Ot

a fact which in<licatcs that these caused »om« 198 GOD GOD ott'ence. But in the OT such anthropomorphisms are freely used, as we use them still. And tlieir use is usuuUy justified by the statement that man was male in the imace of God. It is possible that by some in Israel, just as by some amonc ourselves, liis personality was so vividly realized as to obscure or repress some other conceptions of Him which also have their rights. But this can hardly be charged against the OT.

When it speaks of the hand, arm, mouth, lips, and eyes of God ; when He makes bare His holy arm (Is 52'"), lifts up a signal to the nations (4'J, ), is seen at the head of the Medes mustering His hosts, and His military shout is heard (13'), all this is but vivid conception of His being, His intelligence. His activity and universal power over the nations whom He directs.

The human is transferred to His personality, as it could not but be ; it is transferred graphically, as could not but happen when done by the poetical, vivacious, and power- ful phantasy of the people of Israel. The languiigo only testifies to the warmth and intensity of the religious feelings of the writers. Another class of passages deserves attention.

God is said to have walked in the garden in the cool of the day (Gn 3') ; to have come down to see the tower which men did build (11°); to have been one of three men who appeared to Abraham, and to have eaten that which was set before Him (18'-*); to have wrestled with Jacob (32-'"'-/, and the like.

Such passages, in addition to being a testimony to the vividness with which God's per- sonality was conceived, are evidence also of the religious feeling that God did reveal Himself to men, and enter into the closest fellowship with them. Ditlerent minds may estimate these early narratives in different ways.

So far as we con- sider the experiences, say of Jacob at Jabbok, real, we may suppose that with these early men a spiritual impression always reflected itself in an accompanying extraordinary physical condition, just as among the early prophets the ecstasy was usual, while, among the later prophets, though still occasional (Is 8"), it became rare.

And so far as we may consider the details of the description due to the narrator, it may be evidence that he could not conceive a spiritual experience apart from a correspondin"; physical accompaniment. And if early men so felt, it would not be judicious to deny that God might use an objective pheno- menon, such as the burning bush, as a means of awakening the religious mind, just as our Lord used His miracles as a means of reaching the mind of those for whom He performed them.

But these local manifestations of God never suggest that He was locally confined. It has been argued that Sinai was the local seat of J" before the Kxodus, and that it was only later that He was believed to have removed to Canaan. In David's day it was certainly believed that Canaan was His ' in- heritance' (1 S 26") ; and the oldest Pent, narrator speaks of Him ' coming down ' upon Mount Sinai (Ex 19"- '").

When tlie Ark, to which His presence was in son\e way specially attached, was captured by the Philistines, and Shiloh destroyed, the priests continued His worship with all the old ceremonial of shewbread and the like at Nob (1 S 21*).

The multitude of altars scattered over the country, if they did not suggest the positive idea of His ubiquity, suggested, at least, that there was no place where He might not let Himself be found, and the idea was confirmed by new self-manifesta- tions in fresh places, as to Gideon (Jg 6*"), to Saul (who seems to have built many altars, 1 S 14"), and to David (2 S 24'«).

The idea men had of all these places was that expressed by Solomon in regard to the temple: 'The heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less this hovise that I have builded' (1 K 8='). But while God was thus present on earth, the tempest or the thunderstorm was at the same time a theophany in the heavens.

Two beliefs cliaracterizo the Hebrew mind from the beginning: first, the strong belief in causation — every change on the face of nature, or in the life of men or nations, must be due to a cause ; and, secondly, the only conceivable causality is a personal agent.

The unseen power under all things, which threw up all changes on the face of the world, which gave animation to the creature or withdrew it, which moved the generations of men upon the earth from the be- ginning (Is 41'), bringing Israel out of Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir {Aui 9'), was the living God. Some pheno- mena or events, such as the thunderstorm or the dividing of the sea, might be more striking in- stances of His operation than others.

Tliey were miracles, that is, wonders, but tliey did not dili'er in kind from the ordinary plienomena of nature, from His making the sun to rise and sealing up tlie stars (.fob 9'), from His clothing the heavens with blackness (Is SO") and making them clear again with His breath (Job 20'^). Everything is supernatural, that is, direct divine operation. The regular alternation of day and night is due to J"'s covenant with them (Jer 33-''- '^). Another class of passages may be referred to.

The first class cited vividly suggested the person- ality of God. The second class added the idea that He manifested Himself to men in place and circumstance, though with no implication that He was locally confined. This third class briniis in tlie idea of the moral in His personality.

Thus He repents that He made man (Gn 6''), and also of the evil He intended to do (Ex 32"); He is grieved (Gn 6«), angry (1 K 11"), jealous (Dt6"), gracious (Ps 111'); He loves (1 K lO'-'), hates (Pr Q'"), and much more. All the emotions of which men are conscious, and all the human conduct corresponding to these emotions, are thrown back upon God. Now, it may be true tli.

at from another point of view God must be held free of all i)assion, and not subject to such cliange as is implied in one emotion succeeding another. Still, this latter conception if carried to its just conclusions would reduce God to a being not only absolutely unmoral, but even impersonal. The religious mind could express its relations to God in no other way but by attributing to Him a nature similar to its own.

Scripture is not unaware that this mode of con- ception may be puslied too far : ' The Lord is not a man that he should repent' (1 S 15^). What is of importance, however, in these representations of God is the general conception which they combine to suggest, viz. the moral Being of (iod. iii. Names of God.

— (1) Some names express the general notion of Deity, as 'El, 'Elo/iim, 'God'; (2) others are descriptive titles applied to Deity, as 'El Shaddai (AV 'God Almiglity'), 'El 'Elijun, 'God Most High'; while (3) from the Exodus, J" is the personal name of the God of Israel. The names El, Elohim, Shaddai, and J' are probably all prehistoric, and their meaning is very obscure. (1) The name EI ('?

><) is the most widely distributed of all names for Deity, being used in Babylonian, Aramaean, Phoenician, Hebrew, and Arabic, particularly southern Arabic. It tliua belongs to the primitive Shemitic speech before it became modified into dialects, though conceivably one or more of the dialects may have retained in use the root with which it is connected, (a) It has been referred to the Heb. root Vm 'to be strong,' of which it would be the ptcp., meaning 'the strong."

(b) Others have referred it to an • OeseniuB. Arab, root 'lU, meaning 'to be in front' (hence auwal, 'first'), 'to govern,' and assigneii to it tlie sense of ' leader.' * This meaning would be more in harmony witli otlier yemitic names for God, such as baal, 'udun 'lord,' mele/c 'king,' etc. It is, liowever, against such derivations, which should give an unchanj;eably long i in el, that the first vowel is short in Bab. 'ilu and in Arab., and changeable in Heb., as "Jit-'^.s.

(c) Some others have suggested a root nSx, eitlier a cognate form to 'ul, ' to he strong,' considering the word an abstract = ' power,' ' might ';t or a word connected with prep, ""jx ' unto,' God being the goal towards which men strive.^ This last meaning is too abstract for a primitive name of Deity, and altogether improbable. No plausible derivation of the term has been suggested. In Heb.

i)rose the word is usually connected with an epithet, as ' the living God ' ('0 Sx), ' the eternal God,' ' God Most High ' ; but in the prophets and poetry it is used alone for 'god' or 'God,' and in a few cases is found in the plur. 'gods.' It has maintained its place all through the language as well as in other dialects in the formation of proper names. Elohim is a plur. of which the sing, is a'l^'K, Aram. 'iMh, Arab, 'ildh (with art. 'al'il&h = 'aU(ih, ' God ').

The sing, is used in poetry (Ps 18, Dt 32), and occasionally in very late prose. It has been contended (a) that the sing, is an artificial form coined from the plur. Elohim ; and (6) that Elohim is really the plur. of el, formed by inserting h, as occasionally happens. But decidedly against (a) is the existence of the similar sing, form in Aram, and Arab., which there is no reason to suppose late ; and against (6) is the fact that it is only in plurals of /em.

form that there is an insertion of h (Syr. plur. shemohin, 'names,' cannot be held primary, as the word ' name ' has fern. plur. in Ileb. and western Aram.) El, too, has Its ovm proper plur. 'elim. The attempt to con- nect the word with 'elali, 'elon, names of trees,§ may be safely neglected. Whether the term 'ildah be connected with 'el, and what its meaning is, remains uncertain. The use of the plur. Elohim is also dilRcult to explain. The plur.

had so ob- tained the upjier hand in usage that tlie more archaic sing, was confined to poetry. Tlie plur. can scarcely be a remnant of polytheism ; the Shemites did not use the general expression ' the fods' for Deity, like Lat. Dii (the Assyr. 'the 8litars' = ' goddesses,' is like Heb. 'the Orions' = 'constellations,' Is 13'"); and the suggestion that the plur.

was first used of the deities of some particular locality II is not without its dilliculties, as usually e,-u;h locality had only one deity. The idea that Elohim expressed the fulness of mights or powers contained in God II is too abstract, apart from the uncertainty whether the sing, meant ' might.' After all, perhaps, the plur. may be easi- est explained as a plur. of eminence, like 'ddoiiim, bi'Ctlim, ' lord,' tHrujihim (1 S 11)'^- '"), and possibly 7i/'i!J'\iim, 'ruler' (Is 3'^). The plur.

a])pears also in Kthiopic 'amid/:, 'God' (unuseil sing, irutlch), and in the Amarna letters the plur. ilAni, ' God,' is used in addressing the Egyptian king. (2) As is the ciu<e with El ami Elohim, the iMcaniu'' of £1 Shaddai is altogether uncertain. Sh'iildin is probably an epithet, as it qualifies El, just .'IS .Elyon, 'Most High,' does. The name is old ((in 4<J-'), and is said hy I' to have been the patriarchal name of God (Gn 17', Ex 6^).

The fanciful derivation "is' ( = *5 %'f<) ' the sulficient ' was perhaps known to LXX (Ivanit, in this sense twice in Ku, thrice in Job, once in Ezk), and al.so the sense 'mighty,' 'almighty' (iirxfpit, ■wavTOKpiruf) in • Noldeke. t IMllmann. S De L»gBnle. I Kajacr- .Marti, AT Theologie, p. 28. I W. H. Smith. H Dlllniann. Job). If derived from np, the name would not mean 'the Almighty,' but 'the destroyer,' signi- fying presumablj' the stormgod, or po.

ssiblj' the scorching sun-god ; if from Aram, tns ' lo pour,' it would have the similar sense of the rain-giver.* Such derivations have little to recommend them. Ecfually far from probability is the conjecture that the word should be read "ip 'my lord' (Arab. sai/yidi).\ In Heb. shedim means 'demons' (Ps lUU^'), and Dt 32" when naming them adds ' no god.' Such a topsyturvy of meaning is a triumph of etymology. Alore recently reference hius been made to the Assyr.

sluidu, 'mountain,' from root 'to be high,' J with the suggestion that Uluidd'ii either means ' mountain ' (cf. zur, ' rock,' as title of God) or has the adjectival sense of 'most high.' The most that can be said is that the meaning ' almighty ' has a certain tradition in its favour. (3) The name Jehovah is also probably an ancient name (Gn 4''"'), though at the Exodus it received a special meaning by being connected with the Heb. verb ' to be.'

(a) '1 he pronunciation 'Jehovah ' has no pretence to be right. The word .ti.t acquired such a sacredness that, in reading, the name 'Hdunfii, 'lord,' was substituted for it;§ hence in M.SS and prints the vowels of 'ddindi were attached to the letters ni,T, and ' Jehovah ' (ijn;) is a condate form with the consonants of one word and the vowels of another. It is not older in date than the time of the Reformation (152U).

(6) The contracted forms in which the name appears suggest that the original form of the word w as .iin; yahweh or yahve (a Greek transliteration is iaji'i). (c) The occurrence of this name or a similar one in Assyr. cannot be regarded as certain. Hommel believes he has discovered in western Shemitic a divine name t, at, otya {e.g. I-zebel, Jezebel), which he considers the original form of the name, the Heb. ni.T being a more modern expansion.

The last part of his conjecture at any rate cannot be considered probable. (d) The word being pre- historic, its derivation must remain uncertain. It has been connected with Arab, hawn, ' to blow' or ' breathe,' J " being the god who is heard in the tempest — the storm-god ; or with the verb hawn, ' to fall ' (Job 37°), in the causative meaning 'the prostrator' — again the lightning-god ; or with Heb. luiyah (old form /uiwak), 'to be' in cau.sative ('make to be'), i.e.

'the creator,' or fuidller of his pro- mises ; and so on. (e) In Heb. writin<; of the historical period the name is connected with Heb. hayah, ' to be,' in the iniperf. Now with regard to this verh, first, it does not mean ' to be' cs.sentially or ontologically, but j)henomenaIly ; and secondjy, the iiiipf. has not the sense of a present ('am ') but of a fut. ('will be'). In Ex 3"'*-, when Moses de- murred to go to Egvpt, God assured him, saying, ■17V .

TriK '3 [euyeu 'immii/c) 'I will bo with thee.' When he a-sked how he should name the God of their fathers to the people, he was told .i;-y V"* '''V {Kinnii 'asher hiiyku). Again he was bidden say, ' •■i;'7!< 'HUYHU hath sent me unto you'; and finally, ' m.T Yauweu, the God of your fathers, haa sent me unto you.'

From all this it seems e\ ident that in the view of the writer "eAi/cA and yah>reh are the same: that God is 'ehyeh, 'I will be,' when speaking of Himself, and i/aliweh, 'he will be,' when spoken of by others. What He will be is left un- expressed— He will bo with them, helper, streng- thener, deliverer.!! The name J" can hardly have been altogether • 80 W. R. Smith. f Nftldoke. I Knl. l)Llitz.»:h, Pn>lfgomma,»i; ilommol, AlIT WO. \ Lv 1:411 • liliu'pticiiml the name' is alrv*dy in L.

\X 'named the nnnie ' Hut lul to Jewijih lQt<'rprctAtioti, cf. l>alauui, i>#r UotU*naint Adttnai, 44 (T. I Uii UiQ wonl aee l)river, 'Tlie Tetra^rramnrntou ' Lb Studia BMiea, Oxf. Iii!i6. new to Israel before their deliverance. A new name wouKl have been in those daj's a new Goil. The name of the motlier of Moses, Yokebctl {Ex G^), contains the word, and, if not among the tribes generally, the name was probably in use in the tribe of Levi, to which Moses belonged.

The view (Tiele, Stade) that Moses became acquainted with the name among the Midianites, into a priestly family of which he had married, has no direct sujipor. in Heb. tradition, liut the people in ligypt had, no doubt, connexions with the desert tribes on the east of them, as the flight of Moses to Midian suggests. The Kenites, the Midianito relatives of Rloses, attached themselves to Israel (Jg 1" 4").

And the Rechabites, wlio originally may also have been Kenites (1 Cli 2"), were fer- vent worshippers of J" (2 K lO""'), and stren»ious ipholders of the severer nomadic ideal of religious ile as against the corruptions which Israel's accept- ince of the Canaanite civUization had introduced. Moses, too, demanded liberty to go ' a three days' journey into the wilderness' to sacrifice to the I ;od of the Hebrews (Ex 3'8 5').

These things at least suggest the question whether the name J" was not kno\vn also in the Sinaitic peninsula (cf. Ex 18", DtS.'-"-, JgS^"-). iv. Idea of God in various Periods.— (1) The ore-Mosaic period. — It has been made a question how much of the narratives regarding the patri- archal ancestors of Israel is history and how much legend.

The stories were written do^vn probably between the middle of the 10th and the middle of the 8th centuries, and it has been argued that they reflect in the main tlie religious ideas of this period. But the historians (J, E) from whom we have them did not invent them, but transcribed tliem from the national consciousness, and they must in any case .eflect the ideas of an age considerably anterior to their own date as literature.

The theory that names like Abraham and Sarah are those of ex- tinct deities is perhaps overcome. But how far the wanderings of Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph, and their relations with other peoples, reflect tribal rather than individual movements, is liable to dispute. It is strange that while Edom, Moab, and the like have all one eponymous ancestor, Israel has three, all most unlike one another. Shall we hold them three distinct ideals?

Or is Abraham the ideal of what Israel should be, and Jacob the type of that which it was? The story of Jacob and his brother Esau has been read as reflecting the historical relations of the peoples Israel and Edom, and their respective characters. If so, the historian who depicted his own people as crafty, unscrupulous, and godly, and their bitterest enemy as the careless, noble, natural man, was a humorous satirist of the highest rank.

Historically, however, his satire must be judged less than just to his own people and more than partial to Edom. Abraham appears a purely personal ligure. He may be transfigured by religious idealism, but the name nmst be traditional.

Apart from the patriarchal histories, sources of information for the condition of prehistoric Israel might be (1) the religious condition of the related peoples, Edom, Moali and Amnion, and Islimael or the Arabs ; and (2) any survivals appearing in post-Mosaic Israel from a lower stage of religion, e.ff. stone, tree, and fountain worship, or rites connected with the dead, the possible remains of ancestor worship.

Unfortunately, our knowledge of the peoples related to Israel belongs to a period loll" after the Exodus, being derived from the Bible or inscriptions. The assumption that the tribes wliich united to form Israel stood at the Exodus on the same religious plane as these peoples has its difficulties.

When we consider the eleva- tion at which eventually Israel stood above these nations we hesitate to fix any historical perijd, particularly so ccpiiipaiatively modern a period as the Exodus, at which thej- must have stood on a level. However powerful and creative the genius of Moses may have been, he did not create a religion, any more tlian he did a nation, out of nothing.

It is usually assumed that these small peoples, such as Edom and Moab, to whicli Israel was related, were henotlieistic, i.e. worshippers of one god to the exclusion of all others. The assump- tion seems without foundation. Moab had a chief god Chemosli, but a nation so polytheistic as Assyria had also a chief god, A.ssliur, and so other nations. A composite god, Aslitar-Cliemosli, is named on the Moabite Stone ; and iis it is only in S. Araliia tliat Aslitar (Alhtar) is jurtsr.

, the deity here allied with Chemosh is probalily Astarte. Neither is it certain that tlie Baal of I'eor or of Meon was Chemosh. Mount Nebo may also be named from the god. Various deities also appear among the Edoniites, as ^aush or IJos and l;Cuzah. The personal names Hadad, Baal-hanan, Malikram* are all tlieophorous. And Dusares (Dhu-sliSliara, ' lord of Sliara ') was worshipped at Petra, though this may have been later.

t And, of course, the Arabs in addition to a number of gods had the three great goddesses (the daugliters of 'AllAh), al LAt (al-il/xhnt, ' the goddess ' of the sun), al 'Uzza (' the powerful,' possibly the Venus star), and ManOt ('fate,' 'fortune,' rixv, cf. Mciii, Is 65"). A monolatrous Shemitic people is not discoverable in the historic period. The territorial position of peoples like Moab and Edom exposed them greatly to influence from neighbouring n.ations.

The name Hnd'id in Edom may suggest Arama'an influence, and Ashlar in Moab the influence of the Canaanites ; but the occurrence of the latter name in a royal document like the inscription of Mesha implies that the worship of Ashtar was national. If tliese small peoples be supposed to have been originally monolatrous, their history exhibits a degeneration and movement towards polj'theism.

\Vhile the fundamental ideas of Deity may be presumed to have been similar among all the Shemitic peojiles, if they could be ascertained, the complete diflerence in the divine names current among the.se small nations and in Israel suggests a [jrolonged period of separate religious development, and renders any comparison of their religion with that of Israel at the Exodus barren of results. Certain usages are supposed to point to ancestor worship anion" the Hebrews.

The teraphim, a term completely obscure, have usually been con- sidered household gods ; though liouseliold gods need not necessarily be images of ancestors. In one passage the teraphim appear in a house (1 S jgi3. 16) . j„ others they are represented as placed in temples (Jg 17° IS", Hos 3^). Laban calls them his 'gods ' (Gn 31'") ; that they were of human form or size can hardly be inferred from 1 S It). Teraphim are usually coupled with Ephod (wh.

see), and in Israel were certainly used in consulting J" and gaining oracles from Him (Hos 3^), though their use is condemned (1 S \S^). Nebuchad- nezzar also used them to obtain an oracle from his gods (Ezk 212'). xhat the ' Elohim ' to which the servant was to be brought who desired to remain for ever with his master (Ex 21') was a family idol, X is wholly improbable from the con- text.

The practice of cutting off the hair in mourning for the dead was probably a softening of the former more extravagant custom of tearing out the hair. § The practice seemed perfectly . • Baethgcn, Beitriige, 11 £f. ; Buhl, Gaeh. der Edmniter, 47fl. t Wellh., Reste-,i9. t Schwallv. Lcben nach dem Tode. 37. § Wellli., '/(citfS, 182. Thepassage Jer415|iho»^<hat'outting one's flesh (Lv 1928, jer 16" 47'), whatever it originally meant was then merely a token of excessive grief. Of.

Hos 71 GOD GOD 201 harmless to the propliets (Is 3= 15', Mic 1"), tlioiifjh forbidden later (Dt 14', Lv 21") ; but the prohibition may repose on the feeling that the rile was characteristic of a relifjion alien to that <>i J."

If Dt SO" mean that food was oU'ered to the dead, such an ottering was not of the nature of a sacrifice, but merely an expression of the feeling which the mourner strove to cherish that tlie departed were not dead, as appears from a multitude of passages in Arab, poetry. The mourner cried to the dead, ' Be not far ' ! though he had to answer himself, ' Nay, every one tliat is beneath the ground is far' ! (yama.sa, 373).

When two friends visited the grave of tlieir comrade, and drinking each his cup of wine poured the third upon tiie grave, they only gave tlieir friend his share as if he were alive (IJam. 3!)S). There is no evidence that the dead were thought dangerous, and rtniiiring to be placated iiy ollerinL;s.

The name ' Kloliim ' bestowed on the spectre of Samuel (1 S 2fi") is strange, but the single instance can hardly sutiice to prove that the dead in general were regarded as 'Elohim'; all other statements regarding the dead, the name rtphdim given to them, and tlie fact that the 'obs twittered and muttered and spoke low out of the jncand (Is 8" 29^), indicate that they were regarded <is anything but powerful ' gods.'

* Certain things, such as Jacob's vision at Bethel (Gn 28), and names like the ' Oak of Moreh ' ('the oracle,' Gn 12''), the 'Oak of tlie soothsayers' (Jg yF), have been thought remains of the animistic stage of religion still surviving in the historical period. Certainly, the names Baal 'lord,' Mclek Jlil/c, Milcum ' king,' al Lat ' the goddess,' all show that the stage of promiscuous or general animism, if it ever existed, had long been overpast by all the Shemitic peoples.

But to primitive minds the difficulty of realizing a deity apart from a local abode or some form would be great, and it was natural to localize the gud in some fertile spot, grove or evergreen tree, or fountain of living water, where his beneficent operation was most perceptible. Why great or prominent blocks of stone should have been regarded as liis dwelling- place is more obscure.

At a later period men perhaps invited the presence of the deity by erecting pillars, mazzchotli, or artificial trees, 'ashiiit, when the natural objects were not at hand. This difficulty of realizing a deity without abode and apart from some form e.xplains the use of images, jiarticularly when consulting him for an oracle, and it explains also the erection of a 'hou.se' fur the god. The difficulty wius felt all through the history of Israel : at the E.

xodus (l-2x 32), in the time of the Judges (Jg' 8^- 17"), and much later (Is 2"), as it has been felt in large sections of the Christian Church. The Ark, to which the presence of J" was attached, relieved the dilliculty without representing J" under anj' form. Wlien a hou.se was built in which J" was present, the .-\rk lost its significance and disappeared. The Epliod, whatever it was [Ei'HOu], was used when an oracle was sought.

In David's days its use was held legitimate (IS 21" 23"), afterwards it dis- appears from the legitimate eultus. r'rom the Kxodus J"'s revelation of Himself was given, and men's tlioughts of Him suggested through the national history. He showed what He was in great deeds rather than declared it in words, lie was le.ss the God of nature than of human history.

Even when He performed wonilers in nature it was nsually in connexion with the life of the people and for nioial ends, but in history His hi};lier ethical attributes and pur)ioses received direct illustration. Further, His operat ions being on tlie stage of Israel's • Airuinst the construction put by Schwftlly on Jer KT, •«• 0l0Ml>riilit, Jerrm., and l>riv»r, Dnil. an;.

national history, were much more conspicuous and easily read than they would have been if p-jrformed in the life of individuals. His delivejance of the nation from Egypt revealed Hisiiowerand redemp- tive goodness on a scide that left an impression never ellaced from the heart of the people. His destruction of the nation, predicted by the prophet* and fulfilled, taught once for all that He was the righteous God and moral Ruler of the nations.

The religious development of Israel is virtually a development in the idea of God. As God was the only force in the world, particularly in human history, when a crisis occurred in history some con- ception of God had to be called in to explain it ; and when mysterious problems arose in the national or individual life, the problem was immediately rellcctcd back upon God, and became one in regard to His nature or action. In Israel the religious progress appears in the form of a condict.

And if a conflict implies lower elements and conceptions, it also implies a higher element which was con- scious of the lower, and strove either to eject it or transform it. Such a transmuting force existed in Israel from the beginning, producing the results which mankind now inherit. This force may be identified with the moral in the conception of J". Mere progress in itself does not dcciile that the projjress was natural or supernatural.

(Jur con- victions in regard to this point will be formed rather from our contemplation of the results eventually achieved, from contrasting these re- sults with those attained anywhere else, and from the trust we place in the consciousness of the prophets and leaders of Israel w ho felt that they were ins^iired.

In a gen-«ral way the religious history ot Israel may be divided into three periods, in each of which the conflict resulted in a clearer conception of God, or of J" the God of Israel : — (a) The period from the Exodus to the revolution of Jehu. — The revolution of Jehu jnit its ;.eal on the life-work of Elijah ; it gave riatiuiial oxprosioii to his demand : ' If J" be God, follow him' (1 K 18"').

To the mass the struggle probably appeared an external one between two names, two deities ; and it issued in the acceptance of the one. The numerical oneness of God was recognized. To Elijah and others the question was not one of numerical unity only, but also of moral nature. {Ij) The prophetic period. — The conflict resulting in the recognition of J" as God alone, at least in Israel, was followed by one more inward.

Though Baal as another than J ' was set aside, B;uil had incorjiorated himself in J". Now, the conflict waji not between J" and another, it was an internal one between J" and Jehovah-Baal, be- tween two conceptions of Him — the popular and i the prophetic.

In the popular conception J" was still mainly their national gml, the god of the land, giver of its corn and wine, and wh'ise most pleasing service was sacrifice and olloring ; w Idle to the pro]ihets He wivs a purely ethical Being, elevated far above the people, the righteous Itulcr, to whom material oflerings were inappreciable, and whose .service could be nothing but a righteous life. What proportion existed between the jiro- plietic party and the more backward popular mass cannot be known.

The projihets now broke with the people as a whole, a.s they believed J" had broken with it and deterniineil to destroy it. In earlier times prophets had broken only with par- ticular dynasties and threatened them with ilcstruo tion. But there was no diflerem-e in principle l)etween the earlier and the canonical prophets ; the groumls on which J' rejected a dyniusty and tiio people were alike moral (I IC 22). A liun<lre<i vi-ars l)efore the time of the canonica! proi)het.

s, iilijah by his words, 'the children of Israel httVb forsaken thy covenant,' and by his flight to Horcb, 202 GOD GOD oxjiressed his I.eeling that the breach was now one between J " and tlie puuple. Yet the bleach was not absolute or linal. Isaiuli's coiieoi>tion of tlie Keinnant appears lUready in Elijah's days : ' I will leave nie TUUO men in Israel '(IK 19"*).

The de- struction of the state, foretold by the proiihets, verilied the prophetic conception of J ": He was the riy:hteous Kuler of tlie nations. It verilied also their judgment upon the past religious life of the people. (f) From the destruction of the State onward. — The prophetic principles regarding J" had been conspicuously illustrated in the national history : J " was God alone ; He was righteous ; His nature was inscribed in letters of fire across the people's life and experience.

But being written on the national history, these principles were as yet, to the individual mind, rather abstract. They were schematic, diagrammatic, seen to be true on the great scale and inteUectually, hardly yet felt to De true in the experience of the indi- vidual. They had to be assimilated into the per- sonal experience, equated by reflection with the condition of the world, the state of the people, the life of the individual.

The process raised great problems, all of which became problems about God. (o) J" was God alone and righteous, yet He took no pains to assert Himself against the world. He slept ; the throne of the universe seemed vacant ; the nations knew Him not, and wrought unchecked their cruelties on the earth.

(/3) So, too, Israel was His people ; they possessed the truth ; His cause and theirs was one ; because the eternal truth was in their heailis they were righteous as against the world, but all appeals to His tribunal were vain ; their passionate cries that He would arise and plead their cause, and their passionate hopes, ' he is near that will justify me,' only ex- pired on the air.

(7) And in like manner the individual pined away solitary and deserted : ' Mine eyes fail while I wait for my God ' ( Ps 69^). More daring spirits like Job rose in rebellion : the throne of the world was not vacant, it was tilled by an Immorality ; the human conscience rose, and, proclaiming itself greater than He, deposed Him from His seat. The OT closed leaving these conHicts still undecided, though not without etl'orts towards a reconciliation.

The people found a peace in hope and the future, and endured as seeing Him who is invisible. The individual spirit, too, caught glimpses of a future beyond the borders of this life, and in the ecstasy of faith could say, ' I know that I shall see God.' A few in their lottiest moments were able to bring the reconciliation into the present and feel it if not think it. Though J" was seen in the world and in events, He was not exhausted by them, He stood above them and apart.

The mind, too, was its o^vn place, it could detach itself from its external conditions. And thus J" and the soul had fellowship, through no medium, spirit with spirit — ' Nevertheless I am continually with thee ' ( Ps 73=^). (2) The Exodus to the revolution of Jehu. — From the Exodus onward J" was the God of Israel. People and prophets were at one in this.

Israel never had any other native God but J" ; if por- tions of the people declined to the service of the local Baals, J" was always the national God, and a conscience ■vvithin the people constantly recalled them to His service.

From Hosea downwards writers are in the habit of stigmatizing the corrupt worship of J" at the hijjh places as Baal worship, — as no doubt in principle it was, — but probably strict idolatry, in the sense of worship of other gods than J", was never very widespread either in the north or south, though towards the decline of the Judsan state various Eastern idolatries were practised by some classes of the people.

That J" was God of Israel was the faith of all, though the faith might mean dillerent things to dill'erent minds, or among dill'erent cla.sses. To some it might mean merely that .1" was Israel's national God as other peoples had also their gods (Mic 4') ; to others it might nie.'in somethiii'' higher. A Shemitic mind might rise to general conceptions very slowly ; and while practically J " was the only God to him, the theoretical notion that He was God alone might not have occurred to him.

It perhaps needed that internal conlliet which arose through the slowness of the popular mind, and that outward collision with idolatrous nations which occurred in the days of the great i)rophet8 to bring the unity of God to speculative clearness. Heb. tradition places the Decalogue at the begin- ning of Israel's national development, and the prophets by their references to the moral Turah as known to the people from the first, but ' for- gotten'by them, appear to follow the tradition.

Aloses is everywhere regarded as a prophet, and probably his teaching, like that of the prophets, consisted (apart from his lofty conceptions of God) in the main of social and civil ethics. Though the first commandment does not say that J' is God alone, the negative element, ' Thou shall have no gods before me,' is without a parallel in the history of religions. J" was a jealous God. Why was He jealous? Jealousy is the reaction of one's self- consciousness agamst a wrong done him.

What was the idea held of J" when it was thought His consciousness of Himself would feel other gods beside Him intolerable? If the Decalogue be Mosaic, there was virtual monotheism in Israel since the Exodus, though it might be only among the higher minds, and more latent than conscious. And that which made J" unic|ue at least, if not alone, was His moral being. A\ riters of all schools are agreed that ethical elements entered into the conception of J ' from the beginning.

There was at least on His nature a crescent of light, which waxed till it overspread His face, and He was light with no darkness at all. When Moses sat judging the people, dispensing right and justice in the name of their God, it could not but appear to the people that He was a God of righteousness. It has been contended that in subsequent history J" some- times displayed ' unaccountable humours,' that is, moods of mind and a kind of action not reducible under the moral idea.

The arguments for this are not quite cogent. At all events, Israel entered upon national existence with two articles of faith : that J " was their God alone, and that in His Being He was moral, the imijcrsonation of Right and Kighteousness. And emotional energy was given to these two articles by the consciousness of having been redeemed by their God.

Behind the people's national life lay the consciousness of redemption as much as it lies behind the life of the Christian, Israel's self, consciousness as a nation was virtually identical with its consciousness of J", its God. J", indeed, was all in all, the people little else than the medium through which He displayed Himself. The old anthology recording Israel's conflicts with the nations is called ' The Book of the Wars of J"' (Nu 21").

Meroz is cursed, because it came not ' to the help of J" ' (Jg 5^). The people's victories are ' the righteous acts of J", the righteous acts of His rule in Lsrael ' (Jg 5"). The furore of enthusiasm for J" in the song of Deborah reflects back light on the Exodus and the work of Moses.

The conceptions regard- ing J" found in the oldest literature dilier Tittle from those of the prophetic age and subsequent times, except that they are less broadly expressed, (a) The dwelling-place of J" was often at least conceived as superterrestrial. He ' came down ' to see the tower which men did build (Gn 11°), and to discover if the wickedness of Sodom corre GOD GOD 203 sponded to the cry against it (18"'), and Ha rained fire on the cities of the iihiiu from J" ' out of heaven' (19").

To Mo8es lie said He had come down to save His people (Kx 3'). But, thougli heaven was His throne, He manifested Himself over all the earth, — to Abraham in Ur and Canaan ; to Jacob in Mesopotamia, to whom He also said, ' Fear not to go down to E!,'ypt ; I will go down with thee ' (Gn 46*) ; to Moses at Sinai and in Egypt ; to His peoi>le, going before them into Canaan (Ex 33").

There, though His presence was specially attached to the Ark, He also revealed Himself to Joshua as the captain of the Lord's hosts (Jos 5"), and by His spirit He ruled the people, raising up judges, inspiring Saul and David. (6) As to His relation to nature, it is said in the oldest Creation narrative that He made heaven and earth, and all the creatures, as well as man (Gn 2).

On the highest scale He commands nature, sending a universal flood upon the earth, opening the windows of heaven and breaking up the fountains of the great deep (Gn 7). By some convulsion of nature He 'over- throws' the cities of the plain (Gn 19). Before Joslnia He made the sun and moon stand still in the sky (Jos 10'-) ; and at His command the stars tight in their courses against Siscra (Jg .")■"). All eartlily and heavenly forces obey Him.

He caused an east wind to blow, and rolled back the sea (Ex 14-') ; He brought locusts on Egypt ( 10'*), and tiirncil tiho river into blood (7'°) ; He sent hail and (iie C.)-^) and darkness (10, ). In the days of Ahab lie scourged the land three and a half years with a drought (1 IC 17'), and in the time of David devastated the people with a pestilence (2 S 24").

(( ) In the early literature Israel had not yet entered greatly into relation with the nations ; the teaching ot Scripture regarding J"'3 rule of the nations lirst appears in the prophets when the great Assyrian and Babylonian empires came upon tlie stage of the world's history. But the same conceptions appear in the earlier literature as in tlic later. J" showed His power over Egypt when He brought out the people with a high hand, slew the Urstborn, and overwhelmed the army in the sea.

He drove out the nations before Israel, and gave David his victories over Aram auvi l:.e peoples around. In Israel itself He is the Living God and Ruler. His angel leads the hosts of Joshua and Barak. The government of the people is in His hand. When in early times a crisis arises. He raises up a judge to save the ueople ; when the old order changes.

He elects Saul to the throne ; and when the age of conflict is over and an era of peaceful development is inaugurated, He ' builds an house ' for David, making his dynasty perpetual. Human leaders are but the form in which J" clothes His own etliciency, for it is His spirit animating them that makes them heroes and saviours, such as were the judges and Saul. The spirit of J" is J" exercising etliciency.

And though tliis etliciency is most visible in the ex- ternal rule of the people it operates also in the sphere of thought, raising up pro|)hets and Nazir- itcs. The external and the inward often go hand in hand, as when David made Jerusalem the spiritual as well as political capital of the king- dom, and when jirupliets of the Lord like Nathan and (iad heciinie his advisers, (rf) J"'s rule of the world and of His |>eople is mural.

For his sin Adam forfeited Eden ; for their wickedness man- kind were drowned by a flood, and the cities of the plain overthrown. Ahab's sin wius chastised by a drought, and David's by a pestilence. The histories being so greatly public annals, little is said of the rehition of j'' to the individual.

But such histories aa those of Sarah, Hacliel, and Hannah indicato how closely connected J" was thought to be with family life ; and such narra- tives as the covenants between Jacob and Laban (Gn 31""), Abraham and Abimelech (21, " ), Joshua and the Gibeonitcs (Jos 9'"), show how He entered into the common life of men. That J"'8 treatment of the individual was considered moral everywhere appears, e.g.

the brethren of Joseph (Gn 42-"'-), Korah (Nu 16*"'-), Achan (Jos 7'"), Hoplini and Phinehas (1 S 3"), Ahab (1 K 21^'-). In Ex 3?" J" says, ' Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.' And in narrating the death of Abimelech, tile very ancient historian says, 'Tluis (Jod reijuited the wickedness of Ahiiuelecli whicli he did unto his father' (Jg 9"- "). And on reward of righteousness, comp. David's words, 1 S 20^ ' The Lord render to every man his righteousness.' Cf.

2 S 2', 1 K 18'2"-. And, linally, (c) the idea of J"'s foresight and predetermination is illustrated in the protevangelium (Gn 3"- "), in the covenant promises to Abraham (Gn 15), in the destinie- appointed for Jacob and Esau (25'-^ 27^"- *""•), and in the place and character predicted for the children of Jacob (Gn 49).

The earlier part of the period from the Exodus to the fall of the house of Omri was a time oi warfare with external enemies till J" gave His people rest under David ; and it has been thought that the name '■/" of Busts,' or fully, 'J", God "J Hosts ' (mxjs ■nS.x '•), may have arisen durins; this time of conllict^th^ ' hosts ' being those of Israel. It is strange that tfle name is not found in the Hex., appearing in Samuel, and particularly in the prophets.

It is possible that the title had some concrete origin such as is suggested, ami that it did not originally refer to the hosts of heaven, whether stars or angels, nor to the general cosmic forces of the universe. In the prophets, however, there is certainly no reference to the hosts of Israel.

Between the time of the battle-cry, ' the sword of the Lord and of Gideon ' (Jg 7^), and the words of Isaiah, 'In returning and rest shall ye be saved ' (Is 3u"), a world hail passed away and a new one arisen. The ancient name 'J" of Hosts' wa.s used as the loftie>t name for J", suggesting His royal majesty and inlinite power ; but in all likelihood the prophets used the name as a single title without analyzing it, and never a-sking themselves wbal the 'hosts' were.

J" of Hosts means God of the universe.* ■ (3) The Prophetic period. — J' was pre-eminently the God of human history, and it wits in thuii history that the peoi)le learned to know Hiin. The stages through which the history ran led tin- people's thoughts ever mor<» from the external to the inward in J". First, the victories He gave tlieni at the Exodus, at the entrance into Camuin, and in David's days, revealed the might of J'.

Then, their defeats in after days, and the dis,solution of the state, gave them a sight into His inward being. No prophet or writer ever attributed Israel's disasters to the might of the nations or their gods ; they wore due to J' their God Himself. They were cliiu*ti.sements, revealing His mural being. And Hnally, in the depression that lay on them from the Exile, never uplifted, they learneil I" tran.scend both history and external condition^, and to know J" as a spiritual fellowship.

Tln-y were ever with Him (Ps 73"). They were satislicd with His likeness (I's 17"); J' was God of the spirits of all llcsh (Nu Ui, ' '27"). His alflictions had already enabled Jeremiah to reach this stage, in whom we see prophecy liansligiircd into piety. Under Solomon, Israel entered into the circle ot civilized nations. His father David was a fervent Jehovist ; fervour was scarcely characteristic ol himself in any direction. As lie built liousea foi • 8«r Kuutnch, ZA W. 183« ; PRIf a.

' ZoImoUi ■ : Boichf rt, SK. ismi the ^'oils of the neighbouring peoples among whom ho found his wives, he cannot have been a U>gical liionollieist. Neither was Aliab this even a buiuired jears hiter, though there is no evi- dence, but the reverse, tliat lie abandoned the worship of J". The century after Solomon wit- nessed the complete absorption of the native popu- lation ; but if Israel subdued the Canaanites, it was in turn conquered by them.

It inherited t'luir civilization, but the lieritage included a legacy of debased moral conceptions and practices. J' took possession of the native shrines, and so became God of the land ; but as He was wor- shipped where the liaals had been before, to many He might seem not unlike them. The confusion was increased by the fact that the name baal, i.e. 'lord,' was applied to J".* Processes had been going on for long of which we have no clear acc<iunt.

It was in a way a fortunate thing that Ahab introduced the worship of the Tyvian Baal. It brought matters to a pass, and awoke men to see what was at stake. The persecution of the J" party was no doubt caused by their oiiposition, for Ahal) was no propagandist. Thougli Elijah was the spokesman of the party, he had a wide move- ment behind him. Obadiah, the chamberlain, hid 100 prophets of J" in caves (1 K I8<). The dis- aH'ection had invaded the army.

When the people ' linii)ed between two opinions' (18'-'), it was a struggle between their own convictions and the influence of the court. Some Indeed, like the Ivechaliites, were more radical, seeing in the Baal worship only a feature of the Canaanite civiliza- tion accepted by Israel, which they would have swept away, returning to the ancient ideal of a nomadic life.

And Hosea appears to express a similar sentiment when he says that J" shall allure Israel into the wilderness and give her her vineyards from there (2"-"). At last the spirit of revolt embodied itself in Jehu, and swept away the house of Oniri and Baal together. J" stood with no rival. It was a great though only an external victory. The scene of conflict now changes to the nature of J" Himself, and the conflict is waged by the canonical prophets.

The projiliets taught nothing new about J",t though, with history as their lesson-book, they taught many things more clearly. And to many who had been blind to J'"s operations in the past, what they taught may have seemed strange ami even incredible. Each prophet has some special truth about J" to declare, and the truth is per- haps a reflection of his own kind of mind.

But as the separate colours combine to form the pure light, all their separate truths unite to reveal the full nature of J", for it takes many human minds to make up the divine mind. The prophets, like their predecessors, are, first of all, seers ; their function is to foresee and predict ; their teaching about the nature of J" only sustains their pre- dictions. The simultaneous rise of four men such as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, each inde- pendent of all tlie others, is a mystery.

Amos says, 'The Lord God doeth nothing without r>!vealing his counsel to his servants the pro- phets' (3"). But the revelation was probably in some way me<liated. Did the prophet's ear catch distant sounds of movements among the nations, unheard by other ears ? or was it their thought of J", ever becoming more powerful and engrossing, that led them to project the calamitous future ? Probably it was both combined.

It is usually argiied that the prophets reached their mono- theism along the line of the ethical conception * This may be inferred from the fact that names compounded with Baal occur not only in Saul's but in David's family. Cf »liO !Ios 21«. See, DOW, W"llh. In u. Jiid. Geschichte, 110. of J"; from being the L'nii|ue One J" became llu Only One. Possibly their iiiimls nmved along several lines.

The prophets of the Slh cent, do not formally ilcclare J" to be God alone, though they silently ignore all other gods ; it is only in the age of i)t and in that of Deutero- Isaiah that J"'s solo Godhead is directly expressed.

It is now a common-place to say that Amos taught that J" is absolute Uigliteousness, the impersonation of the moral idea ; that moral evil alone is sin ; and that the only service J ' desires is a righteous life (though Amos also teaches that J" is good and compassionate, i'-"'- 7'") ; and that Hosea represents ,J ' as unchanging Love, which no ingratitude of His people can weary or alienate (though Hosea does not forget the righteousness of J", 2'"); and that to Isaiali .

1" is the tran- scendent Sovereign and unive^^.■ll Lord (though he, too, recognizes the fatherl3' goodness and nurture of J", 1^ S'"-). Isaiah exjire-sses his conception in the term kddush, of which 'holy' is a very im- perfect rendering. 'Holiness' is not primarilv a moral quality, it is the expression of (iodhcad in the absolute sense. ' The Holy One of Israel ' is a paradox, meaning that the transcendent God has become God of Israel.

Isaiah in one thought goes beyond his predecessors (but see Hosea) : he insists on religiousness — t\ia,t,t\\ec(j>is(:iousncss of J 'should be ever present in the mind. The want of this consciousness, insensibility to the Lord the King, failure to recognize Him in the events of history and human life, — this is sin (1™-)- And it is the cause of all sin, of the levity of human life (o'-), and the self-exaltation both of men and nations (2»«- 9" 10'=).

The prophetic ideas form but half their teaching, the gieater half lies in their own life and personal relation to God. Taken as a whole, the prophetic teaching amounts to the full ethicizing of the conception of J''. And the moral is of no nationality ; it transcends nation- ality, and is human. The righteous God is God universal, over all.

The principles of the human economy have at last clearly reflected themselves in the consciousness of the jirophets, and human history is seen to be a moral process. And the idea naturally suggested the other idea of the issue of the process, the eschatology, which is the realizing of perfect righteousness in the world of mankind (Is 1^ 9'). The movement of the prophetic thought towards universalism wa-s aided by the entrance of the great empires of Assyria and Babj'lon on the stage of history.

This gave them a new idea, that of the world ; it created a new antithesis, J" and the world ; an<l it opened a new realm for the rule of the King', all the nations of the earth. Univers.-ilisni is moat broadly taught in Deulero-Isaiah ; hut there it is a theological deduction from the unity of God. J" is God alone, the first and the last, initi- ating all movements and leading them to their issue ; and His salvation shall be to the ends of the earth (496).

The loftiest thoughts of God expressed in Scripture are found in JoIj and iJeut.- Isaiah.

In the latter writer all the o]ieralions and attributes of J" are combined to sustain the faith that he is Redeemer of Israel and Saviour of all mankind, — His creation of the earth (45"*-) and man (42"), His call of Lsrael to be His servant and revelation of Himself within it (42'-« 45"'-«' 49'""), and its Kestoration (49™- 50"'-),^all these are in order that all the ends of the earth may look unto Him and be saved (ib"" 49« 51^*). (4) From the Exile onwards. — Attributes.

— In the last period of Israel's history new conceptions of Goil hardly emerge. The period was rather one of assimilation of the prophetic teaching into the individual mind and experience. What the pro phets had taught of the nature of J' the pro ■, of Ilii GOD GOD 203 puipose, and particularly of the eschatolorical issues of His purpose, formed the subject of re- flection, and eflbrta were made to verify it in experience.

The eli'orts, as lias been said, raised problems which, if they batllud solution, led to a more inward knowledge of God (Ps 73"'"'). The problems were mainly three : God and the world ; God and Israel H is people ; and God and the life and destiny of the individual (see aliove). Perhaps in tliis pjriod fuller and more formal expression is given to the attributes of God. But ft ilelailed account of the divine attributes is of little moment or worth. When the idea is reached that (!

od is a transcendent moral Person, it is but a matter of deduction or analysis to tabulate His attributes, for 'moral' embraces not only right- eousness, but goodness, love, anil comjiassion. In earlier times J" revealed His nature in actions which illustrated some one of His attributes.

The very surprising ancient passage Ex 34"'-, in which J" proclaimed His name, that is, His whole being, left little to be added later : ' Jehovah, Jehovah God, merciful and gracious, long-sull'ering, and abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniiiuity, and transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.'

In later times two causes contri- buted to a more frequent reference to the attributes of God : frst, the tendency to reflection on His nature and on His historical operations, and their religious meaning. This tendency appears in Ezk, and Deutcro-Isaiah, and downwards. The latter prophet is fond of turning God's creative and liistorical acts (43") into attributes ; and thus His relation to the world as Creator becomes the basis and guarantee of His rel.ation to it as Saviour (451811.

jf (;jjg cosmic christology of St. Paul's later Epp. ). And, ser.oiuUy, when the people wrestled with their God over their adverse destiny and hojics deferred, calling to mind His wonders of old (Ps 77", and the historical Pss), and the 'sure mercies' promised to David (Pss 89.

132), and appealing to Him not to be far (Ps 22), to make no tarrying, but shine forth for their salva- tion and stir up His might, they naturally often dwell on His attributes, for prayer is mostly calling to God's mind that which He is. Yet, however varied the emotions be in these psalms, in contents they hardly go beyond the jirayers of Moses (Ex 32""-, Nu U'^"-, Dt O-^"-). The ethical being of J" in combination with His attributes of omni.

science and oniiiiiiresenco is very profoundly realized by the author of Ps 139. (On special points in the various attributes see the separate articles). The OT can scarcely be used as authoritj' for the existence of distinctions within the (iodhcad. The use of ' us ' by the divine speaker (Gn !•* 3'-"^ 11') is strange, but is perhaps due to His conscious- ness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (IsC). Some other things are suggestive, if nothing more.

The angel of J" is at once identical with J" and yet dillerent from Him. In Ezk and later prophets there is a movement towards hypostiitizing tlie Spirit of God (see AXOEL). The 'word' of God is sometimes ipoken of as if it had an objective existence, and possessed a native power of realizing it.self. The 'wisd:;ni'of God in some pas.sages is no more an attriliute of Goil, but a iieisoiiilication of His thouglit.

In Pr 8 ' wisdom ' is God's world-plan or conception, the articulated framework of the universe as a moral organism. Its creation is the first movement of the divine mind outward. lieing pro"ecteil outside of the mind of God, it becomes the suhjectof His own contem|ilation ; it is ' with' God. It is also His architect in creation, for creation is only the divine wisdom realizing itself.

And as one work of creation arises after another embodying it, its self-realization is as if it ' played ' before J", and this play of self-expression was most joyous in the moral economy of man (cf. Jn 1'-^ tph 3», Col l'«- "). Whethe'r the '8er^•ant of the Loud' be a true being, or only a conception personilied into a lieing, he may be delined as the word of God incarnated in the seed of Abraham.

And if even the loftiest Messianic conceptions of the OT remain short of the idea that God ' became ' man, yet in Is 9'-' J " is manifested in the fulness of His being in the Messianic King (cf. chs. 7. 11). LlTERATURB.— The OT Thenlogitt ; yatkc, Relvjion drt All. Tests. Is:i5; Kuenen, Heliijiun (//7»ro<i (trans.), 1S74, Xatiunal arid tVurld VWyioiui (Ilibbcrt Lecl.), 1SS2 ; Duliin, Tlieu'.itiU der f'rophrten, 1S7.T ; Nestle, Di^ 1st.

Kvjrnnam^n (also divine names), 1870 | Baudissin,5fwrfi#nzwr5ir/m/. Rflvjionni-iticlivhU, 187<>-7a ; Koni{^, llanptproitleme der altUr. lWl\>jvjn»j'-»>:h, lSi4 ; Stade, G'lV, lsb7 ; Kittel, //(<(. o/ the //fir««'< (trans. ) ; IJaethj^cn, BritriKje zor Srmit. Iieliifi>,itjf-jesch. 1SS8 ; Montt-rtort-, Lectures on lietvi. of the Uel/rewg (lUh\»^Tl I^eot.), 18;*:i ; Sni'-iid, Lehrtntch der A'l^ lielujionggetich. 1893; W. It. Sniitll, /t.y-, l5:(4; J. Robertson, The Early Helig.

0/ Iisraei^, 1890 ; Tiele, (>Vj.Wi. J. r Beli/iion (CJemi. tran.s.), 189^96 ; Jevons, An Intrnductum t.i the Uuttiriiof ilelvjiim, 1896; Seltin, Beitrage zur Igr. und .Jitt. Jielvjwiu{<tejteh.lfiiity-97 ; Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbnrh il.r lieli'jioiisriegc/t.^ (p. 242 ff. 'Relit;, of Israel," by Valeton), 1M)7 ; Wellhau.sen. Israet, u. Jitdische Geschic/tte^, 1897, I{est<: Arti^'- ischen Ueidenluweg (Skizzen iii.), 1S87, ed. 2, 1897 ; Oltlev, Aspects 0/ the OT (Bampton Lect.)

, 1897 ; Hominel, ABT, 1897. A. B. Davidson. GOD (IN NT).*— The main object of this art. must be to draw in broad outline the doctrine of God in the NT, so as to show more particularlj' what new elements are added, and what old elements are specially developed or empha,sized. The details of the subject may be left to the special arts., but it is important to mark distinctly those points in which NT presents an advance upon OT.

With this object in view, our inquiry will naturally follow some such lines as these — I. TK.S'bF,N'CIKS OP CONTKMPOBARY JUDAISM. 1. Monism. 2. Trans^;endence. 3. Particularist Limitationa IL Tbachinu of NT. 1. Attributes of Ood- (i.) Fatherhood, (ii.) Love, (iii.) Righteousneaa. 2. Revelation of God- (i.) Throui,-li the Son. (ii.) Through the Holy Ohort. S. Distinctions in the Godhead, (i.) The Father and the Son. (ii.) The Holy Ghost. I. Tendkncih.s of Contemporary Judaism.

— It is imjio-ssible not to be impressed by the intense and passionate loyalty of Jews to the idea of (iod as they conceived that it had been handed down to them. The reiaidiation of idolatry could not have been more complete. It was this uncompromising monotheism which formed at once the larfjest and the purest element in the antipathj- which tlie Jews felt for the heathen world, and in their impatience of its domination.

The well-known instance of Caligula's attempt to set up his statue in the temple shows how the whole nation was stirred to its depths bv the threat of such a sacrilege (Philo, Lc<7. ad Gaium, §§ 32-43; Jos. Ant. xvill. viii. '2-9, ijJ II. X. 1-3). And smaller incident-, like the hewing down of the golden eagle from the gate of the temple under Her<Kl {Ant. XVII. vi. 2, BJ I. xxxiii. "2-4), and that of Pilate and the shields (.•lH^ Will. iii. 1, JIJ II. ix. 2.3; Philo, ar/ G. § :!

S), illustrate the jealousy with which the slightest approach of heathen profanation was resisted. Christian apologists have often done scant justice to the intensity of this faith, which was utterly disinterested and capable of magnilicent self- ♦ Tlie writ4'r of this portion of the art. very much n-inet" thai he liiu not hod the advantu^ of ■«olui{ tiiu provioua |urtio« lH>forc writing. eacrifice.

Those who believe most firmly that the Christian creed is an advance upon it are yet bound to recognize that it formed the base, broad and deep, on which that creed has been built. Judaism with all its faults and with all its cor- ruptions was yet the religion of the Chosen People. However imperfectly it embodies the leading principles of rsalmists and Prophets, it yet had those principles l)ehind it.

It made great mistakes in the estimate and in the interpretation of its own past, but these very mistakes would seem to have been honest, and in the first instance at least mis- takes of the head rather than of the heart. A Christian cannot afford to misjudge or under- value the better elements in Judaism, even in that branch of Judaism which rejected Christianity.

At the same time he cannot help seeing certain weak points in it — points in which it demanded improvement, and which it has been one of the great results of the coming of Christ to improve. This holds good even of one of its best features, its doctrine of God. And that in three respects. 1. 3fONISit. — It was of the essence of the Jews' belief that God is One. The Jew repeated solemnly every day the words of Dt 6* ' Hear, O Israel, J" our God is one J".'

A stress was laid on 'one' to mark the contrast to the gods of the heathen. And it is said that Rabbi Akiba died his martyr's death Avith this word 'one' on his lips (Weber, Jiid. Theol.^ § 31, p. 151). Our Lord, as we know, took the same text as a starting-point of His o^^•n teaching (Mk 12^'-). And yet, after all, it expresses, or was apt to express, in the mouth of a Jew a rigid abstract idea of Oneness. The Jews appealed to it at a later date against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

And it did for them exclude the deeper truth contained in that doctrine — the truth that God is not a mere Monad, self- centred and self-absorbed, Avithout scope for the exercise of the highest aH'eetions within itself, but a Monad so distributed as it were within itself as to admit of a perfect interchange and reciprocity of those affections which can exist only as between persons.

On this side the Jewish monotheism could not help being bare and dry and inadequate to the true richness and fulness of Deity. The passages of OT in which the plural is used in reference to the divine action led the Jews to make snrae small approach towards the Christian conception by the idea of an * upper or celestial famUia or tribunal' (Taylor on Firke Ahoth, li. 2). Taylor quotes 5anAfrf.

386: 'The Holy One, blessed is He, does nothing without consulting the famUia grtpema, for it is said (Dn i^T), " This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones."' 2. Transcendence.— At the time of which we are speaking there was a marked and widespread tendency in the higher minds to widen the chasm between God and the world.

Philosophy was straining after a conception of the Supreme Good or the Supreme Being as transcending the conditions of finite existence [ovk ouo-ias (ivros toO ayaSoD, d\X' Irt iTTiKSiva T^s ovaio.^ irpea^eiq. Kal Swdfiet virepexovros, Plato, Rep. 509 B). This was especially charac- teristic of Platonism, which contributed so much to the thought of Philo. And a like effort might be seen in the Oriental religions which were in contact with Judaism on another side.

It may not be easy to say how far the movement in Judaism itself was sympathetic to these influences and how far it was internal and spontaneous ; but that there was such a movement is evident. (a) Names of God. — One marked indication of it is the treatment of the divine names. The great covenant name Jehovah (Jahweh) was considered too sacred to be pronounced aloud except in the temple (Schiirer, GJV ii. 241, 381 ; Eng. tr. n. i. 296, ii. 82).

Besides the common substitution of Arlonai or Elohim in reading, a number of paraphrases were in use, all prompted by the instinct of reverence : ' Heaven,' ' Place,' or ' Space' (4 TAiros in Philo), 'the Name,' 'the Holy One, blessed is He' (Taylor on I'irkc Alioth, iv. 7). In Greek the usual substitute was Ki'pios. This con- veyed, of course, indirectly the full connotation of J " ; directly, it gave prominence to the idea of sovereignty.

This idea meets us in a great varietj' of forms : ' God, King, Lord of the world '; ' Lord of all,' ' God, Lord of lieaven,' ' Lord of the whole creation of the heaven,' ' Lord of lonis, of tlie mightj', of the rulers,' clominnior (/ominus (8 or 9 times in 2 Es) ; ' Great King,' ' King of kings,' ' King on the lofty throne ' ; ' Lord of judgment, of righteousness,' aeus, dominus omnipotcns. In clo.se connexion with the sovereignty of God is His majesty : ' the Great One,' ' the (.

reat Glory,' ' the Holy and Great One,' ' the Honoured and Glorious One,' 'the Mighty One,' /or<w, /or<u,m- mus (esp. in 2 Es and Apoc. Bar). Less frequent ia the idea of creation a.s an attribute of God (Enoch 81' 94'», Assunip. Mos. 1U'°), and that of eternity (Enoch 25' 75', Assump. Mos. 10' ; cf. Cheync on Is 40'^).

After the simple titles 9f6s and Kupios, probably the commonest in the literature of this period is ' Most High ' (u^J'iutos, altii'ihniis, exrclsus, 4v v^lcTTois KaTotKu)f : on this title cf. Clieyne, Bcnnp. Led. p. 83 f.) We may take this as the most direct expression of the idea which we call ' transcendence.' On the names of God the reader may consult the excellent Indexes in Charles, Book of Enoch and Assump. o.f Moses, and Beiisly-James, Fourth Bk. of Ezra.

There is less material in Pssof Sol and Test, of aH. Patriarchs. A list of the divine names in the earlier part of the Talmud is given in an essav by Low, (Jesainm. Schr. i. 177-186 (Scliiirer, LThZ, 1891, col. '276). (b) Removal of Anthropomorphisms. — The older forms of Judaism are well represented in the Targums. In these the growing conception of the transcendence of God is clearly marked. The simple anthropomorphisms which are so common in OT are paraphrased away.

The ground is cut from under them at the outset, as the creation of man in the likeness of God (Gn l'^) is changed into his creation in the likeness of the ministering angels. God is represented as taking counsel with the angels, and creating man in their image. In pur- suance of this tendency, where God is represented as ' coming down,' as seeing and hearing, etc., we find substituted the vaguer expressions, ' God revealed Himself,' 'it was revealed before God.'

When we are told in Gn 18 that Abraham's heavenly visitants ' ate ' what was set before them, the later (though in this case not the oldest) Targum paraphrases ' it seemed to him as though they ate ; and in like manner in the case of Lot (Gn 19'). Even the ascription to God of mental acts, such as ' knowledge ' (Gn 3", Ex 3") or ' intending ' (Gn 50-°), is avoided, and that in the older Targum of Onkelos.

Other expressions which attribute to God the conditions and even the passions of man are removed (e.g. the ' man of war' in Ex 15'), anger (Ex 15', Ps 10"), repentance (Ex 32'-). Along with these changes go a number of others, the object of which is to spiritualize the realistic descriptions of the intercourse between God and man.

In this way even Jacob's wrestling and Moses' speaking witli God ' face to face disappear ; and in places where God and man are, as it were, bracketed together a distinction is introduced, e.g. Ex 14" '[the people] believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses' becomes ' believed in the Lord and in the prophecy of Mosc.i ' ; Nu 21'- ' ' [the people] spake against God and against Moses ' becomes ' murmured before J" and disputed with Moses' (Weber, Jud. Theol.' pp. 154-157).

The Greek version of OT (Sept.) is several centuries older than the written Targums as thpy GOD GOD 207 have come down to us. And tliere, too, a very Bimilar set of cliangea may be noted. There, too, we liiid paraphrases for God's 'repenting,' for the descriptions of God as seen, for ' the Lord is a man of war' (Drunimond, Philo Judccus, i. 158 f.) The fraf,'ment8 quoted by Clem. Alex, and Euseb.

gliow that one of the earliest Judajo-Alexandrian writers, Aristobulus, whose date is placed at about B.C. 170-150, had already discussed and explained at lenj,'tli the anthropomorphisms in OT (Schiirer, GJV ii. 763; Eng. tr. II. iii. 240). And I'hilo deliberately rejects all real anthropomorphism or anthropopatliism, though he regards the use of antliruponioriihic expressions as a necessity, especially for tlie unlearned (Drummond, op. cit. li. 12-15).

We have thus abundant evidence as to the general set of the current of tliought in the century immediately before and immediately after the Christian era. And j-et at a later date, and it may be to a certain extent even at this date, other causes were operating to bring back anthro- pomorphisms of a particular kind. We shall see this when we come to speak presently of the limitations imposed upon Judaism by its excessive self-consciousness of national privilege.

However much it might avoid the conceiving of God as made in the likeness of man generally, it had not the same hesitation to conceive of Him as made in the likeness of the ideal Jew (see below, p. 21)8"). (c) Intermediate Beinrj.i. — In proportion as God was removed from direct contact with the world of matter, it became necessary to (ill up the gap with intermediate agencies.

So Philo: 'God generated all things (out of matter), not touching it Himself, for it was not right for the Wise and Blessed to come in contact with indeterminate an I mixed matter; but He used the incorporeal powers whose real name is ideas, that each genus might receive its fitting form ' (De Sacrificant. 13 ; o;). Drummond, rhilu Juda'us, ii. 113, with a slight diti'erence of translation).

Philo thus explains the action of God ujion matter by the intervention of certain ' powers,' to which he also gives the Platonic name of ' ideas.' These, again, lie «ome- tinies calls ' Logoi,' which, in their tuni, »r» summed up under the comprehensive name of ' Logos,' a quasi, per.sonihcation of the divine reason. This is familiar ground (see art. Logos).

Palestinian theology did not go so far as Alex- andrian in the use which it makes of intermediate agencies ; but it, too, has and uses them. The most important of these for our purpose are the ' Memrn or Word of J", the iihechinah, and the Holii Spirit. The Memra is a personification, almost a hypo- statizing, not of the Divine Reason, but of the executive Divine Word, on the model of such passages as la So'"- " ' As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither ...

so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth ; it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.' This executive Word of God is constantly sub- stituted in the Targum, in places where the OT refers the action directly to God Himself. The introduction of the Memrn is the chief expedient for the removal of anthropomorphisms of which mention has just been made. All bodily appear- ance or bodily action is a.

scribed, not to (Joil, but to His Memra. It is the medium through which the presence of God among His people is realized. The intervention of God in history is conducted through the Memra. The Memra covers the whole ground over which God is represented as acting, as manifested, as revealed. It is remarkable that this conception, though extremely frequent in the Targurns, is not found in the Talmud.

But w« cannot doubt that it existed, thou'di perhaps on a more limited scale, in the period of the NT. The place of tlie Memra is taken in the later Talmudic literature by the Slieckinah. In the Targurns the two conceptions stand side by side, the iShcchinah representing the manifested glory of the divine presence. The Shcchinah dill'ers from the Memra as being, at least at this earlier date, impersonal. Praj'er and trust are predicated of the one, but not of the other.

The Memra does, and the Ulieekinah does not, take an active part in the redemption of Israel. The Greek enui- valent Sofa is of frequent occurrence in the NT (Weber, §§ 38, 39). In the OT there are a few allusions to the IIolu Spirit (see sen. art. ). One of the principal is Ps 51" ' Take not tliy Holy Spirit from me,' where its function is clearly indicated as keeping alive re- ligion in the soul, and as the special medium of communication between God and the spirit of man.

The 'S|>irit of God' is repeatedly spoken of as the source of inspiration and revelation. It is, in par- ticular, the moving cause of the utterances, and, so far as they are divinely prompted, of the actions of the prophets and other organs of the Deity. In one 01 writing there is a tendency to go further than this, and to make of the Holy Spirit a dis- tinct hypostasis.

This is Deutero-Isaiah, where we have such expressions as, ' The Loud God hath sent me, and his Spirit' (48'), and 'They rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit ' (03'" ; cf^ Clieyne, ad loc). There is hardly any clear advance upon this until we come to NT. The conception is not one that is largely used : ^v Tryfufiari ayl<)) occurs once in Ps.-Sol (li') and 'immitte in me Spiritum Sanctum' in 2 Es 14-'^.- But in neither ca.<e is there any attribution of personality. In Targ. and Talm.

there is a fluctuating use, the tendency to personify being sometimes greater than it is at others (nn is both masc. and fein., but more often the latter, the sense of which is more impersonal, Weber, p. 191). The conception cannot be said to have assumed a fixed form at the time when NT literature begins. Besides these intermediate agencies there is the Me^'isiah ('Son of Man' in Similitudes of Bk. of Enoch), whose function is esp. that of judgment and of the restoration of the chosen people.

And there is also the whole celestial hierarchy of niKjels, which, from the Persian domination on- wards, had become more and more defined and elaborated. The Jew had a vahmble corrective ag&inst the injurious effecte of an exap(feniu<i doctrine o( the trunsccndciice of Ood In the OT doctrine of His oinniiiresence, though Itiis km not one of the doctrines which took the strongest hold on the Jpwish mind.

* In the development of the Jewish religion, this conception of Go<i's omnipresence was only reached at a comparatively lat« period, and It was for long crossed and obscured hv other simpler and more childish notions.

To the moral attributes of Deity, to Ills svipremo pity and Justice, there are endless references in tJ»e P8;dter and the Prophets ; to the divine onmipresence there are but few And, indeed, there Is an element of j)hilo«ophy and of mynti^-ism In this conception, to neither of which the native liehrcw mind was pre-eminently prone.'

Still, the doctrine finds magnilk-ent ana classical expression in Ps ISO ; and it is natural that the moilem writer, who seeks for the germs of a belief In the immanem'« of tJo<l as well as in His transcendence, should fall liack uiwn this (see Jlonteltcire in AtfcU <i/ Judaitm, Ixindun, IMtt. pp. 107-124). On the relation of iuunanence and trnnsi-endence in Uie theology of Philo, see lierriot, fhilon U Jui/, p. 211 B. 3. PARTICCh.tnrsT LIMITATIOSS., Although there was in .

Imhtism this tcmloncy to empliiusizo the transcendence of tJod, and nllhough the atti- tude of mind corres|>onding to this tendency was one of reverential awe, which is often linely ex- pressed, there was at the .sjinio time another .-<-t of tendencies which were apt to run counter to lliix, anil to bring back in an unattractive lorni lb« very faults from which Judaism was trying to free itself.

These counter-tendencies had their root in the overweening estimate of the Law and the rabbinical study of the Law, and of the privileged position of the Jewish people.

The fundamental mistake of Judaism, frau<jht with disastrous consequences along the whole line of relij:ious belief and practice, was its neglect of the Prophets in comparison with the Law, and its failure to grasp the principle that the Law was to be interpreted in the spirit of the I'ropliets and not by tlie rules of a minute literalism. The Jew believed that his Law came from God, and we must do justice to the strength and tenacity of this belief.

It is easy to see now many of his errors of interpretation flowed directly from it. lint it must be confessed that his zeal was not according to knowledge (Ro 10"). However well meant in the iirst instance, it was often strangely devoid of in- sight (though from time to time llaslies of insight may be discerned in it for which we are liardly Srepared by the general tenor of the surroundintjs).

ut this hick of insight caused the Jew to fall a too ready victim to the warping eli'ect of interested motive. His love of the Law as the gift of God became pride in himself as the exponent of the Law, pride in his race as the recipients of the Law, security in the consciousness of formal obedience as though it dispensed from the prolonged and more difficult task of true spiritual conformity.

Not that the rabbinical teacliers by any means always lost sight of this, but that through tliis process of self-deception a standard which, on the face of it, seemed to be extremely high became in practice miserably perverted and low. [We are compelled to use sucli language, by an impartial study of Judaism in the 1st cent, of the Cliristian era as it appears not only in Christian writings but in the pages of the Jewish historian.

The Christian, however, should remember that, though true, this is not the whole truth ; there are exceptions and qualifications]. The Jew's horizon was almost limited by the Law. It absorbed the energies of the strongest minds, and the possession of it created a national self -consciousness which was anytliing but well adapted ' for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.' This state of things reacted strongly upon the conception of God.

Judaism sought to get rid of anthropomorphisms drawn from common human nature only to substitute for them another set of anthropomorphisms, in some waj's less in- nocent, drawn from rabbinical human nature. It expelled idola tribiis, only to fall a prey to idola sperus et theatri. Thus God Himself was regarded as devoted to the study of His own Law, and not only of the Law, but even of the rabbinical developments of the Law.

By day He ' is engaged upon the 24 Books of the Torali, the Prophets, and the Hagio- grapha, and by ni<;ht He is engaged upon tlie 6 divisions of the Mi.slinah. God is even represented as having companions in the study of the Torah. At least we have, according to Baba Mezia, 85*', even in heaven an assembly, like the high schools on earth, devoted to the investigation of tlie Torah.

Here the great Rabbis sit in the order of their merit and of their knowledge of the Law, studying Halacha, and God studies with them. They" dis- pute >vith one another and lay do^vn Halacha ' (Weber, p. 158). We may make allowance for such extravagances as this, and see in them only a play of fancy grow- ing naturally out of the view that the Law embodied the Wisdom of God. But we see how the idolatry of the Law tended to contract the range of spiritual vision.

And still more mischievous results followed when <Jie Law and all the rest of the divine ordi- nances were regarded as liavin" for their linal cause the profit and glory of Israel. LiTBKATUitB. — iluch umttirial may be lound in the lart^d works on the Life of Christ and the histor}- and condition ol the Jewish l*eople (tMersheim, Schurer, etc.)

or the works ol Siepfried and Druinniond on Pliilo (to which may be now added Uerriot, _ yV(i/o;i le Jui/, Paris, 181»5> ; in tile editions of Pteudepujrapha, to which reference has been made above : and in Taylor's Pirkt Aboth. But the most convenient and complete of all the collections bearing directiy on Jewish thougiit and theology is the posthumous work of Kerjinand Weber, formerly called Sytftem d.

attxynafjogaUn palitxtin\*chen Theotmjie (Leipzig, 1S80), and in the new and improved olitioD brought out under the superintendence of Schne<lennann, JtUiuche Theologie av/ Grund d. Talmud u. ivrwaiutter Schr\ften ^1897). Weber, though of Jewish origin, wrote from the Christian standpoint ; and the reader who desires to see what is to be said from the Jewish side will tlnd it attractively rrpsintcd in .Monteflore's Uibbert Lecturet (London, 1892), ana in artt in JQR. II. The Tkaciiinq of the NT.

— We thus have as the starting-point for the teaching of NT an idea of God very tenaciously held, up to a certain point liijjh and pure, and still bearing at times, though fitfully and uncertainly, the marks of its inspired origin ; but as a rule contracted and petrified, with far too much of the life and warmth of the old belief of Psalmists and Prophets dried out of it, and in manj' minds seriously infected with a cancerous growth of self-love and self- righteousness.

How did Christianity vivify, re- store, enlarge, and enrich this idea!

It did so (1) by asserting with greatly increased breadtli and emphasis certain of the attributes of Godhead ; (2) by presenting in the person of Je-sus Christ a special revelation, brought home in the most ]ial- pable of forms, of the nature of God as expressed in these attributes ; and (3) by opening the eyes of men to the truth that God is not, as was supjiosed, a simple Monad, but that within the Oneness of His Being there were included certain distinctions which made possible a constant flow and return of the highest and purest affections, dimly shadowed in the like aiTections of men, and putting a crown to the divine perfections.

1. The Attributes of God. —In respect to the attributes of God the teaching of NT grows di- rectly out of that of OT, but in each case greatly strengthens, deepens, and extends that teaching. The leading particulars in which it does this are as follows : — (i. ) Fatherhood. — ^Perhaps there has been a ten- dency to minimize too much the part which the conception of God as Father plays in OT (Holtz- mann, Neutestl. Theol. i. 48 ft.)

Not only is the relation of God both to Israel as a whole and to the individual Israelite compared to that of a father (Dt 1" 8», Ps 103"), but God is frequently repre- sented as the Father of Israel (Dt 32«, Jer 3- " 31«) and of Israelites (Is 63" 64', Wis 2'= 14», Sir 23'-, To 13^). We have also the correlative ex- pressions : Israel is ' God's son,' Ex 4'-'-'- (cf. Wis 18'3, Sir 3712), Hos n>, Jer 3i» SI*", Ps SO^', and individuals in Israel His ' children ' (t)t 14').

Some of these passages are enunciated with full prophetic TrXijpoipopia (Ex 4^-, Hos 11', Is 63'"), and must be numl)ered among the axiomatic utterances of OT religion. We note also, that while the relation of son to father is predicated both of Israel as a whole, and mediately through the nation of indi- vidual Israelites, it is also predicated with esiiecial force of the theocratic king whom, with the sequel of the historj- before us, we regard as a type of the Messiah (Pss 2 and 89).

There was therefore no lack of points of contact and connexion between the teaching of OT and of NT. And yet the doctrine of NT assumes such different proportions as almost to amount to a nev revelation. So far as the idea of the Divmo Fatherhood really entered into the popular con- GOD GOD 209 pciousness, it was chiufl y as ,in item in tlie general Bense of privilege. Even tliat had its good side, and this good side was the saving virtue of Juda- ism.

But the virtue arid its corruption lay too near together. Over wide tracts of Judaism the former was very largely swallowed up by the latter. A new impulse was needed if tne idea of th(! Fatherhood of God was to retain its highest qualities of warmth and intimacy, and was at the same time not to be the privilege of a chosen few, but was to be brought home to the common con- sciousness of mankind. No one doubts that Christianity has succeeded in doing this.

From the beginning of NT to the end the lesson of God's Fatherhood is presented in such mass and volume as to identify it with the very essence of Christianity in a sense which does not apply to any other religion. And this is a clear case in which all subsequent teaching does but reflect the teaching of the Founder.

One of the leading features in that teaching is the (inherited) conception of God as King (the king- <lom of God as representing His penetrating and pcr\asive sovereignty) ; but side by side with this, and in full equalitv with it, is the conception of God as Father. No name of God was more con- stantly on the lips of Christ ; and no other name so dominated the whole thought of God, as He not only cherished it for Himself, but bequeathed it to His disciples.

Fatherhood is no longer one attribute among many, but it is a central attribute which gives a colour to all the rest. It is characteristic of Jesus that He repeatedly argues downwards from this attribute as furnis'liing a safe basis for deduction (Mt e-''^ 7»-" 10" etc.) The idea of the Fatherhood of God is presented in the teaching of our Lord upon three planes. (a) <!od is F'atlier of all mankind. His fatherly attributes are displayed even to 'the unthankful and the evil' (Lk (i^, of.

Mt r>«). (6) He is in a special sense the Father of believers, disciples of Christ. In the uncertainty which attends the exact circumstances of many of His discourses, it may be often doubtful as to how far the phrase i irarrjp viiCiv extends beyond these. Probably, as a rule its application starts from the inner circle. But it is also probably not conhned to this. It is certainly impossible in view of such sayings as Mk 9" (' he that is not against us is for us') to regard it a.

s bounded by any hard-and-fast line. All those to whom Jesus speaks are potential disciples. The two classes run into each other. To both God stands in the relation of leather ; but the fulness of His love is naturally felt by those who have learnt to come to Him as His cliildren. (c) There is, however, yet a third sense in wliieh tlie Fatherhood of God is unique. Jesus does not speak of 'our Father' as embracing both Himself and His disciples, but of 'My Father' and 'your F'ather.'

In tliis He takes up the special sense in which (as we have seen) the tenns ' F'atlier' and ' Son ' were applied to the theocratic King. The ministry of Jesus begins with an announcement from heaven : ' Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased' (Mk 1"). And this announce- mi^nt is repeated on another culminating occasion (Mk 9'). It is by virtue of this unique relationship that the revelation of (lod which Jesus gives is also anique (Mt H'-'').

It contains further implications s to the nature of the Godhead. To both these points we shall return. All the three planes of Fatherhood and Sonsliip reappear in the teaching of the apostles. The (irst is, as with our Lord Himself, the least prominent. Still it is not absent (Ac IT'), and it must always be remembered that if the Fatherhood of God is in the first instance and in the fullest sense for Cliris- tian« (Uo S'"-", Gal 4«, 1 P 1"), they hold their VOL. H.

— 14 privileges in trust for the rest of the world. The luluess of the Gentiles, and after it the fulness of Lsrael, is some day to be brought in (Uo ll""-). The peculiar Sonship of Christ is very prominent in the apostolic writings. It is clear that the apostles too, and we may say the whole Chinch, regarded the relation indicated by it as unii|ue. It is the full recognition of this by virtue of which Christians are Christians (see below, p. 214'', and art. CiiiusTOLOGV). (ii.) Love.

— One of the points included under the F'atherhood of God is the extension of a Father's love to all who stand to Him in the relation of children. There had been a school of Prophets and Psalmists, of which Jeremiah seems to have been a leader, who laid especial stress on the ' loving-kindness ' of J", i.e. the feeling of kindness and compassion which grows out of the covenant relation, the love of God for Israel as the covenant peonle.

In the NT the horizon widens : God is a Father, not to Israel alone, but to all who claim their sonship. Towards them He turns, not liatemal severity, but paternal love. The writers of NT generalize this love, so that one of them says in set terms ' God is love' (1 Jn 4'). Here is another salient characteristic of Christianity. As it insists far more than every other known religion that God is Feather, so also is it the one religion which lays down in this emphatic way that ' God is love.'

There are two distinguishing features in this proposition that 'God is love.' (a) The argument on which it is mainly based is that supplied by the death of Christ. St. John lays down this in his Gospel : 'God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever bclieveth on him should not perish, but have eternal life ' (Jn 3'*, an enlargement by the evangelist of the iliscourse with Nicodemus). In the F"irst Ep.

when he returns to the idea he draws the same inference from the .same premises a little more widely stated; ' Heroin was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his Only-begotten into the world, that we might live through hira' (1 Jn 4'-'). And it is a noticeable fact that St.

Paul, to whom this attribute of the Godhead is no less prominent, grounds it also upon the stupendous sacrifice of the death of Christ : ' God comniendeth his own love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (Ro 5«, cf. vv." and 8"-'»). (b) The unwavering confidence of the biblical writers in the love of God may indeed be set down to revelation. The philosopher who sought to infer the char.

icter of the Author of Nature inductively from His works would not be able to adopt this tone. The waste which attends the processes of nature is accompanied by too much sull'ering. He might on the whole, and upon a balance of 'for' and 'against,' decide that the evidence for a benevolent purpose preponderates, and he might also see reason to think that that purpose became clearer in the progressive evolution of things ; but further than tiiis lie could not go.

Ho could not speak of benevolence as absolute ; he could no'i, say ' God is love.' The belief expressed in these words is not the product of an induction. None the less, when once it is entertained, and enter- tained on such grounds as those which the NT writers as>i^ii for it, the phenomena of the world may then be found compatible with it. The Christian may still cling to his belief, and trust that what is at present dark to him will be made clear in (iod's good time. (iii.) Right tousntM.

— There can be no mLstako ai to the meaning and implicAtionsof the Fatherhood and Ixive of tiod. The ca.se is dilfcrent as to Ui« Uighteousne.ss. Kighteousncjis is a word of such varied signification that the exact sense in which it is used in any particular passage may really l>e iloublful ; and there are certain places in NT wliere its meaning, as applied to t!od {SiKaioawr) deoO), lias been a subject oi much discussion.

We may say that there are really four leading senses winch the phrase Sik. OeoO w-ill bear. It may mean {«) 'rightncss' or 'goodness' in general, including all moral excellence ; or (i) in a narrower sense 'judicial righteousness,' the strict application of the standard of right by the judge ; or (c) an application of that standafd which is not strict but leans to the side of mercy towards the ollonder, and takes especial care of the weak and defence- less.

Lastl,\ , (d) there are a number of pass.nges in the writings of St. Paul whore it has been thought that SiK. 0eoC ceases to be strictly an attri- bute of God at all, and comes to moan rather a state of man in the sight of God. This use we must consider. But it will be best to make our way upwards from the easier senses to the more difficult. («) It may be doubted whether there are any passages in NT where Six. 8.

is used precisely in this wide sense (unless we regard the case dis- cussed below as in eti'ect an application of it). But StK. is frequently used of men in the sense of general uprightness or virtue ; and this is brought into relation to God almost as if it were Sik. iuwTnov aiiToO, ' righteousness in his sight,' or ' of which he approves. In Lk l^B we have XetrptCur avru iv inentn, x, iixKiotrCvn in^io* avTcv, where iviir, aCr.

strictly defines Aar^is-'uv, but in effect gives the wider meaning to itx. In Mt G^ it is a question whether the reading of most critical texts (incl. WH) rr,* ^ctrtMittv xcti T7:v iixBueffCvtj)! Kirrou (8c, rev 0foZ) Can stand, and whether we ought not, with Lachmann, Weiss, and Holtzinann, to prefer the reading of cod. B, ttsv Six. x. t. ^air. at^-roy. In that case t. itx.

would be absolute ; to • seek God's righteous- ness* would be an expression without parallel in the Uospels : we should have to connect it mth Is 5417 quoted below. Ja 120 somes under the next head, and in 2 P 11, where righteousness Lb referred to Christ, the sense is altin to (d). (b) The simple judicial sense, though deeply rooted in language and always present in the background of thought, is not prominent in NT except in Rev. It naturally has a place in St.

Paul's speech at Athens (Ac 17^')- It occurs also in 2 Ti 4« and in Rev 16»' 19=- ". And the same idea is conveyed by diKaioKpicria in Ro 2'. (c) The more distinctive senses in which right- eousness is predicated of God come under the last two heads, and one of these, as has been said, is still somewhat of a problem. Both these remain- ing senses are certamly based upon the use of OT, and to understand them we need to recall the conditions of society in OT times.

The OT covers a period of transition from comparative barbarism to comparative civilization. In all the earlier and less settled portions of such a period the rallying- point of society was the judge. It was a matter of the greatest moment that he should be strong enough to deal out even-handed justice without fear or favour. He would be beset by turbulent and powerful chieftains, who would make his task an extremely difficult one.

By degrees it would be increasingly felt that the judge (or the king as judge) was tlie one refuge for all the weak and defenceless classes — the poor, the fatherless, the widow, the stranger ; and his more characteristic functions would seem to be, not so much the safe- guarding of equal rights, as the special protection •)f those who most needed protection.

For king or judge to discharge this function in the face of all the dangers and uncertainties of his own posi- tion must often have required no little force and elevation of character. Hence we are not surprised to find either the great importance attached to righteousness as a name for this quality, or that it came often to mean vindicating the rights of the oppressed or dealing gently and leniently with the weak.

We are apt to put righteousness in contrast to mercy, as Alarcion opposed the ' just or righteous Ciod' (S/koios) to the 'good God' (dyaOos) ; but to the Ileb. 'just' or 'righteous' often meant ' merciful.' These senses can be abundantly illustrated from OT. One consjiicuous passage may be given out of many : Job '2!)'''"" ' I put on righteousness, and it clothed me : my justice w.as a robe and a diaileiii. I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a f.

ather to the needy ; and the cause of him that I knew not I searched out. And I brake the jaws of the unrighteous, and plucked the prey out of his teeth ' (cf. vv. ""'"). It was an inevitable process that this use of the word ' righteousness ' as applied to men reacted upon its application to God. More and more as time went on, esp. in Deutero-Isaiah and certain psalms, the righteousness of God comes to be, not His strict justice, but His healing, rescuing justice.

He is not ' a just God and yet a Saviour,' but ' a just God and a Saviour ' (Is 45^' ; cf. ouaios xal SiKaiwy, Ro 3-'). The two conceptions of ' right- eousness'and ' sal vation ' are very frequently placed in juxtaposition : Ps 24" ' He shall receive a bless- ing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvfLtion ' ; 31'' (cf. 7P) ' Deliver me in thy righteousness. . Be thou to me ...

an house of defence to save me' ; 71"" ' My mouth shall tell of thy righteousness and of thy salvation all tlie day ' ; 9S'' ' The Lord hath made known his salva- tion : his righteousness hath he openly showed in the sight of the nations ' ; 143" ' In thy righteous- ness bring my soul out of trouble ' ; Is 46'" ' I bring near my righteousness, it shall not be far ofi', and my salvation shall not tarry ' ; 51* (cf.

') ' My salvation shall be for ever, aiid my righteousness shall not be abolished ' ; 56' ' My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed ' ; 59" (cf. 61'°) ' He put on righteousness as a breast- plate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head ' ; 63' ' I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.' In the Pseudepigrapha, speaking generally, the 'righteousness of God ' is, as a rule.

His judicial righteousness, as seen in tlie rewarding of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked. But we do also occasionally find its merciful side put forward, as in 4 Ezra (ed. Bensly-James) 8^ : In hoc eniin adnuntiabilur iusticia tua et bonitas tua, domine, cum 7ni<tertus ftieris eis qui non habent substantiam opcrum bonorum. It is to be noticed also that in connexion with the righteousness of God there arises the idea of a righteousness in man derived from God.

Thus in Is 54" ' This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness which is of me, saith the Lord.' And a like use is found in Bar 5^- ' ' Cast about thee the robe of the righteousness which Cometh from God (tti^ irapb. toO d(oS oiKaioadrr]^) ; set a diadem on thy Iiead of the glory of the Everlasting. . For God shall lead Israel with joy in the light of his glory with the merc^ and righteousness that cometh from him ' (Ji/c. rf Trap' aiiTov).

There do not seem to be any instances in NT of a use of the ' righteousness of God ' quite on the same footing with that in Dcutero-Isaiah and the Psalms. But when we consider the collection of passages just quoted from these and from other books, we seem to be upon the line of antecedents of a very marked and cliaracteristic doctrine, which is associated specially with St. Paul. (d) The Pauline doctrine.

We have spoken of this doctrine as still constituting a problem in the exegesis and theology of NT. It is a problem which has been sharply accentuated in recent years, but, if not yet wholly solved, it would appear to have been at least placed on the road to solution. In Ro 1" St. Paul formulates the thesis of the Epistle. It is an announcement to the world of the ri^hteousne.ss of God revealed in the gospel from faith to faitli (diKaLoffOi'tj yap dtoO 4v airri^ [sc.

T<p fuayyeX/y] diroKaXinrTeTai 4k Trlirrfujs els ttIixtiv). Here the key-plirase is evidently Six. 0eou ; but what exactly does it mean ? A few years ago tliere seemed to be a strong consensus of the best exegetes (Meyer, Weiss, Lipsius, Godet, Oltramare, and in England, Vaughan, Liddon, Beet, Moule, unequivocally, and Gill'ord with rather more qualification) in favour of taking Sik.

OeoO as a righteousness, which though in some sense or other God's ('a righteous- ness of which God is the author,' most Comms.), yet denotes more directly a state of man ('of which man is the recipient'). And whatever may be urged against this view, the arguments for it are so strong that it seems impossible to regard it as devoid of a substantial basis of truth. St.

Paul appears to make his own meaning more ex[)licit in Ph 3', where he substitutes tlie jjlirase ttjj' ix OeoC SiKaioffipTiv 4tI tj irlarfi. And if it is said that this is the view of a later Epistle, and tliat it is dillor- eiitiated from Ro by the insertion of iK, the same antithfsis of 15 toO BeoO Six. and i) 15la 5ik. occurs in Ro 10^, where in spite of the absence of ix tlie former phrase can hardly be ambiguous. And other arguments derived from the transition from SiK. 0.

to 6 StKatos in the quotation from HabakUuk in Ro 1", and from the evident parallel in 3-', " (wliere 5lk. 0. is delined by Sik. S. Sii. Tlcrewi, K.T.X.), are hardly less cogent. We must therefore include in the conception a righteousness which, whatever its origin, at least ends by denoting a state of man. IJut, on the other hand, it is no less impossilde to explain SiK. 6. as in the first instance anything else than the personal riij)iteousnexs of God.

This is the sense of the phrase in the immense majority of the cases in which tlie word is used in OT and In other writings outside the Epp. of St. Paul. A phrase so familiar and so deeply rooteil in the common language of men could not be violentlj' wrenched from its usual associations and trans- ferred to otliers without more explicit warning than any that is given. At the .same time those appear to be equally wrong who (like Hiiring in the treati.

se mentioned below) insist that the phrase can only have one meaning in such a way as to compel a choice between the two alternatives. When thej' speak of 'one meaning,' what they have in view is a definite logical tying-down of that meaning which is not nece.ssitated by language. The array of logical po.s.sibilitie8 set out by Haring (pj). 14-17) certainly was not present to the mind of St. Paul, nor was he compelled to discriminate everything that may be capable of discrimination.

Language has in its earlier stages an ehisticity of use which it may l)y degrees lose. 'I'o understand the real drift of St. Paul, we ought to bear in mind, not so much the distinc- tions wliioli we can draw, as those which had been ectually drawn when he wrote. He really sums up a long [irevious development. He sums it up, and the language which ho uses bears traces through- out of its several pha.

ses ; but at the same time he puts upon it a new stamp ; he focuses, con- centrates, and defines it in a new sense of his own. It may be worth while to note how the previous f)ha.ses of which we have been speaking enter into lis conception. They would do so in some such order as this — (a) The broad fundamental meaning of iSixoio- avvT) is conformity to right. As applied to Goo it is the sum of all moral excellence, of which He is the standard to Himself.

Even when the word is used in narrower senses, tliis still remains in the background of the apostle's mind, and from time to time comes more to the front. (/3) In a primitive state of society, the decisions of the chieftain or king acting as judge are tlie standard of ri^ht. And the virtue most highly valued in the judge is that of equal dealing be- tween man and man. There was therefore a ten- dency for the broad idea of righteou.sne.

ss in the ruler to contract into the narrower idea of justice. (7) In sucli a state of society, however, some- thing more than simple justice was needed. Tlie king or chief was the one efhcient champion of the weak against the strong, of the poor against the rich, of the friendless against the powerful. Thus in the opinion of the common people, or of the masses, the form of rigliteousness fijr wliicli they looked was even more than justice, care for the weaker side.

(S) In direct dealings with the poor and weak, where the question was rather of what we should call criminal than of civil law, the Wrtue of the judge would be mildncisand lenience, not exacting the full penalties for misdoing; in other words, treating an offender as innocent, or not so guilty as he really was. (e) Such acquittal or remis.sion of punishment would be the act of the judge, of his own free grace pardoning the guilty. When the judge, for whatever rea.

son, dismisses the culprit, pronounc- ing him ' righteous,' or free from guilt in the eye of the law, it is really the judge hunself who, by his verdict, is the author of tliat righteousness or guiltlessness, and not the person acquitted. And the motive which impels the judge to this is Ills o^^"n personal righteou.sness of character, manifested under the particular aspect of lenience in judging.

(f) This is the process that really takes place when tlie sinner is indicted before the judgment- seat of God ; and that not merelv at the final judgment, but whenever his state in God's sight IS considered. The motive which prompts the ab.solution is no righteousness of the sinner's own, but the righteousness of God. ())) When we attempt to analyze the nature of that righteousness, we might, on a .

superficial view, identify it witli the narrower sort of judicial righteousness which is seen in the mild treatment or forgiveness of the guilty. Rut the righteous- ness of God, as St. Paul regards it, is sometliing much more than this. The mildness of a judjje may have in it no higher injjredient than a cert.nin easy good nature because it is indifferent to guilt. The forgiving righteousness of God is not of this kind.

It embraces nothinp less than the whole scheme of salvation, in which the central feature is the atoning death of Clirist. The absolution of the sinner is no act of momentary indulgence, but a delil)crately ccmtemplated incident in a viust and far-reaching plan which has for its object the restoration of the human race.

{d) Tlio leading factor in it, then, is the supreme energizing righteousness of God, which in the course of its ojieration includes several minor kinds of righteousness, and which eniis by attri- buting to the sinner a condition of rigliteou.sne.sa wliich he has very imperfectly realized for himself. So that from his point of view it mav well Iw called a righteousness not his own, but 'of"' or 'from Go<l.' We have seen that as far hack as Peutero- I.

saiali and liaruch there were traces of this conception (^ irapd ToiJ Oeou SiKaio>jtnf), St. Paul therefore was not the first to introduce it. But it is a mistake to refrarri it as forming the wliole or even the main 2)ait of his conception. LiTERATiBB.— On tliis part of the subject the reader may cons\ilt the commentator!* on Itomans, anil in particiilnr those Dienlioned above ; alao Ptleidt-rer, PaiUinuninm ; iloltitcn, Kvaiuj, tl. ratUtis; Hitachi, liechtjertumntj u. i'erii6/inunfj.

The stand wliich has receiilly been made iur explaining )<«. Cislot the personal ritrhteousness of God is associated in this country- esp. with the late Dr. James Bannby, Ptiipit Comin.on tin., R.id Ezpogitor, 1SSI6, ii. Viift., and Ur. A. Kobert«on in Tlie Thuiker, Nov. lsi)3 ; ct. Exp. Times, Feb. ISlls, p. 217. In Germany an art. by Kolbin^ito somewhat similar etlect appeared in SK, 1S!*.">, p. 139ff., followed by a monoirraph on the subject by Prof. HiirniK of Tubingen (Alk.

\10iTNH ttKOT bei J'autM, Tubingen, 1S9'''). Further literature is piven on p. 6 of this treatise. The German writers were quite independent of the English, who preceded them in time. On the history of the OT conception there is a valuable tract by Dalman, Die rickttrliche GerechtigkeU im AT, Berlin, 1897, which suggested much of the line of treatment followed above. 2. Tni'. Revelation of God.— The more theo- logical writers of NT clearly lay it down that in Christianity a new revelation i.

s given of the nature and character of God. They connect this new re- velation, (i.) with the coming of Christ, and (ii.) ^nth the special outpouring of tlie Holy Gliost. (i.) The Revelation through Christ. — The new disclosure of truths about God ditlered from all previous disclosures, inasmuch as it was no longer conhned to a divine prompting of the minds of men, hut was made through the incarnate presence of the Son of God Himself. After having in time past .

spoken to the fathers 'in ' the prophets, God had at last spoken ' in ' One who was not only prophet but Son (He !'■ '). This distinction of the New Covenant is empha.sized most by St. lolin, but it is also expres.sed unequivocally by St. I'aul, and Ep. to Hebrews, and the Synoptic Gospels refer to it sufficiently to confirm the evidence of the Fourth Gospel that the principle underlying it was bronglit out by our Lord Himself. We may take two passages of St.

John as typical of a great number of otliers: Jn 1" ' No man hatli seen God at any time : God only -begotten [reading wopo7eK7)5 Seis with XBCL, etc., Tregelles, Weiss, WH, RVm] wlio is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him ' ; and 14'-" ' If ye liad known me, ye would have known my Father also: from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him. Lord, show us the Father, and it sulHceth as. Jesus saith unto him. Have I been .

so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip*? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father : how sayest thou. Show us the Father? Believest tliou not that I am in the Father, and the F'atherin me? 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 t lie Father in me : or else believe me for the very works' sake.' These pass.

xsres might be said to be a compendium of a great part of the Gospel, and we may add the Epp. of Jn. This will appear from observing the number ot purallels wliich exist tor almost everj- clause. " No man hath seen ... he hath declared,' * he that hath seen me hath seen ' ; cf. 332 537 646 loffl 1524 1726, 1 Jn ilJ 223. Who is in the bosom of the Father,' '1 in the Father, and the Father in me' ; cf. SI6 10J8 H20 ifiM 1721-23. 'Not from myself; cf. 619 716 828 i249 ■ Doeth his works ' ; cf.

434 519-21. 38 »4 174. St. Paul does not enlarge upon this aspect of the Incarnation of the Son to the same extent as St. John. Still, he expresses it quite unam- biguously when he describes Him as €UC>v toO Beov rov doparov (Col I"), a term which he had used in an earlier Epistle (2 Co 4<) in such a way as to show that the conception was even at that date fully established. It is also implied in the ^f /xoptp^ eeoO vrdpxoi" of Ph 2".

The fulness of the revelation made through Christ is the subject of 1 Co 1** 5s i^eirfidf) aotpia riiuv dirb deov (cf. 1-' Xpicrbv Beou Swa/uv ml e»oO ao(plav; also 2<'- '), Eph l«-i". Col 2^ {v y fl<r\v Trdi'Tfj ol Orjuavpol r^s aotpia'i Ktxl yvthacm 6.'t6' Kpvtpot. In close agreement with the language of St Paul is He P dr a-rairyaa/xa -r^i icijijs Kai xapaicntf TTj^ inrcariaeu^ aiVoO.

On the exact force of these expressions (which are paralh^l to if not suggested by Wis 7-^') see Westcott, etc., ad /<ic. Tlie pur- port of them is that Christ, visible and active, tirought home to the sight and minds of men the essential nature of God. This is an expansion in a more ' ontological ' or ' metaphysicil' sense of the opening words of the Epistle. This sense is too deeply ingrained in the langu.'ige of NT to be eliminated.

Although, as has been said, it is the more theological writers who lay the greatest stress ujion this aspect of the Son as revealing the F'ather, tliere is one conspicuous passage of the Sj-noptics in which it is clearly iiiiiilied. The verse Mt 11-'', with its very close parallel in Lk 10, (both pa.ssages siiould he taken with their full context), is in form so like the characteristic say- ings of Christ ; it hts into and interprets such a number of other passages (.Mt IG'", J\Ik 2'M-" 9' etc.)

, and, while in remarkable agreement with the general verdict of the primitive Churcli, stands so apart from the particular tendencies of the Synoptic Gosjiels that it would he wanton to doubt its genuineness. To make the picture of Christ on earth consistent, we need to see in it not merely the beneficent Teacher, but the Son of God, as this name is understood by the writers of deepest in- sight. (ii.) The Revelation through the Uoli/ Ghost.

— If we look at the Fourth Gospel from another point of view, we shall hnd it domin.'ited by the con.sciousness of a double revelation. That through the Incarnate Son of which we have just been speaking is one ; that through the Holy Ghost is the otlier. Looking back over the space of time that had elapsed since the Ascension, the writer sees that a great force has been at work in the Church, the effect of which he regards as a direct fulfilment of prophecies by our Lord Him:?

e'f before His departure. A second ' Advocate ' (' Comforter' AV, RV) was to come after He was gone. It was to be a dispensation like His own, and was to be characterized by a like dissemina- tion of truth, not so much wholly new truth as a revival and reinvigorating in the minds of the apostles and others who came within its range of truth already taught by Himself: 'These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you.

But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father hath sent in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remem- brance all that I said unto you.' . ' Howheit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he sh.all guide j'ou unto all the trutli : for he shall not speak from himself ; but what things soever he shall he.ar, these shall he speak : and he shall declare unto you the things that .are to come.

He shall "lorify rae : for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you. AH things that the Father hath are mine : therefore .said 1, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare it unto you ' (Jn 14^' ' 16"''). There is an accent about all the passages in which the writer refers to this subject wliich is far more like the accent of real experience than a product of pure reflection without concrete ex- perience behind it.

The writings of the Fourth Evangelist contain no express reference to the Day of Pentecost and the history recorded in the Acts, but they contain a number of allusions which are well explained by that history. St. Luke in like manner has no express mention of the Para- clete, but both his Gospel and the Acts bear fre- quent testimony to the work of the Paracleta GOD GOD 213 ond'ir His other name, the Holy Spirit.

Here as in the Fourtli Gosj)el we have a historical retro- spect of facts and impressions recalled after a considerable lapse of time, but in the Epp. of St. Paul we are in tlie midst of the events, and we are allowed to see into the inner mind of one of the leading actors in them. From the langua^'e of St.

Paul we may learn what is meant by being 'taught all things and haWng all things brought to remembrance," or ratlier as he had not been an immediate disciple of Christ we are enabled to understand the irXripoipopia with whicli he sjioke. He certainly felt that the Gospel which he preached had its source outside himself. Nowhere, perhaps, does tills come out more clearly than in the first of all his Epistles.

Writing to the Thessalonians he says, ' For this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that when ye received from us the word of the message, even the word of God, ye accepted it not as the word of men, but, as it is i» truth, the word of God, which also worketh in you that believe ' (1 Th 2"). This is the central prmciple of the apostolic preaching. It is the ' demonstration of the Spirit and of power 'of which he speaks else- where (1 Co 2^).

And the substance of the preach- ing is just the new revelation about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit, and their united work for the salvation of men. ' Things wliich ej'e saw not and ear hearil not . . unto us God revealed them through the Spirit : for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God ' (1 Co 2"- '"). Thus the method of divine revelation in the NT is very similar to that in 0 T.

It is brought about through the action of the Holy Spirit upon certain selected instruments, with just the dillerence on which stress is laid in Ep. to Hebrews, that whereas, under the Old Covenant, God had spoken in and through the prophets, under the New He spoke ' in ' and through the Son, and those expressly chosen and trained by the Son. LtTRRATiTRB. — On the training of the apostles to he the vehicles of the new revelation, see Latham, Pastor Pastonnn (Conihrid^re, 1890).

Reference may also be made to the Bainfttitn Lfcturet for 1893 on ' Inspiration,' and other works on the sunie subject. 3. Distinctions in tdb Godhead.— la the previous sections of this article we have had gra<lually to discriminate between the operation and functions of wli.-it we now call the diilerent ' Persons' in the Godhead. At the time of which we are speaking (the period covered by NT) there was no su('h conception in the general mind as that of ' person;ility.

The term ' person ' was just coming into use through the delining influence of Roman Law acting upon popular language (the distinction of persona and res appears to liave come in during the 1st cent. B.C., shortly before the time of Cicero). But a long process had to be gone through before the idea of personality ac- quired an exact connotation ; and that process was to a largo e.

\tent involved in the theological con- troversies on the subject of the Trinity, the result of which was the formulated doctrine of Three Persons in One God, as we have it in what is commonly known as the Athanasian Creed. It would be an anachronism to expect a defini- tion of the doctrine in NT. And yet the doctrine is really a working out of data contained in NT. It is a rendering of these data intelligible to the consciousness as part of a reasoned and formulated whole.

The Christian theolo'nan is well aware that the only expression i)o.ssilile toliim is approxi- mate: he applies to the whole construction the dirtum of St. Augustine ; he says what he .says, nnn ut illud diceretur sed ne taceretur (Ih Trin. v. 9). Hut he is almost compelled to say .something, and the deJilicrate judgment of the Church has been that he is warranted in saying so much as he does.

In any critical study of that which we call by anticipation the doctrine of the Trinity in the NT, the starting-p<jint must undoubtedly be the t>ene- diction in 2 Co 13" 'The gnice of the Lord Jesua Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all."

In this verse we have an utterance of the mind of tlie apostle, which he knows will lind an echo in the minds of his readers at a fixed point in time and place, probably about twenty-six and in any case not more than twenty-eight years after the Ascen- sion. We are left to draw our conclusions as to the belief of the Church at this time. It is, of course, true that the object of the passage is not dogmatic. If it had been, its significance would have been less.

It is not the expounding of any new doctrine. It is not even the expounding of doctrine at all. It is only an invocation of blessing. But the peculiar form which this invocation takes, points to much previous preparation in thought and teaching ; it points to a settled, and we are obliged to think, uncontested belief, common alike to the writer and his readers.

The peculiarity of the belief consists in the re- markable way in which a group of spiritual bless- ings, such as man is accustomed to look for di- rectly from God, is not referred to the Godhead conceived singly as a Mon.ad, but distributivuly as Three, and yet Three so bracketed together as to be at the same time One. No graduated interpre- tation of the Three Names is possible. If it were, we should have Beings who were not Man and yet not wholly God.

In the Arian Controversy an attempt was made to establish this interpretation ; but it utterly and hopelessly failed. The other alternative remains, that St. Paul and the Church of his day thought of the Supreme Source of spiritual blessing as not single but threefold— threefold in essence, and not merely in a manner of speecli. How did he come to think thus?

How was it that a Church so far from the centre of things and at so ejirly a date was pre- pared to receive without question an assumption which to us seems to make such large demands upon the intellect ? It was certainly not a matter of course. We have seen that there was a certain tendency to hypostatize the Word of God, the Wisdom of God, the Spirit of God, even the Glory of God. The Messiah was thought of as more than human if less than in the full sense divine.

But all these conceptions were fluid and tentative. ,Jewish theologj" had no fixed and settled belief in regard to them. Even if we add to OT the other writings current at this period, Apocrypha and Pseudepi- grapha, the .Jewish Apocalypses and the Sayings traditionally handed down of the oldest Kabbis, still we should not find anything to suggest a combination of the three terms handled with the precision with which St. Paul handled them. One pa.

ssage there is whicli would abundantly account for St. Paul's language if we could acce|>t it as historical. That is the command to the apostles at the end of the first Gospel to "o and baptize all nations 'into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Mt2S'»). This belongs to a comparatively late and suspected part of thetiospcl. But one tradition may be later than anotlier and more limited in circulation, and yet not be any less authentic.

Now, the Didachi shows us that we no sooner cross the frontier of the ai>ostolic age than we finit baptism into the Threefold Name in full possession of the field (I>id. vii. 1, 3). The tradition is continuous. It is taken up by Justin {Apol. i. 61), and Tertullian expressly tells us that the person ImptiziHi was ilippod t^iree times in recognition of the Threefold Name {Pmx. 26). The practice, then, is at least 214 GOD GOD very old.

And it is no slight confirmation of the statement in the first Oospel that if it were true it would supply just the explanation that we want at once of the established rite and of St. Paul's language. In any case we seem compelled to assume that there was some foundation for both in the teaching of our Lord Himself. If there was not, at what point in the six-and-twenty years can the usage (doctrinal or liturgical) have been introduced in a manner so autlioritative as to impose it upon St.

Paul and the Churches of his founding ? We may ^eatly doubt if any satis- factory answer can be given to this question. On the other hand, the moment we assume that our Lord did really give this alleged command, and that He really did prepare for it by some corre- sponding teaching, a number of otiier facts are accounted for. We find the very teaching of which we are in search in many places of tlie Last Discourse as recorded by St. John (Jn 14"' ^ 15™ 16'- '"• "• ").

And with such teaching in the back- ground a variety of phenomena in St. Paul's Kpp. fall into their place which would otherwise be very intractable. (i.) The Father and the Son. — The Epistle (2 Co) ends with a triple benediction, and it begins \rith a double benediction. ' Grace and peace ' are invoked upon the Corinthian Christians ' from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.' We observe here the same sort of bracketing of the two Divine Names as in the case of the Three.

Although there is a distinction of names, and although there may bo a certain distinction and special distribution of function, the source of spiritual blessing is in its essence One. The fact that there is this alternation within ;he same Epistle of the Two names and tlie Three, sliows that the one expression is in no way incon- sistent with the other. A like alternation is 'ound side by side in several other of St. Paul's Epistles.

For instance, in 1 Co 12-" we have the Triad : Lord, God, Spirit ; in 1 Co 1" and 8' we nave (in the latter passage very expressly) the Duad : God [the (our) Father] and Lord [Jesus Christ]. In like manner, in Ro g"'"- ^•' we have the Triad, though not formally drawn out, just as clearly presupposed as in vv.''^' (cf. 1' etc.) we have tlie Duad ; and a like relation appears in Eph 2'» S^-"- "-" 4-« 5'8-»' compared with !»• «■ " Nor is this alternation confined to the Pauline Epistles.

It is seen again in 1 P p-'-" 4'^-' by the side of I"-2^ 2» .3i»-i8.2o-a gtc. ; and it is as con- spicuous in 1 Jn 5'^ compared with the general :enor of the Ep., which is constantly setting ' the Father' and 'the (His) Son' over-against each other. We may also compare Jude^"-" with :. 4. M. a> . jjev l-« 2^-" 3'- »■ »=• "■ "• ^ with 5«-" 7'-" etc.

And we are further reminded that in the DidacM baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is spoken of almost in the same oreath with baptism in the name of Christ {Did. vii. 1, 3 and ix. 5). There is thus an easy transition from the one way of speaking to the other. There is really a threefold usage.

The apostles and early Christians generally speak of God, of God the Father, and God the Son, of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according to the context and the particular purpose with which they are writing ; but the three modes of expression, so far from being mutually exclusive, are, in fact, closely connected and correlated.

And it is noticeable, that whUe there is this free and natural interchange of the three terms, no fourth term is ever added to the three as at all upon the same footing. The mental bracketing of which we have spoken appears to subsist throughout. The usage, although it is in some respects wide and varied, is yet in others strictly circumscriljed, and is regulated by fixed laws.

Wlien we look into it more closelj' we seem to become aware of a gradual development and expansion, if not in the original presentation of the doctrine, yet in the order in which the diHerent parts of it — so to speak — become consciously and definitely realized by the apostles and linst dis- ciples.

If (as we have seen reason to think) they had received fuller teacliing on the subject directly from the Lord Himself than is contained in our extant Gospels, this did not prevent tliom from grasping the truth only by degrees, and the very gradualness witli wliich it was grasped would account for some of the first statements being lost to us. It is the later teaching of events calling tlie earlier teaching to remembrance (Jn 14-") which lias preserved for us so much of this as we have.

It is a matter of common experience that there are lessons latent in the minil which only become vividly realized when something occurs to bring them home, or when the logic of thought naturally reaches them. In tlie case of the apostles the logic of thought started from Christ, the Incarnate Christ, wliom they had seen with their eyes, and their liands had handled in the days of His ilesh. If Christ was God, tlien it was certain that there must be in the Godhead some such di.

stinction as that which we call personal ; the attributes of personality at- tached to Him as unmistakably as to the apo.stlcs themselves. And if beneath these there lay a substratum of unity with the Power which ruled the heavens, that unity must still be such as admitted of personal distinction. The language which the apostles use is thor- oughly accounted for by the evidence of their own senses, taken >vith the utterances of Jesus Himself.

The keyword which is constantly upon His lips is the name 'Father' with its correlative 'Son.' These terms established themselves from the very first in the Christian consciousness as the true expression of the mutual relation. That they must have done so appears from the fundamental place which they had in the theology of St. Paul, in spite of all the independence which he claims for its origin.

No better argument exists for the view that at the time when he WTote his extant Epistles he had already some form of evangelic document before him. In any case he must have been familiar with an extremely solid and unani- mous tradition. To that tradition it is not loo much to say that all Christian speculation on the wider relations of the Godhead goes back. The central point in aU subsequent argument is the relation of ' Father ' and ' Son.'

And the difierence which in all ages has marked oft' a loyal from a disloyal interpretation of the data of Christianity has been this, that the one insisted upon a real Fatherhood and a real Sonship, which the other has attempted to explain away. This was the principle at issue in tlie Arian Controversy. And there has probably never been a controversy argued out more thoroughly or with a more abund- ant expenditure of both intellectual and moral force.

The outcome of it was the definite and triumphant aflirmation of the position that tlie Father is essentially Father and the Son essentially Son. The most abstruse clauses in the Athanasian Creed are nothing but the emphatic assertion and the systematic safeguarding of this. (ii.) The Eoly Spirit. — In framing their doc- trine of the Holy Spirit, as in framing their doc- trine of the Son, the apostles had before their minds a definite series of facts.

There was a certain group of phenomena which they consist- ently referred to the action of the Spirit.

The phenomena of what we call 'inspiration,' tha GOD GOD, CHILDRE2\ OF 21i divine influence of which they were conscious in preacliing and teaching; ; the sjiecial and reiuarkahle ' gifts ' (xa/jiff^aTo) whicli distinguished in an emi- nent degree the (irst generations of Cliristians ; and, generally speaking, the felt communion of the human spirit \\itli tlie divine, were regarded by them as manifestations of the activity of the Holy Ghost. If we read the three chs. I Co 12-14 we see that St.

Paul felt himself to be in the midst of sucli activity ; and tliere are many otber allusions to it. The Early Church appears to have dated the energies at work within it in a special sense from the lirst Pentecost after the Ascension.

They called this an 'outpouring;' of the Holy Ghost, seeing in it a fullilment ot prophecy (Ac 2"-"^'», Tit 3% IJut how was it that they came to speak of the work of the Holy Spirit as lie work of apersonl That they did so apiicars not only from such incidental passages as Ko S-", 1 Co 12", Eph 4*", but still more from the great Trinitarian te.\ts2 Co IS" and Mt 28'", in whicli the Huly Clhost is placed on precisely the same footing as the Son and the Father.

We have seen that this tan have been no momentary freak of language, Li.t that it must have had a broad foundation in tlie consciousness of the apostolic Church. Between the lluid usage of contemporary Judaism and the lixed usage of the apostles and their successors there intervenes the teacliing of Jesus. And it seems impossible not to refer to this tlie impulse which determined the direction of Cliristian thought upon the sub- ject.

The fragments of that teachin" which have been preserved for us in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 14i6ff. so J5M 16'-") seem to imply a j'et fuller con- text which has been lost ; but of tliemselves they are sulhcient to warrant the faith which the Church has evidentlj' held from the tirst, though as the centuries went on it was compelled to define it with increasing distinctness. There are two classes of pas.'sages in NT relating to the Holy Ghost.

On the one hand, there are those of which we have been speaking, where the Third Person (of later theologj-) is clearly distin- guished from the First and Second, and repre- sented as confronting them. And, on the oilier hand, there are passages in which the Third Person is as closely associated with the First and Second. The Spirit is repeatedly spoken of as the ' Spirit of God.' And the relationship indicated by this phrase is explained in 1 Co 2''"- as analogous to that of the spirit in man.

'For the Spirit searcheth all thmgs, j-e.a, the deet) things of God. For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in hira ? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.' ISut He who is thus described as the ' Spirit of God ' is also described as the ' Spirit of Chnxt.' So notably in Ko 8'-"- ' Hut 3'e are not in the llesh but in the Spirit, if so bo that tlie Spirit of God dwelleth in vou.

But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, lie is none of his. And if Christ is in you,' etc. Here ' Christ ' takes up the 'Spirit of Christ,' and that, a"ain, takes uj) the •Sjjirit of God' (delined a little later lus the 'Spirit of Him that raii*cd up Jesus from the dead ) in such a way as to show that, at least for the purpose of the writer, the three terms are convert- ible. Nor is this the only place in which we read of the 'Spirit of Christ' (cf.

1 P 1"), or ' of Jesus' (Ac 16' KV), or 'of Jesus Christ' (Ph V), or 'of [the] Son' (Gal 4"), or 'of the Lord' ( = Christ, 2 Co 3"). Again, we have to remember that the concep- tion of the incarnate Christ is reierred to the direct operation of the Holy Ghost (Lk I"), and that His endowment with the fulncRs of divine power for His ministry U also ihitid from the descent of the Holy Ghost at His baptism.

This ii the 'anointing with the Holy tihost' of Ac 10' as the sequel to which He is ' full of the Holj- Spirit ' (Lk 4'), and acU through the Holy Spirit (Mt 12-«, Ac l'. He 9^) ; He al.so communicated the Holy Spirit to the apostles (Jn 2iJ-). There is thus another side to the mystery of the Triune God. Although in one sense Three, He is in another no less One. There is such a mutual interaction, such a fundamental unity, as prevents distinction from amounting to separation.

The Three Persons are not three individuals. There are not three Gods, but One God. This is the evident drift of the data which NT has handed down to us ; and it is to these data that the later theology has sought to do justice. They find their most complete and ripest inter- pretation in the balanced clauses of the (Juicumt/ue. Those clauses are, no doubt, relative to the line of thought which leads up to them.

Compared to some aspects of the biblical teaching, they will appear secondary where this is primary. It is more important lor the great mass of Christians to have it brought home to them that God is love, that the proof of His love is the incarnation and death of His Son, and that He does impart of His own righteousness to men, than that {e.g.) the Son is ' not made nor created, but begotten.' But the signilicance of this latter proposition is that Christ is truly Son.

And the <|uestion whether He is truly or only figuratively Son is a vital q^uestion, as vital now as it was in the days of Nic;ia or Chalcedon. The question was quite sure to be raised, and, being raised, it has to be answered. The phrasing of the answer may varj' with the Ehilosopliy of the time, but its substance cannot e any otlier than that which has been so deliber- ately adopted and ratified. LiTBRATl'RB.

— No considerable monogrraph on the doctrine of God as Triune haa appeared sini-e Ilaur"s OU rhrigthchf L^hre von der Dreieiniijkeil u. Sleiuc/ttivrdujuj Gutter, 3 vols., Tiibinj^en, 18-11-1643, and G A. Meier, Dit Lehre ron der Trinitnt in i/irer hiittorischfn Entwurkeiuntjt 2 vo\s., Hiniburg u. Gotha, 1S44. A thorough discussion of the bi-tfinnini:^ of the doctrine in English is still a deMderattim. There is an instructive chai'V on the Holy Spirit in .

Milli::an, The Aseen- gion of Our Lord (1S9-), pp. lV^220. [Tlie literature on the previous sections of this art. has been ^veo under each section). \V. Sanday. GOD. CHILDREN (SONS, DAUGHTERS) OF, are biblical phrases for near and blessed relations to God, but used with various ajiplications and mean- ings. In NT the words 'children' (T^Kva) and 'sons' [viol) are distinguishable in meaning ; the former, in which the idea of origin is most prominent, is the favourite expression of St.

John ; while the latter, emjihasizing rather the notion of relation and privilege, is the one used by St. Paul. But even in NT the distinction is not an absolute one ; and in OT, though lioth ideas are found, the words are not definitely marked oil".

It is therefore advisiible to consider both phrases together, while markinj^ their various shades of meaning: and their significance may l>est be under- stood by examining the places where they occur, as nearly as possible in thoir historical order. A. IN THE OT.— In OT this cannot be done with certainty, because of the doubts and dillVr- ences of opinion among scholars lus to the dates of manj' of its books. But a jiretty sure starting- point can be found in the Bk.

of Hosea, the date of which, in the reign of Jerol>oain II. of Jsrael, is universally admitted. In this prophecy the relation of Israel to God is depicted, first, as tliat of a wife to her husband (chs. 1-3). This describes the nation or land as a whole, and individual I.sraolites are represented as her children, who a.s born to God are children of God.

The unfaithful wife is re- pudiated ('i') ; but when led to re|wntance, u described in that parable (2*-''), M> i\oiidcrfullir 21G GOD, CHILDREN OF GUI), CIIILDEEX OF parallel to our Lord's of the Prodigal Son, sho p.yaiii obtains mercy, and is once more the people of Ciod {2'-'^). In anticipation of that blessed restoration, it had been declared (1'") that the children of Israel would be called 'sons of the living God.' They are so named as born of her whose husband is J ', i.e.

who is in covenant with God. So, when the same ri"ure of the conjugal relation of God to Israel is used by Ezk, the actual cliildren of the nation are called liod's children for the same reason (Ezk lU-"- -' 'thy sons and thy dau,;,'hters whom thou hast borne unto me . . niy children,' 23'' ' their sons whom thej' bare unto me '). In these and similar passages, the notion of birth or origin is evidently tlic prominent one ; and in Ezk lli"', though the lleb.

word is 'sons' as in tlie pre- ceding verse, tlie LXX like the EV liave rendered it by riKva, ' cliildren.' As thus conceived, to be chililren of God is the same thing as to be horn nuiiibcrs of the natitm or community that is in covenant with God. Tliis notion of being God's children may probablj' be traced in the words of the I'liarisees to Jesus, ' \Ve were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God' (Jn 8^'), i.e. we are members of a people in covenant with God and true to him.

I'lUt llosea also gives another conception of Israel's relation to God in 11' ' When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.' With this must be taken Ex 4^2. -a^ where Goil says to Pharaoh, ' Isr. is my son, my firstborn : and I have said unto thee, Let my son go that he may serve me ; and thou hast refused to let him go : behold, I will slay thy son, thy firstborn.'

Here 'my son'='my people' in God's previous words to Moses ; and there is no emphasis on the {"tea of birth or origin ; for ' firstborn ' evidently conveys the notion simply of most precious or beloved, as in Zee 12'". It is the relation of Israel to God, and the value God puts on him, that is indicated : and so appropriately ' son,' noli ' child,' is the word employed.

The context that follows in Hos IP- ■* shows that fatherly training and teach- ing are included in the notion, and in '• ' fatherly pity and love. But throughout it is the people as a whole that is here called God's son. The relation that was before depicted as that of a wife to her husband, is now spoken of as that of a son to his father. These two figures are still more closely connected in the first great discourse of Jer (chs. 2.

3), where the fundamental idea is that Israel has been J"'s unfaithful wife, while yet on her repentance she is invited to say, ' My father, thou art the guide (or companion) of my youth ' (Jer 3'). The phrase, ' guide, companion, or friend of youth,' is used in Pr 2" for a husband, and prob.

that is its signifi- cance also in Jer 3* ; and the employment of the words ' my father,' as parallel, is not unnatural in a state of society when the head of the house stood almost in the same relation to his wife as to his chUdren.

In Jer 3'* ' Return, O backsliding chil- dren, saith the Lord, for I am a husband unto you : and I will take you one of a citj-, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion,' we have the people as a whole viewed as J'"s wife, and its members as his children ; and so also in vv. '"• ^•^.

But here the Israelites are called children of God, not, as in Hos and Ezk, simply as born of the people which is J"'s wife, but as taken bj* him one by one, and returning to him with personal re- pentance. The idea of physical origin has passed away, and the notions connected with sonsliip seem to be mainly divine pardon, protection, and in- heritance.

This whole passage also shows how the figure of God's marriage to Israel served an important pur- pose, in elevating the notion of the relationship trom a merely physical to a moral and spirituaJ one. The heathen peoples, csp. in the Semitic race, conceived themselves as children of the deity in a grossly physical sense, as apjiears even here (Jer 2^ ' which say to a stock, Thou art my father ; and to a stone, Thou hast begotten me ').

The conjugal relation, as founded, not on nature, but on a covenant of love, involving duties and responsibilities, gave a foundation for the moral appeals of the prophets, and made possible such a transition as we see in Jeremiah's teaching, to a higher view of sonship to God as an individual ]irivilege. A similar and perliajis more direct transition, from the collective to the individual relation, is made in Dt 14' ' Ye are the children of (lit. sons to) the I.OI'.D your God . .,' v.

- ' For thou art an holy peoi>le unto the LoRD lliy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people (i.e. a people of his own possession), above all jjcoples that are on the face of the earth.' Here sonship is ascribed to the I.sraelites individually on the ground that the people as a whole is hol^', i.e. separated to God by his sjjecial choice of them to be his own possession (see E.\ li)^-").

The notion of birth or origin is here entirely absent, and that of privilege and corresponding duty is the one conveyed by the name ' .sons of God.' Dt also contains a passage remarkably rich in ref. to the sonship of Isr. in the song ascribed to Moses in ch. 32. Here God is called the people's Father because he bought, made, and established it (vv.""), begat, gave birth to (v."), led and nourished it (w.'""''')

These expressions refer to the divine action in forming Israel into a nation by delivering it from Egypt and training it in the wilderness. On the ground of this, the individual Israelites are called 'his sons and his daughters' (v.'"), 'cliildren' (v.^) ; and they are blamed for their provoeatiop. But it is indicated that they who deal corruptly with God are not his children (v.'), and that iJod will take others to be his people so as to provokr them to jealousy (v.

-'), while the nations are called to rejoice with (or as being) his people (v.''^). Here we see distinctly a moral signilitance attached 1 1 the title 'sons' or 'children of God.' Though it belongs properly to Israelites, it is forfeited by them if they are not faithful to God, and it may be given to men of other nations as well.

Hence it is sometimes given specially to the godly, as in Ps 73'^ 'the generation of thy children' ; Pr 14-' ' In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence ; and his children shall have a place of refu";e.' See also the comparison in Ps 103'^ On the other hand, the privilege is ascribed to Gentiles, especially in the jiropheeies of their calling in the later book ot Isaiah.

God still calls Israelites ' my sons ' (la 45"), because they are sons of Zion (49"), who has been married to J" though put away for a time (50' and 54). But she is to receive children of whom she shall say, ' Who hath borne me these ? ' (49-'), i.e. God and his Church are to have people from among the Gentiles sharing the blessings of Israel and enhancing her glory.

Or, if those unexpected children are merely the exiled and forgotten Israelites, their sonship is now entirely independent of pliysical descent. ' For,' they say, ' thou art our Father, though Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us : thou, 0 Lord, art our F'ather : our Redeemer from everlasting is thy name ' (Is 63"', cf. 64^ 65' 66'», '). Even if sonship is not here directly extended to the Gentiles, the principle is laid down which implies that.

But it is not on the ground of nature or creation that this is done, but expressly on that of redemption and grace, only a redemption not merely external and national, like that of Israel from Egj'pt, but spiritual ' and therefore universal. GOD, CHILDREN OF GOD, CHILDEEX OF 217 In Mai 1', J", appealin" sjiecially to the priests, calls liiiiiself a father and a master, as looking for the lionour and fear given to eartldy fathers and masters. In ch.

2'" the prupliet ask^, ' Have we not all one Father '! hat!i not one God created us ? ' as a basis for a rehuke to the Jews for marrying heathen wives, V." ' Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he lovetli, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.' Here plainly the fatherhood is not conceived as extending to all men, and the creation spoken of is the formation of Israel as a nation, as in Is 43' 44^ and elsewhere.

In the time of Malachi it was necessary to insist on the sei)aration of the restored Jewish community from the surrounding idolaters, and he makes no mention of the calling of the Gentiles. But he indicates (ch. 3'"- ") that the true children of God are tlicy that fear him, of whom tlie Lord says, ' I will »j>are them as a man spareth his own son that Bcrveth him.'

Thus the OT affords a rich variety of statements about sonsliip to God as ascribed to men, which seem to exhibit successive stages in a development and elevation of the idea. (1) From the lirst it ap- pears to be raised above the gross physical notion by the conception of it as origin from the jieople that is married to J".

Then (2) it is conceived as being members of the people that J" has created as his son ; (3) as being taught and trained by J " as a father ; and (4) as not constituted by mere natural descent, but Ijy the fear of the Lord, and so possible for those who are not by birth meuibers of the people of Israel.

Before proceeding to consider how thia line of teaching is completed by Christ and liis apostles, it will be proper to refer to a few pas-sages in OT where the name 'sons of God* is given opparently to eiiperhuman beings. In Job 387, where J" challenges Job for ignorance of his wonderful works, he describes the crualioii of the world as being, ' When the morning stars Bang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy.'

Tlie parallel seems to be similar to the usage by which the hosts of God denote sometimes the stars and sometimes tlie angels : and ■ince in Job 16 and 21 .S.itan, undoubteflly conceived as a super- human Bi)irit, is described as presenting himself among the 30n8 of God, it is probable that m all these places the name is given to angels, and is used to indicate their nature, as the more common name 'angels' still retained its original reference to their otHce as messengers of God.

It would indicate beings akin to Ood as tjeing spiritual and superhuman, tiiough derived from and inferior to the Creator. They are also called his ' holv ones ' f Dt 3.-i2, I's 895), and his ' hosts ' (Ps 10321 etc.) In Ps 29' and 89« sons of the mighty ' should prob. be rendered ' sons of God ' or of gods,' but It is not a usual form of the name when used of the true Ood. The phra.se is sometimes used in the way in which in Ileb.'

son of man ' is simply 'man,' 'son of oil' = fruitful, "sons of flame' = sparks ; and as m early times tlie Israelites did Dot doubt the existence of the deities of the nations around them, they called them gods (f.r/. Ex 1511), which was afterwards ■oftened into ' sons of God,' or ' of gods' (Ps bU*J), and then into ' angels of Ood ' (as in I,.\.\ Pe STI- B).

The paj>sa^e in On 6i-» has been variously unrlerstood from very early times, and no interpretation is free from dirticiilty, but moilern sctiolarship inchnes to the view that by 'sons of Ood ' are meant angels. In Ps 821-8 'sons of the Host High* is synonj-mous with 'fifods,' and is applied to rulers and judges in the congrej^tion of God OS Investea t>y him with power, and called to rule in his Dome. B. IN THE NT.

— As the Bible contains no dis- tinct doctrine about angels, it is impossible to form any definite conception of the relation implied in the name ' sons of (Jud ' given to them in OT, esp. as the usage is not followed out in NT, where in the Fp. to Hebrews it is denied that God ever gave the name 'my son' iiersonally to any of the angels, that being the more e.xcellent name obtained by him who is the effulgence of God's glory and tlie very image of bis substance (He 1*"'). 1.

The Teaching of Jesus. — While keeping silence as to tlie sonship of angels, Jesus and his apostles have much to say as to the truth and blessedness of men being sons or children of Gwl. In the teaching of our Lord himself the fatherhood of God occupies a very large place, and is fur more fully exhibited than in OT. Jnsus came to reveal God, and the name in which he summed up his disclosure of his character was ' the Father.'

He is the Father by way of eminence as being full of love, pity, and kimlness, such as Jesus himself showed in ills own person. And this love extended to the most unworthy and sinful, and to Gentiles who were outside the commonwealth of Israel. Thus it is assiuncd in Christ's teaching that the blessing of being sons of God is not limited to the Jewish nation, though that is nowhere expressly said, and though Jesus declares that such praj'ers as the Gentiles offer are not to be made by tho.

se who know God as their Father in heaven (Mt 6'- >. To be called sons of God is one of the blessings of the kingdom of God which he proclaimed, promised to its members, esp. as peace-makers and as loving their enemies (>It 5"- ■""*).

As that kingdom is to be open to all nations (JIt 8"), and to men simply as sinners (Mt 9'- "), it is free to all or any to be sons of God, and in that aspect his F'atherhood may be called universal ; he has a fatherly heart towards all men, loves and pities all, and fncly forgives the most sinful when they return to liim. This is the lesson of the I'arable of the I'lodigal Son (Lk 15), and it is a most gracious and blessed one. In order to be entitled tocall God our Father we need no other w.

trrant than that we are sinners, willing to confess our sin and ask his forgiveness. The blessings of being sons of God ace. to Jcsu.s' teaching are forgiveness and gracious recejition when we come to God as penitents ; the assurance that God will hear our ]irayers, and give us good things when we ask him (.

Mt 7") ; that he cares for our welfare, and that we can trust hira to provide for all our earthly needs, so that withotit anxiety about these we may make it our great aim to be like liim(Mt C^'-**) ; the Sjiirit of our Father to speak in and through us when wo are called to speak for Christ (Mt 10'«- =») ; and, finally, the full enjoyment of the kingdom (Lk 1'2^-, Mt 2o-")- Jesus always uses the term 'sons,' not 'children,' of God, thus directing our attention to the nature of the relation rather than to the origination of it.

His main tcacliing is that we stand to God in a relationship in which we can trust him as loving us and caring for our soul's welfare, and can speak to him with treedom and confidence. Plainly, too, this is a personal and individual relation. \Ye have such privileges each for ourselves, and not merely as members of any nation or community. At the same time, Jesus teaches that this relation of sonship to God is connected with his own person, and to be enjoyed through him.

He claimed for himself a peculiar sonsliip, speaking of God as 'my Father' in a waj' that, according to Jn 5'", exposed him to a charge of blasphemy for making himself equal with God ; and he made our entering the kingdom of God depend on our not onlj' calling him Lord, but doing the will of his F'ather in lieaven (Mt 7'^'), and that is the same as doing his words {ib. -*).

He declared that no one knew the Fatlier but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal him (Mt U-''); and he revealed the l''atlier, not only by bis words, but by his whole character and life. Hence he invited the weary and heavy-laden to come to him and learn of him, and this was his call in general to all who would enter the kingdom of God.

He desired men to see in his own person and life what real sonship to God was, what childlike trust, what loving obedience, what zeal for his Father's honour and patient submission to his will it involved, and what rest and peace it brought with it. Into this blessedness he desires to bring men, and lie recog- nizes those who will do the will of his Fathir itt heaven as his brethren (Mt I'J^'). They ore son« of God through him and with him.

Their follow 218 GOD, CHILDREN OF GOD, CHILDKEX OF ing him implies a renonncin^ of earthly goods and even of life itself, such as is impossible to man and possitile only to God (Mk 10"). Hence to enter the kingdom of God requires a conversion and becoming as little children, which in Jn S*- ' Jesus calls being begotten anew of the Spirit.

Thus our Lord's teaching about sonship to God, though it is entirely of a practical religious char- acter rather than scientilic and theological, yet involves as its basis two ideas that he could not in his earthly life fully develop.

One is that true sonsliip to God is a participation of his own unique relation to the Father, which is the archetype of all filial relationship to God, and the other is tliat it becomes ours through the impartation of a new life from God, in the strength of which we are enabled to renounce our own self-centred life. Tlie former of these ideas is suggested by the fact that while Jesus habitually calls God his own Father, he as e.

\i)rossly calls those his brethren, whom he teaches to address God as ' our Father.' This shows that though he (e.^.

Jn 20") makes the distinc- tion between his own relation to God expressed in 'my Father,' and ours expressed by 'your Fatlier,' he does not mean that God is our Father in a quite dill'erent sense from that in which he is liis, for in that case we would be only nominallj' and not really his brethren ; but he would intimate that while his Sonship is indeed unique as being original and absolutely perfect, we partake of it through Iiim.

But this could not be fully explained as long as the truth about his own person could not be clearly revealed. The otlier idea is implied in Jesus' teaching that God's sons are those who trust him and are like him, and that for us this implies a great change of mind and heart, a turning our back on our worldly selves, such as can be etl'ected onl}' under the inlluence of a power from God.

But this, too, could not be made plain tiU the coming of the Spirit, whom Jesus promised to complete his teaching. The outcome of that teaching is to be seen in the apostolic Epistles, and in these we find the former idea developed more especially by St. Paui and the latter by St. John. 2. The TEACHiNa of Paul. — St. Paul views Christianity chiefly in its bearing on the personal relation between man and God.

Apart from the salvation of Christ, that relation is tliat of a transgressor of the eternal moral law to the righteous Lawgiver and Judge, hence it is a state of condemnation and death. From that he is redeemed by the propitiation which consists in the obedience and sacrifice of Christ the Son of God. The truth that our Redeemer is God's own beloved Son is repeatedly emphasized in connexion •with his sacrifice as enhancing the love of God and the self-emptying grace of our Lord ; and St.

Paul undoubtedly regarded ChrLst's Sonship as not merely an oflicial or Messianic, but a pre-existent and eternal relation to God. But in his view Jesus' death is our redemption only in virtue of our being one with him in it by faith, so that by it we die to sin and to the law, and are freed from its curse.

Since, then, we are redeemed from our natural state of condemnation as sinners bj' dying in and with the Son of God, who loved us and gave liimself for us ; since we live now only in liim, our relation to God is henceforth the same as his, we are sons of God in Christ Jesus, because by faith, sealed in baptism, we have put on Christ (Ga'. 3*' "). It has been questioned whether here and in Ro 6', where St. Paul uses the limiting!?)

pro- noun 'as many as' and the phrase 'baptized into Christ,' instead of the usual one ' baptized into the name of Christ,' he refers to the outward rite of water baptism at all, and not rather to the inward washing from sins by real union to the Saviour. Most coininentators, however, cunsidei that there is no rciusonable doubt that by baptism into Christ he means the sacrament.

But it this bo so, the apostle certainly assumes that it was received in faith and sealed a real union to Christ, which is the ground of our sonship. The sonship of believers in Christ, St.

Paul con- nects with the or view of the Israelites being God's sons in virtue of the covenant and promise to Abraham (Gal 3^), and lie proceeds to exidain the special privileges brought uy Clirist by com- paring the position of Israel under the law to that of children under age, who, though really sons and heirs, have not practically more liberty tlian servants, but are under guardians and stewards by wliom they are governed and their property is managed.

So God's children, before Clirist came, being immature, were in subjection to what St. 1 'aul calls ' the rudiments of the world,' i.e. elementary teaching by precepts relating to outward things, such as meats, times, and seasons.

But it is remarkable that the apostle speaks of the Gentiles also as in their heathen state having been under such rudiments {Gal 4'-°), so that we may infer that he recognized a certain divine training even of them, as elsewhere he speaks of them being a law to themselves (Ro 2'*''"). He views Christ's coming and work both as giving sonship to those who were only servants, and also as giving full filial rights to those who were children under age.

But not as if it were the former only to Gentiles and the latter to Jews as such ; but that it was a real gift of sonship to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were without God ; and to all who were really seeking him, in whatever nation, though they might be very immature in their spiritual life, it was the bestowal of the fuU pri\aleges of sons of full age having free and direct access to God as their F'ather.

This view is in accordance with the highest conception attained in the OT, that in Deutero-Isaiah from which am/ other prophetic Scriptures St. Paul quotes in his discussion of the relations between Israel and the Gentiles in Ro 9-11. In order to bring out the privilege of behig made sons of God, St. Paul employs the notion of adoption as recognized in the Roman law. See Adoption.

Among the privileges flo\ving from sonship in Christ he mentions the bestowal of the Spirit, as the Spirit of God's Son, or of adoption, who cries in us, i.e. moves us to cry, 'Abba, Father' (Gal 4*, Ro 8"), and with this is connected the access we have with boldness to God as our Father (Eph 2'^ 3'-). Another benefit flowing from sonship is the inheritance which we have in and with Christ (Gal 3=«-^ 4', Ro 8").

This means that the glory that is to be revealed is as sure to us as if we had a right to it in strict law, and at the same time is the free gift of the F'ather'a love. In con- nexion with this St.

Paul develops the idea that believers in Christ, though poor, afflicted, and per- secuted in this world, yet really have the Messianic blessings promised in the OT as those of the kingdom of God, because they can rejoice in their tribulations, since these are means of their per- fection, and are inconsiderable in \iew of the promised glory (Ro 5'"" 8'^-^, 2 Co 4'«-o9).

The further notion that afllictions are chastisements sent by God in love, and for our real and truest good, is expressed in the Ep. to Hebrews (12'-") as a special blessing of God's chUdren more distinctly than in the Pauline Epistles. For St. Paul does not conceive our relation to God as that of youn§ children needing discipline, but rather as that ot sons of full age in a relation of freedom and Ioto to our heavenly Father.

Hence he is not fond of GOD, CHILDREN OF GOD, CHILDREN OF 218 the expression children (riKva.) unless when the form or his argument from (JT leads him to use it, as in Ro 9'-". So, too, he does not use the idea of our being begotten anew of the Spirit to describe the be^mning of Christian life ; lie con- ceives it rather as a new creation or a raising from death.

In Tit 3Hhe word ' rejjeneration ' is not the common expression for what is generally so called, and it is not certain that it refers to the new birth of individuals. 3. TiiK Teaciiino in Hebrews. — Here again the notion of children is more prominent than that of sons, an<i the idea in ch. 12 is the position of young chihlren needing eilucation and chastise- ment.

This writer also has in view the beginning of the relation in a birth rather than in adoption, for ho calls God the Father of spirits in contrast with the fathers of our flesh (12"). It is unnatural to sujipose that he meant by these words to tench the philosophical doctrine that men derive from their earthly parents only their bodies, and their spirits directly from God.

Whether this be true or not, the idea of the writer was manifestly the religious one, that while our relation to oar earthly parents is jjhysical, our relation as children to God is spiritual. But that he does not .fonceive this relation as a universal one, is jdair from the fact that he speaks of the possibility jf 'jeing without chastisement, and so being bastards and not sons (v.*), here using the Pauline term for the relation. There is one utterance of St.

Paul, in h'« tipeech at Athens (Ac l"^^^), where he sayr :i all men aa such that they are the otl'spring (-yfvos) of God, because he has made us with tlie purpose that we shall know him ; he is not far from any one of us, since in him we live and move and have our being. Tliis relation is clearly not the same as that which the apostle in his Epistles ascribes to Christians when he says they are sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

It does not include the blessings of freedom, of the spirit of adoption, or of being heirs of God. Hence, if this universal relation is to be called sonship, it must be clearly distinguished from that Christian sonship of which he speaks most frequently and most fully. But if it be considered that St.

Paul does not use the word ' sons ' (ulol), but the more indefinite one ' oll'spring ' (yivoi), that he borrows this from a Greek poet, and that the only use that he makes of the state- ment is to show that since we are so like God it is foolish to think that the Deity can be repre- sented by material images, it cannot but appear very precarious to infer from this expression that St.

Paul would say that all men are sons of God, or that the relation that is formed by our creation in God's image deserves to be called sonship. He does indeed tench that all things were created through and in the Son of God, who aiipeared on earth as Jesus Christ (Col !'»•") ; and ho declares in the warmest and most glowing language the love and kindness, goodness and patience of God towards all men, seeking to lead them to rei)ent- ance.

If we think that these truths are fairly expressed by saying that God is the Father of all men, and they his sons, we may, on our own rcsponsibilitVi use these phrases j but we should reiiHiuber t)iat St. I'aul does not use them in such a sense, but means by being sons of God something far more blessed.

The Palestinian n|>ostles do not use the Paulino term 'adoption'; but they describe in dillerent waj's how men are made 'children' of God, employ- ing that word rather than ' sons,' because they em- phasi/o the spiritufJ birth by which we are re- newe<l. •t. The Teaciiino op Jame."— In the Ep.

of Jamea (1") God is called the Father of lights, from whom Cometh down every good ginng and every perfect boon, and to whom must not be attributed any temptation to sin, because he is unchangeable in goodness. Then it is added : ' Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of lirst-fruits of his creatures' (1"). The 'we' here are clearly those who, aa afterwards said, have ' the implanted word,' which is able to save their souls (1-^).

This reminds us of Jesus' Parable of the Sower and tlie .Seed, where the word of the kingdom is compared to seed having a living power of germination and pro- ducing new life, and the fruit of the good seed is said to be the sons of the IdnL'dom (.\lt 13*'), in opposition to the sons of the evil one.

In Ja I'' God 18 called the Father absolutely, to show that he is truly and purely worshijjjied by visiting the widows and fatherless in their atHiction ; and in 3", where is exposed the inconsistency of blessing God while we curse men, God is called the Lord and Father ; but, as if to leave no doubt that all men are included, they are described, not as chil- dren of God, but as made after the similitude of God.

It is maintained by many that since all men are made in God's image, and cared for by him with inlinite goodness and love, they are all his cliililren ; and if they think it best to use the phrase in that sense, no one can object to their doing so, and the thing meant is most cer- tainly taught in Scripture ; but it does not appear that the apostles called it by the name of sonsliip, and it does appear that they described believers as sons of God in a higher sense because born again by his word and Spirit.

5. The Teaching of Peter.— In 1 P 1' it is said that 'the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to his great mercy, begat us again to a living liope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, into an inheritance incor- niptible, undehled, and unfading, reserved in the heavens for us.'

This by itself might be merely a rhetorical way of saying that the historical fact of Jesus being raised to life after his death and burial awakened in the souls of his followers a hope of immortal blessedness that made them practically new men, animating them with new life.

But when we read further on in the same chapter (1 P 1^), ' having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God which liveth and abideth lor ever,' we can hardly doubt that the apostle means to describe a change that is wrought, not merely by the impression made by an event even as great and important as the resurrection of Christ, but by an inlhience working directly on our souls, and making us, as afterwards described (2-), aa newborn babes in our religious life and relation to God.

This corresponds to what Jesus taught of the need of being turned, so aa to become as little children (Mt IS^), aa well as of being begotten of the Spirit (Jn 3'"'). It seems, therefore, to be in ref. to this new birth that St. Peter speaks of Christians calling God, the impartial Judge, Father (I P 1"), not as in the AV, 'if ye call on the Father,' but 'if ye call hiin Father who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work."

It is plainly not all men by whom God is to Iw aildre.s.se(l as Father, but bit- lievers in virtue of their having been begotten again. So, too, they are called to show them- selves obedient children (1"), or children of obedience. Throughout, the idea of birth is the |iromiiient one, rather than that of the relation and privileges of sons. These are not develoi>ea as they are by St. Paul and by the writer to tlio lleb., the only one specially mentioned being the inheritanco (I P 1*).

It is in harmony with this coiiceptioD of believers being children of God bo' 220 lOD, CHILDREN OF GOD, CHILDREN OF canse bom or begotten of him, that in 2 P 1* they are said to become partakers of the divine nature. Also we may observe that in 1 F God is distinct- ively called the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (!'), and the notion of our being in Christ and dying with him to sin is also in the writer's mind (2" 4'). The opening sentence is formed after the pattern of that of the Ep.

to the Eph.; but while St. Paul blesses God because he has fore- ordained us to adoption (Eph 1*), St. Peter seems to have expre.s.sed the same idea of sonship by divine gift, in the more concrete form of a begetting. 6. The Teaching of John.— The teaching of St. John on this subject combines the elements of the Pauline and Petrine, though it is more akin to the latter, and uses the term ' children ' rather than sons of God.

The keynote to it may be found in the Prologue to the Gospel (I'"-"), 'to as many as received him (the Logos) he gave the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name : which were begotten, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.' Here we have the right to become children of God bestowed by Christ, which answers to St. Paul's statement, ' God sent forth his Sou . . that we might receive the adoption of sons.'

The word 'adoption' is not employed; but the right to become children expresses the same thing in less technical lanjjuage. Further, this is said to be given to those w-lio receive Christ by believing on his name. St. Paul had al.so wTitten, ' Ye are all sons of God by fa;'.,h in Jesus Christ ; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ' (Gal 3^'). Thus for St. John, as well as for St.

Paul, our sonship to God is through union to Christ the only -begotten Son, and that union is efiected by faith. But St. John adds to this the conception found in St. James and St. Peter of a birth or begetting of God, which he emphatically distinguishes from the natural birth in every aspect of it. Those wlio oelieve in Christ's name are they who were be- gotten of God ; and that this is not done by the process of natural generation is shown by a three- fold contrast : not of blood, i.e.

they did not be- come sons of God through or in virtue of their being of the one blood of which God has made all mankind. Neither was it by any movement or impulse of their own nature, whether the spon- taneous tendencies of its animal faculties (' the wUl of the flesh'), or even the voluntary acts of personality ('the will of man'). The contrast is more briefly and pointedly expressed in our Lords discourse with Nicodemus as between being be- gotten of the flesh and of the Spirit ( Jn 3'). St.

John seems to conceive the Divine Spirit as a principle or power of life and holiness proceeding from God, given to Jesus Christ in all its fulness and by him communicated to his disciples. It is not unworthy of notice that Iren. and TertuU. apply Jn 1'^ to Christ, apparently reading the verb in the singular ('who was bom ') ; and though that reading is only found in some Lat.

MSS and cannot be received, yet in 1 Jn 5" our Lord, according to the most natural intemretation, is called ' he that was be- gotten of God.' St.

John seems chiefly anxious to show that the believer's being a child of God necessarily involves likeness to God in character and life ; and hence, while he ascribes this privilege to the wonderful love of the Father (1 Jn 3'), and to our being united to Christ by faith (Jn 1^), he dwells most fully on the truth that our sonship is due, not merely to the gracious act of adoption by the Father and our being made one witli the Son through faith, but also to our receiving a new life from ine Spirit of God, which communicates to Ufl that very principle of love which is the essence of God.

In 1 Jn 2^ he says, ' every ont that doeth rigliteousness is begotten of him,' and tlie uniform u.saL;e of the apostle seems to show that he means of God, though it is of Christ that h« has been speaking just before. Wherever there is real righteousness in any num it is deriveil from him who is the archetype and source of all right- eousness.

Tlien, after expressing his joyful sense of the greatness of the Father's love and the reality of the sonship that it bestows, he returns to the subject of the inconsistencj- of that sonship with sin and its inseparable connexion with right- eousness, and at 3' lie says, ' Whosoever is be- gotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him, and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God.'

The statement is evidently an ideal one, describing the Christian life in its ultimate perfection when we sljall be like him, for we shall see him as he is (v.-). Hut it is put in the present, because that perfection is really given in principle and germ to all who are begotten of God even now. The impossibility of their sin- ning is not to be achieved by any further or additional gift or power, but by the life from God that is given at the first, when it comes to its full maturity.

That principle of sinlessiiess is called the seed of God which abides in his children. This seems to denote a spiritual life derived from God, whereby, as it is put in 2 P 1', we become ' partakers of the divine nature' ; it is what Jesus indicates when he saj-s, ' That which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (Jn 3''). Tlie divine nature ace. to St. John is love (1 Jn 4*- ""), and this love is implanted in us when God gives us of his Spirit.

So in a spiritual sense our being begotten of God is not a mere metaphor, but a proper statement of what is a real communication of the mo.st essential life of God. But, while giving this high transcendent view of the nature of believers' son- ship to God, St. John is careful to insist that its reality must be proved by the practical test of conformity to the moral law in the common allairs of daily life.

He does not allow the mystical union with Christ and God to obscure the distinct personal relations between us and God. There is to be a day of judgment, and one of the blessings of the children of God is to have confidence in that day, and not to be ashamed before Christ at his coming. In the present life the relation of the children of God to him as their Father, im- plies confession of sin and prayer for others as well as themselves, and requires perfect truth and frankness.

The blessings of sonship to God are summed up by St. John in the one great idea of eternal life. The world outside of Christ is described as lying in the evil one (1 Jn 5''), of the evil one, children of the devil (3'°) ; but Christ is the propitiation for the whole world (2-) ; and as the love of God is manifested in sending his Son to be a propitiation for our sins (4'°), it is implied that God's fatherly love has a universal aspect, though all men are not really, in St.

John's view, God's children. LiTERATiTRK. — The subject of our BODsbip to God has not been much discussed until recent times, though it came incidentally into consideration in connexion with the Sonship of Christ, aa in Athanosius' Orat. agst. Ariang (esp. Or. ii.), and in the systems of theology, as in Calvin's Inst. (l. xiv. 18, n. xiii. 1, 111. ii. 23), and practical treatises, as Thomas Goodn-in's On the Work of the lioly Ghost. In modern times such writers as F. D. Maurice, F. W.

Robertson, etc., have made great use of the idea that all men are children of God, to exclude the doctrine of God's judicial dealings. R. 8. Candlish discussed the subject in his Cunningham Lectures on the Fatherhood of God, maintaining that sonship belongs to believers, and is founded on that of Christ. T. J.

Crawford in his Fatherhood of God criticised these positions, and maintained a twofold son- ship — one universal, founded on Creation, and another special, bestowed on believers in Christ. Another work that appeared at the same time is The Diirine Fatherhood, by C. U. H. Wright, taking mainly Dr. Candlish's view. The other side is strcnglj maintained in A. M. Fairbaim's Chritl in ilodem Thectogy.

GUD FORDID GODLINESS ^21 In tliL-se discussions the subject was connected more or less with farreaOiing q-icstions or systematic theology, and the notion of sonship to God plays an important part in the Dftg- matik o( R. A. Lipsms. Its exeifeticiil discussion belon^'s pro- perly to the Bib. Theol. of the NT, ari<l reference may be made to the works, on that subject, of Schmid, Weiss, Beyschlag, also to Wcndt'8 Teaching o/ Jesus, and to Bruce's The KiwjJuin of (Jod and St.

Paul's Conception of I'hrislianitj/. There is a very interesting special study of St. Taul'sconception of atloption lo relation to Kom. law by W. E. Hall in the Contemp. Kto. A"?- l**"!- J. S. CANDLISn.