan and tribe. Such readjustment did not, of course, at once ensue, but came piecemeal in answer to the gradually realized wants of the community. Nor was the development entirely from within, but was unquestionably in large measure influenced by the institutions existing among the Canaanite population, only a part of which had been expelled by the invaders. Although the tribes still clung to the fiction of descent from a common ancestor, which was embodied in the accepted genealogies with their filiation of clans into tribes and of tribes into a nation, that which henceforth passed as a "tribe" was less an aggregation of kindred units than a geographical unit or group of units. The times were turbulent, disturbed by contending elements within and by foes without the tribes. Then it was that there arose a class of chieftains of strongly marked character, called by a new name. The "judge" (shophet) was not the ruler of a nation, but the chieftain of a tribe, winning and maintaining his authority by virtue of his personal prowess. The cases of Gideon and Abimelech (Judges 8:1-35, Judges 9:1-57) show that the authority of the "judge" was not hereditary. Agreeably to the generally changed conditions, the "elders" (zeqenim), who were formerly heads of families or kindreds, now came, possibly under the influence of the Canaanites, to be constituted an aristocratic upper class, with certain functions as administrative officers and councilors. Cities also grew and acquired importance, so that the adjacent hamlets were subordinated to them, probably even ruled from them as executive centers. In all this there is a certain similarity to the process by which, in the period just preceding the beginning of real history, Athens became the metropolis of Attica, and conventional tribes supplanted those based on kinship, while the rise of the purely local organization of the demos led speedily to the appearance of the "tyrants." The high places of clans and tribes continued to be frequented, and certain "seers" (1 Samuel 9:6 ff) enjoyed considerable prestige by virtue of their peculiar relation to the tribal god.
3. The Monarchy: While the succession of tribal chieftains and of the "judges" depended on personal qualifications, the principle of heredity is essential to the institution of monarchy, which originated in the desire to regulate the succession with a view to having an assured authoritative leadership. This principle could not, of course, be invoked in the appointment of Saul, the first king (melekh), who won this distinction in virtue of his personal prowess, supported by the powerful influence of the "seer," Samuel. His son Ishbosheth ruled two years over Israel, but lost his throne through the disaffection of his subjects (2 Samuel 2:1-32 through 2 Samuel 4:1-12). The accession of David, king of Judah, to the throne of all Israel was likewise exceptional, owing as much to the character of the heir presumptive as to his own qualifications. Solomon, as the choice of his father David, succeeded by right of heredity with the support of the military and religious leaders. In the Southern Kingdom of Judah, heredity was henceforth observed because of its homogeneity and the consequent absence of internal discord; whereas the principle often failed in the turbulent Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was distracted by tribal jealousies. But even when not effectually operative, heredity was recognized as constituting a claim to the succession, although the popular voice, which had been supreme in the institution of the monarchy, was a power always to be reckoned with.
(1) Royal Prerogatives. The history and functions of monarchy defined the prerogatives and duties of the king. Just as the head of the family, or the chieftain of a tribe, functioned as representative of those subject to him in matters of religion, war, and the administration of justice, so also was it with the king. In all these spheres he was supreme, exercising his authority either personally or through representatives who thus became part of the royal establishment. It is to be noted that the sacerdotal or sacral character of the king, which was merely an extension of his privileges as individual and head of a household, was not emphasized among the Hebrews to a like extent as among other oriental peoples; and the priests whom he appointed were perhaps in the first instance court chaplains, though in time they came to assume greater authority. The responsibility of the king for the public safety carried with it the obligation to guard the state treasures, to which the treasures of the temples were felt to belong; and it was his privilege to use them when necessary for defense. The levying of taxes, also, and the collection and use of revenues from various sources likewise fell of necessity to the king and his representatives.
(2) Officers. In regard to the constitution of the king's court under Saul and David we learn comparatively little; even touching that of Solomon we are not fully informed, although we know that it must have been far removed from the original simplicity. We may classify the known officers as follows: (a) religious: priests (2 Samuel 8:17; 20:23 ff); (b) household: cupbearer (1 Kings 10:5); master of the vestry (2 Kings 10:22); master of the household (1 Kings 4:6), who probably was a eunuch (1 Kings 22:9 m; 2 Kings 8:6 m; 2 Kings 9:32); (c) state: scribe or clerk (2 Samuel 8:17; 20:25, etc.); recorder, or prompter (1 Kings 4:3); king's counselor (2 Samuel 15:12); and, perhaps, the king's friend (2 Samuel 15:37; 16:16); overseer of taskwork (2 Samuel 20:24); (d) military: commander-in-chief of the army (2 Samuel 8:16); commander of the king's guards (?) (2 Samuel 8:18; 20:23).
(3) Fiscal Institutions. The simplicity of Saul's rule was such as to make slight demands upon the resources of the people. He lived in the manner of a tribal chieftain on his ancestral estate, receiving from his subjects voluntary gifts (1 Samuel 10:27; 16:20), and also, without doubt, his due share of the booty. Whether he instituted a regular tax (compare 1 Samuel 17:25) is not certain. With the growth and prosperity of the nation, David changed the character of the court, imitating in a measure the state of other oriental potentates. It is not clear whether he levied a regular tax, although it may be surmised that he had it in view, together with the regulation of taskwork, in ordaining the census taken in his time (2 Samuel 24:1 ff). We know that he received his portion of the booty (2 Samuel 8:11; 12:30). The increasing luxury of Solomon's court required the imposition of additional taxes. It is probable that some income was derived from the enforced cultivation of crown lands (1 Samuel 8:12), although the taskwork, which became extremely burdensome and subsequently provoked the secession of the Northern Kingdom, was chiefly applied to public works. The tribute of subject peoples (1 Kings 4:21) was considerable (1 Kings 10:14). We now for the first time hear of taxes upon caravans and merchants, although it was in all probability a source of income even in the time of the nomad chieftains; there was also revenue from the carrying trade of his merchant fleet (1 Kings 10:11, 22) and from the trade in horses and chariots carried on with Egypt (1 Kings 10:28 ff). Solomon also divided his kingdom into twelve provinces commanded by prefects, who should provide victuals for the king and his household: each prefect had to make provision for a month in the year (1 Kings 4:7 ff). It does not appear whether Judah, which is not included in the list of provinces, was as a mark of special favor exempted from this tax, or whether the omission is to be otherwise explained. The seizure of the vineyard of Naboth by Ahab (1 Kings 21:1-29) makes it seem not improbable that the property of persons condemned on certain charges was confiscate to the king.
(4) Administration of Justice. The king, like the tribal chieftain of the steppes, still sat in judgment, but chiefly in matters of moment; less important cases were decided by the prefects of provinces and other officers. Under the earlier kings there was no code except the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:1-26 through Exodus 23:1-33), but judgment was rendered on the basis of the law of custom or usage, the function of the judge being essentially that of an arbiter. For the later code see DEUTERONOMY.
(5) Religion. The king was regarded as the natural representative of his people before God; but while he did exercise certain sacerdotal functions in person, such offices were generally performed by the priest whom he had appointed.
(6) Secular Administration. The authority of the king in matters of state was exercised partly by him in person, partly through his ministers, the "princes" (1 Kings 4:2 ff). Among these functions are to be classed the communication with subject and foreign princes and the direction of the taskwork, which was employed for public improvements, partly military, as in the fortification of cities, partly religious, as in the building of the temple. Local affairs had always been left largely to the tribes and their subdivisions, but, with the gradual increase of royal authority, the king sought to exercise it more and more in the conduct of the village communities. Conversely, the "elders of the people," as the (albeit aristocratic) representatives of the communes, occasionally had a voice even in larger matters of state.
4. Israel under Oriental Potentates: The principle of local autonomy; was widely observed in the oriental states, which concerned themselves chiefly about political and military organization and about the collection of revenues. Hence, there is no occasion for surprise on finding that the Jews enjoyed a large measure of autonomy during the period of their subjection to other oriental powers and that even during the exile they resorted, in matters of dispute, to their own representatives for judgment. Under Persian rule Palestine formed part of the satrapy lying West of the Euphrates and had, for a time, its own governor.
5. After the Restoration: Ezra and Nehemiah endeavored to introduce a new code, which, after a period of perhaps two centuries, established a dual form of government subject to the supreme authority of the suzerain power. By the new code the secular officers were subordinated to the high priest, who thus virtually assumed the position of a constitutional prince, ruling under the Law. The "prince," however, as the representative of the tribes, and the "elders of the people," as the representatives of the communes, continued to exercise a certain limited authority.
6. The Greeks: Under the Greek rulers of Egypt and Syria the Jews continued to enjoy a large measure of autonomy, still maintaining in general the type of internal government formulated under Ezra and Nehemiah. We now hear of a council of "elders" presided over by the high priest. The latter, appointed by the kings, was recognized as ethnarch by both Ptolemies and Seleucids and held accountable for the payment of the tribute, for the exaction of which he was, of course, empowered to levy taxes. The brief period of political independence under the Hasmoneans (see ASMONEANS) did not materially alter the character compare the government, except that the high who had long been a prince in everything but in name, now openly so styled himself. The council of the "elders" survived, although with slightly diminished authority. In other respects the influence of Greek institutions made itself felt.
7. The Romans: When Pompey terminated the reign of the Hasmoneans, the government still continued with little essential change. Following the example of the Greek kings, the Romans at Romans first appointed the high priest to the "leadership of the nation." He was soon, however, shorn for a time of his political dignity, the country being divided into five districts, each governed by its "synod"; but Caesar once more elevated the high priest to the office of ethnarch. Under Herod, the high priest and the synedrium (Sanhedrin), appointed or deposed at will as his interests seemed to require, lost much of their former prestige and power. After the death of Herod the land was again divided, and a procurator, subordinate to the governor of Syria, ruled in Judea, having practical independence in his sphere. In their internal affairs the Jews now, as under former masters, enjoyed a large measure of freedom. The high priest no longer exercising any political authority, the synedrium, of which he was a member, now gained in influence, being in fact an aristocratic council in many respects not unlike the Roman senate. It combined judicial and administrative functions, limited in the exercises of its authority only by the provision that its decisions might be reviewed by the procurator. (See GOVERNOR.) Naturally the outlying jurisdictions were organized on the same model, each with its synedrium competent in local matters. The synedrium at Jerusalem served also as a governing board for the city.
William Arthur Heidel
Governor
Governor - guv'-er-ner: The word "governor" is employed in English Versions of the Bible in rendering a great variety of Hebrew and Greek words. In certain cases strict consistency is neither observed nor possible.
1. In the Old Testament: In the rendering of Hebrew terms account has naturally been taken of the translations offered in Septuagint, which, being the work of different hands, is both uneven in quality and inconsistent. But there are inherent difficulties which can never be entirely overcome. First and most important, there is the difficulty arising from our ignorance of many details of the government of the oriental nations to which the terms apply. Hardly less is the embarrassment occasioned by the vague employment of words in indiscriminate reference to persons of superior rank and somehow exercising authority. There is consequently much confusion in the use of titles such as "deputy," "duke," "judge," "lawgiver," "overseer" "prince" "ruler" etc. for which the student may consult the special articles.
(1) alluwph or `alluph, "governor" (the Revised Version (British and American) "chieftain") in Judah (Zechariah 9:7; 12:5 f).
(2) choqeq (Judges 5:9, 14, the King James Version margin"or lawgivers"). The word is variously rendered with "ruler" or "lawgiver" in English Versions of the Bible of Genesis 49:10; Deuteronomy 33:21; Isaiah 33:22.
(3) moshel, participle of mashal, "to be master," "to rule" (Genesis 45:26, the Revised Version (British and American) "ruler").
(4) nasi' (2 Chronicles 1:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "prince").
(5) caghan (Daniel 3:2 f; Jeremiah 51:23, the Revised Version, margin "or lieutenants"; Jeremiah 51:28, 57; Ezekiel 23:6, 12, 23). The same word is rendered "rulers" or "deputies" (Isaiah 41:25; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 2:16; 5:7; 7:5; 12:40).
(6) pechah, is variously used: (a) of the military governor of a province among the Assyrians (Isaiah 36:9); (b) among the Chaldees (Ezekiel 23:6, 23; Jeremiah 51:23, 18, 57); (c) among the Persians (Esther 3:12; 8:9; 9:3); (d) of the governor-general of the province beyond the River (Euphrates) (Ezra 8:36; Nehemiah 2:7:Nehemiah 9:1-38); (e) of Nehemiah as subordinate "governor in the land of Judah" under him (Nehemiah 5:14 ff); (f) of Zerubbabel as "governor of Judah" (Haggai 1:1, 14; 2, 21); (g) of Solomon's governors (1 Kings 10:15; 20:24 (in Syria)).
(7) paqidh (Jeremiah 20:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "chief officer"). Elsewhere it is rendered "overseer" or "officer" (compare Genesis 41:34; 2 Kings 25:19; Nehemiah 11:9, 22).
(8) sar "governor of the city" (1 Kings 22:26). Elsewhere commonly rendered "prince."
(9) shalliT (Genesis 42:6). Elsewhere rendered "ruler" or "captain."
(10) tirshatha' the Revised Version (British and American) "the governor," the King James Version "the Tirshatha" (Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:70).
See TIRSHATHA.
2. In the New Testament: The word "governor" in English Versions of the Bible represents an almost equal variety of Greek words. Here again the usage is for the most part lax and untechnical; but since reference is chiefly had to officers of the Roman imperial administration, concerning which we possess ample information, no embarrassment is thereby occasioned. The words chiefly in use for "governor" are derived from root ag-, "drive," "lead":
(1) hegeomai, "lead" (Matthew 2:6; of Joseph as grand vizier of Egypt, Acts 7:10).
(2) hegemon, "leader" (Matthew 10:18; 1 Peter 2:14; of Pilate, Matthew 27:2, 11, 14-15, 21, 27; of Felix, Acts 23:24, 26, 33; of Festus, Acts 24:1, 10; 26:30).
(3) hegemoneuo, "function as leader" (Luke 2:2; of Pilate, Luke 3:1).
To these are added terms of more specific meaning:
(4) ethnarches, "ethnarch" or "ruler of a nation" (2 Corinthians 11:32).
See GOVERNMENT, 6, 7.
(5) euthuno "direct," "guide" (James 3:4). Here the Revised Version (British and American) properly render it "steersman."
(6) architriklinos, "president of a banquet" (John 2:8 f, the American Standard Revised Version "ruler of the feast ").
(7) oikonomos, "steward," "manager of a household or estate" (Galatians 4:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "stewards").
It is thus seen that in the New Testament "governor" in the political sense occurs chiefly in reference to the Roman procurators of Judea--Pilate, Felix, and Festus. See PILATE; FELIX; FESTUS. It remains for us here to speak briefly of the government of Roman provinces.
Latin provincia signifies a magistrate's sphere of duty or authority, either (a) judicially or legally, defining the scope of his competence, or (b) geographically, designating the territorial limits within which he may exercise authority. It is in the latter sense that we are now considering the word. When, in the 3rd century BC, Rome began to rule conquered lands outside Italy, each territory was set under the authority of a single magistrate, and hence came to be called a "province." Conquered territories left under the rule of native princes or kings were not so designated, although their government was practically directed by Rome. At first provinces were governed by proconsuls or proprietors (i.e. ex-consuls or ex- praetors); but with the steady multiplication of provinces various expedients became necessary in order to provide governors of suitable rank and dignity. Thus, the number of praetors was largely augmented, and the term of possible service as governor was extended. Under Augustus the provinces were parceled out between the emperor and the senate, the former reserving for himself such as seemed to require the maintenance of a considerable armed force. In these the emperor was himself proconsul. Early in the Empire imperial provinces of a different type appear, in which the emperor, regarded as sovereign proprietor, governs by a viceroy (praefectus) or steward (procurator). In some of these, tributary kings or princes ruled with the emperor's representative--a legatus or a procurator--by their side, much as England now rules Egypt. Among the provinces so ruled were Egypt and Judea, partly, no doubt, because of their strategic position, partly because of the temper of their inhabitants.
William Arthur Heidel
Goyim
Goyim - goi'-yim.
See GOIIM.
Gozan
Gozan - go'-zan (gozan; Gozan, Codex Vaticanus, Gozar in 2 Kings 17:6, Chozar in 1 Chronicles 5:26): A place in Assyria to which Israelites were deported on the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6; 18:11; 1 Chronicles 5:26). It is also mentioned in a letter of Sennacherib to Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:12; Isaiah 37:12). The district is that named Guzana by the Assyrians, and Gauzanitis by Ptolemy, West of Nisibis, with which, in the Assyrian geographical list (WAI, II, 53, l. 43), it is mentioned as the name of a city (alu Guzana; alu Nasibina). It became an Assyrian province, and rebelled in 759 BC, but was again reduced to subjection.
James Orr
Graba
Graba - gra'-ba.
See AGGABA.
Grace
Grace - gras:
1. The Word Charis: In the English New Testament the word "grace" is always a translation of (charis), a word that occurs in the Greek text something over 170 times (the reading is uncertain in places). In secular Greek of all periods it is also a very common word, and in both Biblical and secular Greek it is used with far more meanings than can be represented by any one term in English Primarily (a) the word seems to denote pleasant external appearance, "gracefulness" "loveliness"; compare the personificaion in the Graces." Such a use is found in Luke 4:22, where `wondered at the charm of his words' is a good translation; and similarly in Colossians 4:6. (b) Objectively, charis may denote the impression produced by "gracefulness," as in 3 John 1:4 `greater gratification have I none than this' (but many manuscripts read chara, "joy," here). (c) As a mental attribute charis may be translated by "graciousness," or, when directed toward a particular person or persons, by "favor." So in Luke 2:52, "Jesus advanced .... in favor with God and men." (d) As the complement to this, charis denotes the emotion awakened in the recipient of such favor, i.e. "gratitude." So Luke 17:9 reads literally, `Has he gratitude to that servant?' In a slightly transferred sense charis designates the words or emotion in which gratitude is expressed, and so becomes "thanks" (some 10 t, Romans 6:17, etc.)'. (e) Concretely, charis may mean the act by which graciousness is expressed, as in 1 Corinthians 16:3, where the King James Version translates by "liberality," and the Revised Version (British and American) by "bounty." These various meanings naturally tend to blend into each other, and in certain cases it is difficult to fix the precise meaning that the writer meant the word to convey, a confusion that is common to both New Testament and secular Greek And in secular Greek the word has a still larger variety of meanings that scarcely concern theologian.
2. Grace as Power: Naturally, the various meanings of the word were simply taken over from ordinary language by the New Testament writers. And so it is quite illegitimate to try to construct on the basis of all the occurrences of the word a single doctrine that will account for all the various usages. That one word could express both "charm of speech" and "thankfulness for blessings" was doubtless felt to be a mere accident, if it was thought of at all. But none the less, the very elasticity of the word enabled it to receive still another--new and technically Christian--meaning. This seems to have originated in part by fusing together two of the ordinary significances. In the first place, as in (e) above, charis may mean "a gift." In 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:19 it is the money given by the Corinthians to the Jerusalemites. In 2 Corinthians 9:8 it is the increase of worldly goods that God grants for charitable purposes. In 2 Corinthians 1:15 it is the benefit received by the Corinthians from a visit by Paul. In a more spiritual sense charis is the endowment for an office in the church (Ephesians 4:7), more particularly for the apostolate (Romans 1:5; 12:3; 15:15; 1 Corinthians 3:10; Ephesians 3:2, 7). So in 1 Corinthians 1:4-7 margin charis is expanded into "word and all knowledge," endowments with which the Corinthians were especially favored. In 1 Peter 1:13 charis is the future heavenly blessedness that Christians are to receive; in 3:7 it is the present gift of "life." In the second place, charis is the word for God's favor, a sense of the term that is especially refined by Paul (see below). But God's favor differs from man's in that it cannot be conceived of as inactive. A favorable "thought" of God's about a man involves of necessity the reception of some blessing by that man, and "to look with favor" is one of the commonest Biblical paraphrases for "bestow a blessing." Between "God's favor" and "God's favors" there exists a relation of active power, and as charis denoted both the favor and the favors, it was the natural word for the power that connected them. This use is very clear in 1 Corinthians 15:10, where Paul says, "not I, but the grace of God which was with me" labored more abundantly than they all: grace is something that labors. So in 2 Corinthians 12:9, "My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness"; compare 2 Timothy 2:1, "strengthened in the grace," and 1 Peter 4:10, "stewards of the manifold grace." Evidently in this sense "grace" is almost a synonym for the Spirit (see HOLY SPIRIT), and there is little real difference between "full of the Holy Spirit" and "full of grace and power" in Acts 6:5, 8, while there is a very striking parallel between Ephesians 4:7-13 and 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, with "gifts of grace" in the one passage, and "gifts of the Spirit" in the other. And this connection between grace and the Spirit is found definitely in the formula "Spirit of grace" in Hebrews 10:29 (compare Zechariah 12:10). And, as is well known, it is from this sense of the word that the Catholic doctrine of grace developed.
3. Grace in Justification: This meaning of charis was obtained by expanding and combining other meanings. By the opposite process of narrowly restricting one of the meanings of the word, it came again into Christian theology as a technical term, but this time in a sense quite distinct from that just discussed. The formation of this special sense seems to have been the work of Paul. When charis is used with the meaning "favor," nothing at all is implied as to whether or not the favor is deserved. So, for instance, in the New Testament, when in Luke 2:52 it is said that "Jesus advanced .... in favor with God and men," the last possible thought is that our Lord did not deserve this favor. Compare also Luke 2:40 and Acts 2:47 and, as less clear cases, Luke 1:30; Acts 7:46; Hebrews 4:16; 15, 28. But the word has abundant use in secular Greek in the sense of unmerited favor, and Paul seized on this meaning of the word to express a fundamental characteristic of Christianity. The basic passage is Romans 11:5-6, where as a definition is given, "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace." That the word is used in other senses could have caused no 1st-century reader to miss the meaning, which, indeed, is unmistakable. "Grace" in this sense is an attitude on God's part that proceeds entirely from within Himself, and that is conditioned in no way by anything in the objects of His favor. So in Romans 4:4. If salvation is given on the basis of what a man has done, then salvation is given by God as the payment of a debt. But when faith is reckoned for what it is not, i.e. righteousness, there is no claim on man's part, and he receives as a pure gift something that he has not earned. (It is quite true that faith involves moral effort, and so may be thought of as a sort of a "work"; it is quite true that faith does something as a preparation for receiving God's further gifts. But it simply clouds the exegetical issue to bring in these ideas here, as they certainly were not present in Paul's mind when the verses were being written.) "Grace" then, in this sense is the antinomy to "works" or to "law"; it has a special relation to the guilt of sin (Romans 5:20; 6:1), and has almost exactly the same sense as "mercy." Indeed, "grace" here differs from "mercy" chiefly in connoting eager love as the source of the act. See JUSTIFICATION. Of course it is this sense of grace that dominates Romans 3:1-31 through Romans 6:1-23, especially in thesis Romans 3:24, while the same use is found in Galatians 2:21; Ephesians 2:5, 8; 2 Timothy 1:9. The same strict sense underlies Galatians 1:6 and is found, less sharply formulated, in Titus 3:5-7. (Galatians 5:4 is perhaps different.) Outside of Paul's writings, his definition of the word seems to be adopted in John 1:17; Acts 15:11; Hebrews 13:9, while a perversion of this definition in the direction of antinomianism is the subject of the invective in Jude 1:4. And, of course, it is from the word in this technical Pauline sense that an elaborate Protestant doctrine of grace has been developed.
4. Special Uses: A few special uses of the word may be noted. That the special blessing of God on a particular undertaking (Acts 14:26; 15:40) should be called a "grace" needs no explanation. In Luke 6:32-34, and 1 Peter 2:19-20, charis seems to be used in the sense of "that which deserves the thanks of God," i.e. a specifically Christian act as distinguished from an act of "natural morality." "Grace for grace" in John 1:16 is a difficult phrase, but an almost exact parallel in Philo (Poster. Cain, 43) may fix the sense as "benefit on benefit." But the tendency of the New Testament writers is to combine the various meanings the word can have, something that is particularly well illustrated in 2 Corinthians 8:1-24; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15. In these two chapters the word occurs 2 Corinthians 10:1-18 t, but in so many different senses as to suggest that Paul is consciously playing with the term. Charis is the money given to the Jerusalemites by the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 8:19), it is the increase of goods that God will grant the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 9:8), it is the disposition of the givers (2 Corinthians 8:6), it is the power of God that has wrought this disposition (2 Corinthians 8:1; 9:14), it is the act of Christ in the Incarnation (2 Corinthians 8:9; contrast the distinction between "God's grace" and "Christs act" in Hebrews 2:9), it is the thanks that Paul renders (2 Corinthians 9:15). That all a Christian is and all that he has is God's gift could have been stated of course without the use of any special term at all. But in these two chapters Paul has taught this truth by using for the various ideas always the same term and by referring this term to God at the beginning and the end of the section. That is, to the multiplicity of concepts there is given a unity of terminology, corresponding to the unity given the multiple aspects of life by the thought of entire dependence on God. So charis, "grace," becomes almost an equivalent for "Christianity," viewed as the religion of dependence on God through Christ. As one may think of entering Christianity, abiding in it, or falling from it, so one may speak of entering into (Romans 5:2), abiding in (Acts 13:43), or falling from (Galatians 5:4) grace; compare 1 Peter 5:12. So the teaching of Christianity may be summed up as word or gospel of grace (Acts 14:3; 24, 32). So "grace be with you" closes the Epistles as a sufficient summary of all the blessings that can be wished Christian readers. At the beginning of the Epistles the words "and peace" are usually added, but this is due only to the influence of the Jewish greeting "peace be with you" (Luke 10:5, etc.), and not to any reflection on "grace" and "peace" as separate things. (It is possible that the Greek use of chairein, "rejoice," as an epistolary salutation (so in James 1:1) influenced the Christian use of charis. But that "grace and peace" was consciously regarded as a universalistic combination of Jewish and Gentilecustom is altogether unlikely.) The further expansion of the introductory formula by the introduction of "mercy" in 1 and 2 Tim is quite without theological significance.
5. Teaching of Christ: In the Greek Gospels, charis is used in the words of Christ only in Luke 6:32-34; 17:9. As Christ spoke in Aram, the choice of this word is due to Luke, probably under the influence of its common Christian use in his own day. And there is no word in our Lord's recorded sayings that suggests that He employed habitually any especial term to denote grace in any of its senses. But the ideas are unambiguously present. That the pardon of sins is a free act on God's part may be described as an essential in Christ's teaching, and the lesson is taught in all manner of ways. The prodigal knowing only his own wretchedness (Luke 15:20), the publican without merit to urge (Luke 18:13), the sick who need a physician (Mark 2:17), they who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), these are the ones for whom God's pardon is inexhaustible. And positive blessings, be they temporal or spiritual, are to be looked for from God, with perfect trust in Him who clothes the lilies and knows how to give good gifts to His children (Matthew 7:11; here Luke 11:13 has "Holy Spirit" for "gifts," doubtless a Lukan interpretation, but certainly a correct one). Indeed, it is not too much to say that Christ knows but one unpardonable sin, the sin of spiritual self-satisfaction--"That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:15; compare Luke 17:7-10; Matthew 20:1-16).
6. In the Old Testament: There is no word in Hebrew that can represent all the meanings of charis, and in the Septuagint charis itself is used, practically, only as a translation of the Hebrew chen, "favor," this restriction of meaning being due to the desire to represent the same Hebrew word by the same Greek word as far as possible. And chen, in turn, is used chiefly only in the phrase "find favor" (Genesis 6:8, etc.), whether the reference is to God or men, and without theological importance. Much nearer Paul's use of charis is ratson, "acceptance," in such passages as Isaiah 60:10, "In my favor have I had mercy on thee"; Psalms 44:3, "not .... by their own sword .... but .... because thou wast favorable unto them." Perhaps still closer parallels can be detected in the use of checedh, "kindness," "mercy," as in Exodus 20:6, etc. But, of course, a limitation of the sources for the doctrine to passages containing only certain words would be altogether unjust. The main lines seem to be these: (1) Technically, salvation by grace in the New Testament is opposed to an Old Testament doctrine of salvation by works (Romans 4:4; 11:6), or, what is the same thing, by law (Romans 6:14; John 1:17); i.e men and God are thought of as parties to a contract, to be fulfilled by each independently. Most of the legislation seems to presuppose some idea of man as a quantity quite outside of God, while Deuteronomy 30:11-14 states explicitly that the law is not too hard nor too far off for man. (2) Yet even this legalism is not without important modifications. The keeping of the law is man's work, but that man has the law to keep is something for which God only is to be thanked. Psalms 119:1-176 is the essence of legalism, but the writer feels overwhelmed throughout by the greatness of the mercy that disclosed such statutes to men. After all, the initial (and vital!) act is God's not man's. This is stated most sharply in Ezekiel 23:1-4--Oholibah and her sister became God's, not because of any virtue in them, but in spite of most revolting conduct. Compare Deuteronomy 7:7, etc. (3) But even in the most legalistic passages, an absolute literal keeping of the law is never (not even in such a passage as Numbers 15:30-31) made a condition of salvation. The thought of transgression is at all times tempered with the thought of God's pardon. The whole sacrificial system, in so far as it is expiatory, rests on God's gracious acceptance of something in place of legal obedience, while the passages that offer God's mercy without demanding even a sacrifice (Isaiah 1:18; Micah 7:18-20, etc.) are countless. Indeed, in Ezekiel 16:1-63; Ezekiel 20:1-49; Ezekiel 23:1-49, mercy is promised to a nation that is spoken of as hardly even desiring it, a most extreme instance. (4) But a mere negative granting of pardon is a most deficient definition of the Old Testament idea of God's mercy, which delights in conferring positive benefits. The gift to Abraham of the land of Canaan, liberation from Egypt, food in the wilderness, salvation from enemies, deliverance from exile--all of Israel's history can be felt to be the record of what God did for His people through no duty or compulsion, grateful thanksgiving for such unmerited blessings filling, for instance, much of the Psalter. The hearts of men are in God's keeping, to receive from Him the impulse toward what is right (1 Chronicles 29:18, etc.). And the promise is made that the God who has manifested Himself as a forgiving Father will in due time take hold of His children to work in them actual righteousness (Isaiah 1:26; 3, 1; Isaiah 32:1-8; 33:24; Jeremiah 31:33, 14; Ezekiel 36:25-26; Zechariah 8:1-23; Daniel 9:24; Psalms 51:10-12) With this promise--for the Old Testament always a matter of the future--the Old Testament teaching passes into that of the New Testament.
7. Summary: Most of the discussions of the Biblical doctrine of grace have been faulty in narrowing the meaning of "grace" to some special sense, and then endeavoring to force this special sense on all the Biblical passages. For instance, Roman scholars, starting with the meaning of the word in (say) 2 Corinthians 12:9, have made Romans 3:24 state that men are justified by the infusion of Divine holiness into them, an interpretation that utterly ruins Paul's argument. On the other hand, Protestant extremists have tried to reverse the process and have argued that grace cannot mean anything except favor as an attitude, with results that are equally disastrous from the exegetical standpoint. And a confusion has resulted that has prevented men from seeing that most of the controversies about grace are at cross-purposes. A rigid definition is hardly possible, but still a single conception is actually present in almost every case where "grace" is found--the conception that all a Christian has or is, is centered exclusively in God and Christ, and depends utterly on God through Christ. The kingdom of heaven is reserved for those who become as little children, for those who look to their Father in loving confidence for every benefit, whether it be for the pardon so freely given, or for the strength that comes from Him who works in them both to will and to do.
LITERATURE.
All the Biblical theologies contain full discussions of the subject; for the New Testament the closest definitions are given by Bernard Weiss. But for the meaning of "grace" in any particular place the commentaries must be consulted, although the student may be warned against discussions that argue too closely from what may seem to be parallel passages.
Burton Scott Easton