Difference between revisions of "God"

<p> <b> 1. General aspects of the apostolic doctrine. </b> -The object of this article is to investigate the doctrine of God as it is presented in the [[Christian]] writings of the apostolic period; but, in view of the scope of this Dictionary, the teaching of our Lord Himself and the witness of the [[Gospel]] records will be somewhat lightly passed over. </p> <p> The existence of God is universally assumed in the NT. The arguments that can be adduced, <i> e.g. </i> from the consent of mankind and from the existence of the world, are only intended to show that the belief that God is is reasonable, not to prove it as a mathematical proposition. But undoubtedly the fact that the doctrine is by such arguments shown to be probable will lead man to receive with more readiness the revealed doctrine of God’s existence. The biblical writers, however, did not, in either dispensation, concern themselves to prove a fact which no one doubted. &nbsp;Psalms 10:4; &nbsp;Psalms 14:1; &nbsp;Psalms 53:1 are no exceptions to this general consent. The ungodly man (the ‘fool’) who said in his heart ‘There is no God,’ did not deny God’s existence, but His interfering in the affairs of men. ‘The wicked … saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.’ </p> <p> The apostolic doctrine of God as we have it in Acts, Revelation, and the [[Epistles]] does not come direct from the OT. It presupposes a teaching of our Lord. At first this teaching was in the main handed down by the oral method, and the Epistles, or at least most of them, do not defend on any of our four Gospels, though it is quite likely that there were <i> some </i> written evangelic records in existence even when the earliest of the Epistles were written (&nbsp;Luke 1:1). St. Paul, writing on certain points of Christian teaching, tells us that he handed on what he himself had received (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:2; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:23; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 15:3; the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίον in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:23 probably does not mean ‘from the Lord without human mediation’: it was tradition handed on from Christ). </p> <p> In approaching the apostolic writings we must bear in mind two points. ( <i> a </i> ) The NT was not intended to be a compendium of theology. The Epistles, for example, were written for the immediate needs of the time and place, doubtless without any thought arising in their writers’ minds of their being in the future canonical writings of a new volume of the Scriptures. We should not, therefore, <i> a priori </i> expect to find in them any formulated statement of doctrine. ( <i> b </i> ) There is a considerable difference between the Epistles on the one hand and the [[Gospels]] on the other in the presentation of doctrine. The Gospels are narratives of historical events, and in them, therefore, the gradual unfolding of Jesus’ teaching, as in fact it was given, is duly set forth. This is especially the ease with the Synoptics, though even in the Fourth Gospel there is a certain amount of progress of doctrine. At the first the doctrines taught by oar Lord are set forth, so to speak, in their infancy, adapted to the comprehension of beginners; and they are gradually unfolded as the Gospel story proceeds. In the Epistles, on the other hand, the writer treats his correspondents as convinced Christians, and therefore, though he instructs them, he plunges at once <i> in medias res </i> . There is no progress of doctrine from the first chapter of an [[Epistle]] to the last. </p> <p> The question we have to ask ourselves is, What did the apostles teach about God? Or rather, in order not to beg any question (since it is obviously impossible in this article to discuss problems of date and authorship), we must ask, What do the books of the NT teach about God? </p> <p> <b> 2. Christian development of the OT doctrine of God. </b> -It is an essential doctrine of the NT writers that a new and fuller revelation was given by the [[Incarnation]] and by the fresh outpouring of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> The revelation by the Incarnate </i> .-That the Son had made a revelation of old by the part which He took in creation (see below, 6 ( <i> e </i> )) is not explicitly stated, but is implied by &nbsp;Romans 1:20, which says that creation <i> is </i> a revelation of God’s everlasting power and [[Divinity]] (θειότης, ‘Divine nature and properties,’ whereas θεότης is ‘Divine Personality’ [see Sanday-Headlam, <i> International Critical [[Commentary]] </i> , 1902, <i> in loc </i> .]). But the Incarnate reveals God in a fuller sense than ever before: ‘God … hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in [his] Son’ (&nbsp;Hebrews 1:1 f.). The revelation by the Incarnation is a conception specially emphasized in the Johannine writings, not only in the Gospel, but also in the First Epistle and the Apocalypse. The [[Prologue]] of the Gospel says that ‘God only begotten’ (or ‘the only begotten Son’ [see below, 6 ( <i> c </i> )]) ‘which is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared him’ (&nbsp;John 1:18). ‘What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth witness’ (&nbsp;John 3:32). The revelation of the Son is the revelation of the Father (&nbsp;John 14:7-11). The ‘life which was with the Father’ was manifested and gave a message about God (&nbsp;1 John 1:2-5). The revelation of eternal life which is in the Son was made when God bore witness concerning His Son (&nbsp;1 John 5:10 f.). This new and fuller revelation is that with which the Apocalyptist begins his book (&nbsp;Revelation 1:1): ‘the revelation (apocalypse) of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants’ (see Swete, <i> Com. in loc. </i> , who gives good reasons fox thinking that the revelation mode by Jesus, rather than that made about Jesus, is meant; cf. &nbsp;Galatians 1:12). </p> <p> We find the same teaching, though in a somewhat less explicit form, in the [[Pauline]] Epistles. Christ is ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God … made unto us wisdom from God’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:24; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:30). In Him ‘are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden’ (&nbsp;Colossians 2:3). In the new ‘dispensation of the fulness of the times’ God has ‘made known unto us the mystery of his will’ (&nbsp;Ephesians 1:9 f., a passage where ‘mystery’ specially conveys the idea of a hidden thing <i> revealed </i> , rather than one kept secret). To St. Paul personally Jesus made a revelation (&nbsp;Galatians 1:12; see above). That our Lord made a new revelation is also stated in the Synoptics: ‘Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal [him]’ (&nbsp;Matthew 11:27; cf. &nbsp;Luke 10:22). So in Acts, Jesus bids the disciples ‘wait for the promise of the Father, which [said he] ye heard from me’ (&nbsp;Acts 1:4); and St. Peter (&nbsp;Acts 10:36) calls the new revelation ‘the word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all).’ Sanday ( <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the [[Bible]] (5 vols) </i> ii. 212) points out that the passages about our Lord being the ‘image’ of God, and ‘in the form of God’ (see below, 6 ( <i> c </i> )), express the fact that He brings to men’s minds the essential nature of God. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> The revelation by the Holy [[Ghost]] </i> .-The new revelation of the nature of God by the full outpouring of the Spirit, in a manner unknown even in the old days of prophetical inspiration, is also, as far as the promise is concerned, a favourite Johannine conception (see especially John 14-16). The promise is, however, alluded to by St. Luke (&nbsp;Luke 24:49, &nbsp;Acts 1:4), and its fulfilment is dwelt on at great length in Acts, which may be called the ‘Gospel of the Holy Spirit,’ and in which the action of the Third Person in guiding the disciples into all the truth (&nbsp;John 16:13) is described very fully. Jesus gave commandment to the apostles ‘through the Holy Ghost’ (&nbsp;Acts 1:2). The guidance of the Spirit is described, <i> e.g. </i> , in &nbsp;Acts 2:17 f.; &nbsp;Acts 8:9; &nbsp;Acts 10:19; &nbsp;Acts 11:12; &nbsp;Acts 13:2; &nbsp;Acts 16:6 f.; &nbsp;Acts 20:23; &nbsp;Acts 21:11, though these passages speak rather of the practical loading of the disciples in the conduct of life rather than of the teaching of the truth. St. Paul says that ‘the things which eye saw not’ (he seems to be paraphrasing &nbsp;Isaiah 64:4) have been revealed by God ‘unto <i> us </i> ’ (ἡμῖν is emphatic here) ‘through the Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:9 f.; so &nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:13). It is the Holy Spirit only who can teach us that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:3). </p> <p> <b> 3. Attributes of God in the NT </b> .-Before considering the great advance on the OT ideas made by the Christian doctrine of God, we may notice certain [[Divine]] attributes which are emphasized in the NT, but which are also found in the OT. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> God is [[Almighty]] </i> .-The word used in the NT (as in the Eastern creeds) for this attribute is παντοκράτωρ, chiefly in the [[Apocalypse]] (&nbsp;Revelation 1:8; &nbsp;Revelation 4:8; &nbsp;Revelation 11:17; &nbsp;Revelation 15:3; &nbsp;Revelation 16:7; &nbsp;Revelation 16:14; &nbsp;Revelation 19:6; &nbsp;Revelation 19:15; &nbsp;Revelation 21:22), but also in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:18, as it is used in the Septuagint, where it renders <i> ṣ </i> <i> e </i> <i> bhâ’ôth </i> and <i> [[Shaddai]] </i> . We notice in each instance in Rev. how emphatically it stands at the end: ‘the Lord God, which is and which was … the Almighty,’ ‘the Lord God, the Almighty’; not ‘Lord God Almighty’ as Authorized Version(the Authorized Versiontranslates the word by ‘omnipotent’ in &nbsp;Revelation 19:6 only). The word <i> omnipotens </i> occurs in the earliest [[Roman]] creed.-But what does ‘Almighty’ imply? To the modern reader it is apt to convey the idea of omnipotence, as if it were παντοδύναμος, <i> i.e. </i> ‘able to do everything,’ on account of the Latin translation <i> omnipotens </i> . So [[Augustine]] understands the word in the [[Creed]] ( <i> de Symbolo ad Catechumenos </i> , 2 [ed. Ben. vi. 547]), explaining it, ‘He does whatever He wills’ (Swete, <i> Apostles’ Creed </i> , p. 22). Undoubtedly God is omnipotent, though this does not mean that He can act against the conditions which He Himself makes-He cannot sin, He cannot lie (&nbsp;Titus 1:2, &nbsp;Hebrews 6:18; so &nbsp;2 Timothy 2:13 of our Lord). As Augustine says ( <i> loc. cit </i> .), if He could do these things He would not be omnipotent. But this is not the meaning of ‘Almighty.’ As we see from the form of the Greek word (παντοκράτωρ), and as is suggested by the [[Hebrew]] words which it renders, it denotes sovereignty over the world. It is equivalent to the ‘Lord of heaven and earth’ of &nbsp;Acts 17:24, &nbsp;Matthew 11:25. Everything is under God’s sway (see Pearson, <i> Expos. of the Creed </i> , articlei., especially notes 37-43). The [[Syriac]] bears out this interpretation by rendering the word <i> aḥîdh kûl </i> , <i> i.e. </i> ‘holding ( <i> or </i> governing) all.’ </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> God is ‘living.’ </i> -He has ‘life in himself’ (&nbsp;John 5:26). He is ‘the living God’ (&nbsp;Revelation 7:2), ‘that liveth for ever and ever’ (&nbsp;Revelation 10:6); and therefore is eternal, the ‘Alpha and Omega, which is and which was and which is to come’ (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος), ‘the beginning and the end’ (&nbsp;Revelation 1:8; &nbsp;Revelation 21:6; cf. &nbsp;Revelation 16:5)-these words are here (but not in &nbsp;Revelation 22:13; see below, 6 ( <i> e </i> )) rightly ascribed by Swete to the [[Eternal]] Father. ‘One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (&nbsp;2 Peter 3:8; cf. &nbsp;Psalms 90:4; see also &nbsp;Romans 1:20). </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) <i> God is omniscient </i> .-He knows the hearts of all men (καρδιογνῶστα πάντων, &nbsp;Acts 1:24; &nbsp;Acts 15:8.; The prayer in &nbsp;Acts 1:24 is perhaps addressed to our Lord); He knows all things (&nbsp;1 John 3:20). St. Paul eloquently exclaims: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!’ (&nbsp;Romans 11:33), and ascribes glory ‘to the only wise God,’ <i> i.e. </i> to God who alone is wise (&nbsp;Romans 16:27; the same phrase occurs in some Manuscriptsof &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:17, but ‘wise’ is there an interpolation). Even the uninstructed [[Cornelius]] recognizes that we are in God’s sight (&nbsp;Acts 10:33). Such sayings cannot but be a reminiscence of our Lord’s teaching that ‘not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God’ (&nbsp;Luke 12:6). They are summed up in the expressions ‘God is light’ (&nbsp;1 John 1:5) and ‘God is true’ (‘This is the true God,’ &nbsp;1 John 5:20; for the reference here see A. E. Brooke’s note in <i> International Critical Commentary </i> , 1912, <i> in loc </i> .), God ‘cannot lie’; see above ( <i> a </i> ). </p> <p> ( <i> d </i> ) <i> God is transcendent </i> .-This Divine attribute had been exaggerated by the Jews just before the Christian era, but it is nevertheless dwelt on in the apostolic writings. The ‘things of God’ are indeed ‘deep,’ so that man cannot, though the Spirit can, ‘search them out’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:10 f.; cf. &nbsp;Job 11:7). God, who ‘only hath-immortality,’ dwells ‘in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see’ (&nbsp;1 Timothy 6:16; cf. &nbsp;John 1:18, &nbsp;1 John 4:12; &nbsp;1 John 4:20). He is spirit (&nbsp;John 4:24 Revised Version margin) and invisible (&nbsp;Colossians 1:15, &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:17, &nbsp;Hebrews 11:27), unchangeable (&nbsp;Hebrews 6:17 f.,; cf. &nbsp;Malachi 3:6, &nbsp;Psalms 102:27), infinite, omnipresent (&nbsp;Acts 7:48; &nbsp;Acts 17:24; &nbsp;Acts 17:27; cf. &nbsp;Psalms 139:7 ff.) These statements do not mean, however, that God is altogether unknowable by men; for God in His condescension reveals Himself to man (see above, 2). </p> <p> ( <i> e </i> ) <i> God is immanent </i> .-That God dwells in man is stated several times. ‘God is in you indeed,’ says St. Paul (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 14:25 Authorized Versionand Revised Version margin; Revised Versiontext has ‘among’; the Gr. is ἐν ὑμῖν). ‘There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all’ (&nbsp;Ephesians 4:8). ‘God abideth in us’ (&nbsp;1 John 4:12). His ‘tabernacle is with men’ and He ‘shall dwell with them … and be with them’ (&nbsp;Revelation 21:3). For the immanence of the Son and the Spirit in man see below, <b> 6 </b> ( <i> e </i> ) and <b> 7 </b> . </p> <p> ( <i> f </i> ) <i> Moral attributes </i> .-God is <i> love </i> (&nbsp;1 John 4:8; &nbsp;1 John 4:16); love is His very nature and being, and therefore love is the foundation of all true religion; love is of God (v. 7; see Brooke’s notes on these verses [ <i> op. cit. </i> ]). The love of God is specially emphasized by Christianity; cf. also &nbsp;John 3:16 (the kernel of the gospel message), &nbsp;Romans 5:5; &nbsp;Romans 5:8; &nbsp;Romans 8:31-39, &nbsp;2 Corinthians 13:14, &nbsp;Colossians 1:13 (‘the Son of his love’), &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 3:5, &nbsp;1 Timothy 2:4 (desire of universal salvation), &nbsp;1 John 2:5; &nbsp;1 John 3:1. The ‘love of God’ may be God’s love for us, or our love for God; but the latter, as St. John teaches (see above), comes from the former. </p> <p> God is <i> holy </i> . This attribute is emphasized both in the OT (&nbsp;Leviticus 11:44) and in the NT (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:15 f.). The four living creatures cry ‘Holy (ἄγιος), holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty’ (&nbsp;Revelation 4:8; cf. &nbsp;Isaiah 6:3). ‘Thou only art holy’ (ὅσιος)*[Note: The word ὅσιος (equivalent to the Latin pius) ‘represents God as fulfilling His relation to His creatures, even as He requires them to fulfil theirs towards Himself’ (Swete, Com. in loc.).]cry the conquerors (&nbsp;Revelation 15:4; cf. &nbsp;Revelation 16:5)-a striking comment on the ascription of holiness to our Lord and to the Spirit (below, <b> 6 </b> ( <i> e </i> ), <b> 7 </b> ). Brooke ( <i> op. cit. </i> ) thinks it unnecessary to determine whether ‘the Holy One’ in &nbsp;1 John 2:20 is the Father or the Son. </p> <p> God is <i> just </i> ; He has no respect of persons (&nbsp;Acts 10:34, &nbsp;Romans 2:11, &nbsp;Galatians 2:8, &nbsp;1 Peter 1:17; cf. &nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:17). </p> <p> He is <i> righteous </i> (for the meaning of this see below, 6 ( <i> e </i> )); St. Paul not only speaks of the ‘righteous judgment’ (δικαιοκρισία, &nbsp;Romans 2:5; cf. &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 1:5), but of the ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη), of God (&nbsp;Romans 1:17; &nbsp;Romans 3:22; &nbsp;Romans 10:3). On this phrase, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, see an elaborate investigation by Sanday in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> ii. 209-212; it was familiar to the Jews, and to them meant the personal righteousness of God. Many commentators take it, as used in the NT, to mean the righteous state of man, of which God is the giver. But in either case it predicates righteousness of God. In &nbsp;Philippians 3:9 we find τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην, ‘the righteousness which is of God.’ The Apocalyptist also emphasizes this attribute (&nbsp;Revelation 15:3; &nbsp;Revelation 16:5; &nbsp;Revelation 16:7). </p> <p> God is <i> merciful </i> (&nbsp;Romans 11:32; &nbsp;Romans 15:9, etc,). This is really the same attribute as love; but it is not the same as the Musulman idea of the mercy of God, which can scarcely be distinguished from indifference. Love and justice combined produce the true Divine mercy. </p> <p> He is the God of <i> hope </i> (&nbsp;Romans 15:13). A despairing pessimism is rebellion against the good God who makes us to hope, and who promises to overthrow Satan. </p> <p> He is the God of <i> peace </i> (&nbsp;Romans 15:33; &nbsp;Romans 16:20, &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:23, &nbsp;2 Thessalonians 3:16, &nbsp;Hebrews 13:20). </p> <p> ( <i> g </i> ) <i> God is [[Creator]] and [[Saviour]] </i> .-That God the Father is the Maker of the world is again and again insisted on (&nbsp;Acts 14:15-17; &nbsp;Acts 17:25-29, &nbsp;Romans 1:20-25; &nbsp;Romans 11:36, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:9, &nbsp;Ephesians 2:10; &nbsp;Ephesians 3:9 [cf. &nbsp;Ephesians 3:14 f.] &nbsp;Colossians 1:15 f, &nbsp;Hebrews 1:2; &nbsp;Hebrews 4:4; &nbsp;Hebrews 12:9 [the spirits of men], &nbsp;James 1:17 f. [‘the lights,’ the heavenly bodies], &nbsp;Revelation 4:11; &nbsp;Revelation 10:6). Man was made in God’s likeness (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 11:7, &nbsp;James 3:9). That God made the world was also much emphasized by the sub-apostolic writers (Swete, <i> Apostles’ Creed </i> , p. 20), in opposition to the [[Gnostic]] conception of a Demiurge, an inferior God who was Creator, and who was more or less in opposition to the supreme God. (For God the Father as <i> Saviour </i> , see below, 6 ( <i> e </i> ); for the part of the Son and of the Spirit in creation see below, 6 ( <i> e </i> ), 7). </p> <p> <b> 4. The Fatherhood of God </b> .-We now pass to the great developments made by the Christian doctrine of God. In the OT it had been freely taught that God was Father; but the conception scarcely went further than a fatherhood of the chosen people. ‘ <i> [[Israel]] </i> is ray son, my first born.… Let my son go that he may serve me,’ is Jahweh’s message to [[Pharaoh]] (&nbsp;Exodus 4:22). The Deuteronomist goes no farther (&nbsp;Exodus 8:5, &nbsp;Exodus 32:6, and especially &nbsp;Exodus 14:1 f.: ‘Ye are the children of the Lord your God … for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth’). The restrictive words of &nbsp;Psalms 103:13 are very significant: ‘Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth <i> them that fear him </i> .’ The prophets made no advance on this. To <i> [[Judah]] and Israel </i> God says: ‘Ye shall call me, My father’ (&nbsp;Jeremiah 3:19; cf. &nbsp;Isaiah 63:16; &nbsp;Isaiah 30:1; &nbsp;Isaiah 30:9, &nbsp;Malachi 1:6); ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt’ (&nbsp;Hosea 11:1). </p> <p> The NT greatly develops this doctrine. It teaches that God is Father of all men, though in a special sense Father of believers. But, above all, God is the Father of our Lord in a sense quite unique. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> The Father of our Lord </i> .-Jesus ever makes a difference between the Father’s relationship to Himself and to the rest of the world. The striking words of the twelve-year-old Child; ‘Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?’ (or ‘about my Father’s business,’ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, &nbsp;Luke 2:49) are the first indication of this. Jesus speaks of ‘my Father’ and ‘the Father’ and ‘your Father,’ but never of ‘our Father,’ though He teaches the disciples to use these words (&nbsp;Matthew 6:9). In &nbsp;John 20:17 the [[Evangelist]] represents our Lord as using what would otherwise be an unintelligible periphrasis: ‘My Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ This same distinction is kept up in the rest of the NT. Thus in &nbsp;Romans 8:3 St. Paul calls our Lord God’s ‘own Son’ (τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν), in a manner in which we could not be designated ‘sons’; we can only be ‘conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (&nbsp;Romans 8:29), while Jesus is ‘his own Son’ (τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, &nbsp;Romans 8:32; cf. &nbsp;Colossians 1:13 : ‘Son of his love’). St. Paul exhibits a fondness for the phrase ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (&nbsp;Romans 15:16, &nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:3, &nbsp;Ephesians 1:3; cf. &nbsp;Colossians 1:3 ‘God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’), which is re echoed by St. Peter (&nbsp;1 Peter 1:3), and in the Apocalypse (&nbsp;Revelation 1:8 ‘his God and Father’). (On the other hand, in &nbsp;Ephesians 1:17 we read: ‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.’) In &nbsp;Revelation 3:21 our Lord is speaking, and uses the words ‘my Father.’ This distinction is at the root of the Johannine title ‘Only-begotten,’ applied to our Lord (&nbsp;1 John 4:9, &nbsp;John 1:14; &nbsp;John 1:18; &nbsp;John 3:16; &nbsp;John 3:18). See Adoption, Only-Begotten. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> The Father of all men </i> .-This relationship is expressly affirmed by St. Paul in his speech at [[Athens]] (&nbsp;Acts 17:28 f.). God has created us; ‘in him we live and move and have our being, as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.’ And he endorses this heathen saying by continuing: ‘Being then the offspring of God,’ etc. (&nbsp;Acts 17:29). We may compare our Lord’s saying: ‘that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust’ (&nbsp;Matthew 5:45); ‘he is kind towards the unthankful and evil’ (&nbsp;Luke 6:35). The same thought seems to be at the root of St. Paul’s saying that all fatherhood (πᾶσα πατριά) in heaven and earth is named from God the Father (&nbsp;Ephesians 3:14 ff; see Family). ‘There is one God and Father <i> of all </i> , who is over all, and through all, and in all’ (&nbsp;Ephesians 4:6). ‘To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we unto him’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 8:6). In several passages in the Epistles where we read ‘our Father’ (&nbsp;Romans 1:7, &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:3, &nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:2, &nbsp;Ephesians 1:2, &nbsp;Philippians 4:20, etc.), there is no special restriction to God’s relationship to Christians, such as we find with regard to the chosen people in the OT passages. St. James speaks of ‘the Father of lights’ (&nbsp;James 1:17), <i> i.e. </i> of the created heavenly bodies. And the writer of Hebrews refers to a universal Fatherhood due to creation. As contrasted with the ‘fathers of our flesh,’ God is ‘the Father of spirits’-the Author not only of our spiritual being but of all spiritual beings (&nbsp;Hebrews 12:9; see Westcott, <i> Com. in loc </i> .). </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) <i> The Father of believers </i> .-Side by side with the doctrine of universal fatherhood is the special relationship of God to believers, not only as Saviour (&nbsp;1 Timothy 4:10) but as Father. Here the apostolic writers ascribe to [[Christians]] the prerogatives of the chosen people in the old covenant. This special fatherhood is brought out in the passages where St. Paul applies the metaphor of adoption to Christians (&nbsp;Romans 8:14-17; &nbsp;Romans 8:23, &nbsp;Galatians 4:5 f., &nbsp;Ephesians 1:5; see Adoption; cf. also &nbsp;1 Peter 1:17, &nbsp;1 John 3:1 f, &nbsp;John 1:12, etc.). </p> <p> ( <i> d </i> ) <i> ‘The Father’ in general </i> .-In many passages we find the absolute expression ‘the Father,’ comprehending any or all of the above meanings, as, <i> e.g. </i> , &nbsp;1 Corinthians 8:6, &nbsp;Galatians 1:1, &nbsp;Ephesians 5:20 (‘give thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father’), &nbsp;Colossians 1:12, &nbsp;James 3:9 Revised Version(‘the Lord and Father’), &nbsp;1 John 2:13; &nbsp;1 John 2:15 f.; and &nbsp;2 Peter 1:17, &nbsp;1 John 1:2, where there is a special reference to our Lord. </p> <p> The word ‘Father’ stands at the head of most Christian creeds, but it is probable that it was not originally in that of Rome. The Creed of [[Marcellus]] of Ancyra, an early Western specimen, though coming from an Eastern bishop, begins; ‘I believe in Almighty (παντοκράτορα) God’ (Epiphanius, <i> Haer </i> . lxxii. 3). The language of Tertullian ( <i> de Virg. Vel </i> . 1-one of his later works) leads us to suppose that the creed used by him: began similarly; he speaks of ‘the rule of believing in one only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ.’ But thenceforward it appears in the Western creeds (see Swete, <i> Apostles, Creed </i> , p. 19f.). </p> <p> <b> 5. The Holy [[Trinity]] </b> </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> The technical terms </i> by which the Christian Church has expressed the faith that it derived from the [[Scriptures]] were not invented for a considerable time after the apostolic period. Thus no one would expect to find the terms ‘Trinity’ and ‘Person’ in the NT. It is usually said that the word ‘Trinity,’ referred to God, was first used by [[Theophilus]] of [[Antioch]] ( <i> ad Autol </i> . ii. 15; <i> c. </i> [Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 180), as far as extant Christian literature is concerned. This is true, but the context shows that it was not then an accepted technical term. The first three days of creation are said to be ‘types of the trinity (τριάς), God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.’ Theophilus goes on to say that the fourth day finds its antitype in man, who is in need of light, so that we get the series: God, the Word, Wisdom, Man. Swete justly remarks that an author who could thus ‘convert the Divine trinity into a quaternion in which Man is the fourth term, must have been still far from thinking of the Trinity as later writers thought’ ( <i> Holy Spirit in the [[Ancient]] Church </i> , p. 47). Or we should perhaps rather put it that Theophilus did not use the <i> word </i> ‘Trinity’ in the technical sense which immediately afterwards is found; as when Tertullian speaks of ‘the Trinity of the one God-head, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ ( <i> de Pudic. </i> 21; cf. <i> adv. Prax </i> . 2), and as when Hippolytus says: ‘Through this Trinity the Father is glorified, for the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested’ (circa, about <i> Noet </i> . 14). </p> <p> The words which we render ‘Person’ (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, <i> persona </i> ) are of a still later date, and at first exhibited a remarkable fluidity of signification. Thus ὑπόστασις was used at one time to denote what is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what we should call the Divine ‘substance,’ at another it was used to distinguish between the Three; so that in one sense there is one ὑπόστασις in the Holy Trinity, in the other there are three. With regard to the word ‘Person,’ the student must necessarily be always on his guard against the supposition that ‘Person’ means ‘individual,’ as when we say that three different men are three ‘persons’; or that ‘Trinity’ involves tritheism, or three Gods. These technical expressions are but methods of denoting the teaching found in the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead, and that, while God is One, yet He is not a mere Monad. These technical terms are not found in the apostolic or sub-apostolic writers; with regard to the second of them, it may be remembered that the idea of personality was hardly formulated in any sense till shortly before the Christian era; and its application to theology came in a good deal later. </p> <p> ( <i> b </i> ) <i> The name ‘God’ used absolutely </i> .-In considering the distinctions in the [[Godhead]] taught by the NT, it must be borne in mind that, when the name ‘God’ is used <i> absolutely </i> , without pronoun or epithet, it is never, with one possible exception, applied explicitly to the Son as such or to the Spirit as such. It is, indeed, most frequently used without any special reference to the Person. But it is often, when standing absolutely, used in <i> contrast </i> to the Son or to the Spirit, and then the Father is intended. Instances of this are too numerous to mention; but we may take as examples &nbsp;Acts 2:22 (‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved or God … by mighty works … which God did by him’), &nbsp;Acts 13:30 (‘God raised him from the dead.’), &nbsp;Romans 2:16 (‘God shall judge the secrets of men … by Jesus Christ’), &nbsp;Ephesians 4:30 (‘the Holy Spirit of God’). This is sometimes the case also when ‘God’ is not used absolutely, as in &nbsp;Acts 3:13 (‘the God of our fathers hath glorified his [[Servant]] [παῖδα] Jesus’), &nbsp;Acts 5:30 (‘the God of our fathers raised up Jesus’), &nbsp;Acts 22:14, &nbsp;Romans 1:8 (‘I thank my God through Jesus Christ’). In &nbsp;Revelation 3:2; &nbsp;Revelation 3:12 our Lord calls the Father ‘my God’; compare the similar Pauline phrases quoted above, <b> 4 </b> ( <i> a </i> ). See below, <b> 8 </b> . </p> <p> The one possible exception is &nbsp;Acts 20:28 ‘to feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’ This is the reading of א B and other weighty authorities (followed by Authorized Versionand Revised Versiontext), but ACDE read ‘the Lord’ instead of ‘God’. The balance of authority is in favour of the reading ‘God,’ and it is decidedly more difficult than the other variant. At first sight, to say the least, the word ‘God’ (if read) must refer to our Lord, and yet this usage is unlike that of the NT elsewhere, and a scribe finding θεοῦ would readily alter it to κυρίου because of the strangeness of the expression. Thus both because of superior attestation, and because a difficult rending is ordinarily to be preferred to an easier one, θεοῦ has usually been accepted here (so Westcott-Hort’s Greek Testament, ii [1882] Appendix, p. 98). To get rid of the strangeness of the expression, it has been suggested that the reference is to the Father, and that ‘his own blood’ means ‘the blood which is his own,” <i> i.e. </i> the blood of Christ who is essentially one with the Father; but this seems to be a rather forced explanation. A somewhat more probable conjecture (that of Hort) is that there is here an early corruption, and that the original had ‘with the blood of his own Son,’ The beat reading of the last words of the verse, supported by overwhelming authority, is διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου: and this conjecture supposes that υἱοῦ has dropped out at the end (cf. &nbsp;Romans 8:32). However this may be, it would seem that the verse as we hate it in א B was so read by Ignatius, and gave rise to his expression ‘the blood of God’ ( <i> Ephesians 1 </i> )-a very early Instance of what later writers called the <i> communicatio idiomatum </i> , by which the properties of one or our Lord’s natures are referred to when the other nature is in question, because of the unity of His Person (see 6 ( <i> b </i> )). Another early instance is perhaps to be found in [[Clement]] of Rome ( <i> Cor </i> . ii. 1): τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ (‘his sufferings’), θωοῦ having just preceded; but the reading, though accepted by Lightfoot, is not quite certain. On these two passages see Lightfoot, <i> [[Apostolic]] Father </i> , ‘S. [[Ignatius]] and S. Polycarp2,’ 1889, ii. 29f., S. Clement of Rome,’ 1890, ii 13-16. Tertullian uses the expression ‘the blood of God’ ( <i> ad Uxor </i> . ii.3). </p> <p> ( <i> c </i> ) <i> Trinitarian language </i> .-In the NT teaching the Son and the Spirit are joined to the Father in a special manner, entirely different from that in which men or angels are spoken of in relation to God. Perhaps the beat example of this is the apostolic benediction of &nbsp;2 Corinthians 13:14, which has no dogmatic purpose, but is a simple, spontaneous prayer, and is therefore more significant than if it was intended to teach some doctrine. The ‘grace of our Lord,’ the ‘love of God,’ and the ‘communion of the Holy Ghost’ are grouped together, and in this remarkable order. In many passages Father, Son, and Spirit are grouped together, just as the Three are mentioned together in the account of our Lord’s [[Baptism]] (&nbsp;Matthew 3:16 f.), only in a still more significant way. Thus in &nbsp;Acts 5:31 f. we read that God exalted Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour, and gave the Holy Ghost ‘to them that obey him.’ Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, saw the glory of God, and Jeans standing at the right hand of God (&nbsp;Acts 7:55). The Holy Ghost is in one breath called by St. Paul the ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘Spirit of Christ’ (&nbsp;Romans 8:9). See also &nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:3-6 (‘the Spirit of God … Jesus is Lord … the same Spirit … the same Lord … the same God’), &nbsp;Acts 2:33, &nbsp;1 Peter 1:2 (‘foreknowledge of God the Father,’ ‘sanctification of the Spirit,’ ‘sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’), &nbsp;Titus 3:4-6 (‘the kindness of God our Saviour’ [the Father], ‘renewing of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘through Jesus Christ our Saviour’), &nbsp;1 John 4:2, and especially &nbsp;Judges 1:20, where the writer’s disciples are bidden to pray in the Holy Spirit, to keep themselves in the love of God, and to look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. </p> <p> In the greeting of all the Pauline Epistles but one, the Father and Son are joined together as the source of grace and peace; <i> e.g. </i> ‘Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ (&nbsp;Romans 1:7); the only exception being &nbsp;Colossians 1:2 Revised Version, which has ‘grace to you and peace from God our Father.’ And this Pauline usage is also found in &nbsp;2 John 1:3. It is difficult to conceive the possibility of this <i> zeugma </i> unless our Lord be God. With this compare St. James’s description of himself as ‘a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (&nbsp;James 1:1), and many other passages such as ‘one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him’ (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 8:6; see above, 4 ( <i> b </i> )); ‘in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus’ (&nbsp;2 Timothy 4:1); ‘fellowship with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ’ (&nbsp;1 John 1:3); ‘he that denieth the Father and the Son’ (&nbsp;1 John 2:22); ‘the same hath both the Father and the Son’ (&nbsp;2 John 1:9); ‘the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb are the temple thereof’ (&nbsp;Revelation 21:22); ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb’ (&nbsp;Revelation 22:1; &nbsp;Revelation 22:3). </p> <p> These expressions are the counterpart of our Lord’s words in the Fourth Gospel: ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me’ (&nbsp;John 14:10). We might try the effect of substituting for ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ the names of ‘Peter,’ ‘Paul,’ or even of ‘Michael,’ ‘Gabriel,’ to see how intolerable all these expressions would he on any but the Trinitarian hypothesis. St. Paul uses a similar argument in &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:13 : ‘Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ </p> <p> These passages are taken from the NT outside the Gospels. The Fourth Gospel, which is full of the same doctrine, is here passed by. But one passage of the Synoptics must be considered. How did St. Paul come by the phraseology of his benediction in &nbsp;2 Corinthians 13:14? Some would say that he invented it, and was the real founder of Christian doctrine (see below, 9). For those who cannot accept this position-and the [[Apostle]] betrays no consciousness of teaching a new doctrine, but, as we have seen (above, 1), professes to hand on what he has received-the only conclusion can be that the benediction is based on teaching of our Lord. In the Synoptics there is one passage (&nbsp;Matthew 28:19) which would at once account for St. Paul’s benediction. According to this, our Lord bade His followers ‘make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name (εἱς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ This passage has been criticized on three grounds. (1) It has been said not to be an authentic part of the First Gospel. This, however, is not a tenable position (see Baptism, § 4); but it is important to distinguish it from the view which follows. (2) It has been acknowledged to be an authentic part of Mt., but said to have been due to the Christian theology of the end of the 1st cent., to the same line of thought that produced the Fourth Gospel; and not to have been spoken by our Lord. (3) In support of this it is urged that as a matter of fact, the earliest baptisms, as we read in Acts, were not ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ but ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or the like. But may there not be a mistake here on both sides? ‘It is quits unnecessary to suppose on the one hand that the passages in Acts describe a formula used in baptism, or, on the other, that our Lord in &nbsp;Matthew 28:19 prescribed one. All the passages may, and probably do, express only the theological import of baptism (for authorities, see Baptism as above).*[Note: We are not here concerned with the meaning of ‘in’ or ‘into the name.’ The argument is independent of the disputed interpretation of these words.]It was not the custom of our Lord to make minute regulations, as did the [[Mosaic]] Law. He rather laid down general principles; and it would be somewhat remarkable if He made just one exception, in regulating the words to be used in baptism. (The justification of the Christian formula is the general consent of the ages, dating from immediately after the apostolic period.) Nor is it necessary to suppose that &nbsp;Matthew 28:19 gives us-any more than the other Gospel records do-the <i> ipsissima verba </i> of Jesus. It is almost certain that such teaching, if given, would be much expanded for the benefit of the hearers, and that we have only a greatly abbreviated record. But that our Lord gave such ‘Trinitarian’ teaching in some shape on the occasion of giving the baptismal command is the only way of accounting for the phenomena of Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. This would explain not only the apostolic benediction, but also the whole trend of the teaching of the NT outside the Gospels. </p> <p> Having now considered the general scope of apostolic teaching with regard to distinctions in the Godhead, we must consider in particular the doctrine with regard to the Godhead of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost. </p> <p> <b> 6. The Godhead of our Lord </b> .-In historical sequence the realization of our Lord’s Divinity came before the teaching which we have already considered. The disciples first learnt that their [[Master]] was not mere man, but was Divine; and then that there are distinctions in the Godhead. </p> <p> ( <i> a </i> ) <i> Jesus is the Son of God </i> .-Of this the apostles were fully convinced. The passages are too numerous to cite, but they occur in almost every book of the NT, whether they give the title to our Lord in so many words, or express the fact otherwise (see above, 4 ( <i> a </i> )). Before considering the meaning of the title, we may ask if the name παῖς (‘child’ or ‘servant’) applied to our Lord (&nbsp;Acts 3:13; &nbsp;Acts 3:26; &nbsp;Acts 4:27; &nbsp;Acts 4:30) has the same signification. Sanday points out ( <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) </i> iv. 574, 578) that παῖς is taken in the sense of ‘Son’ in the early Fathers, as in the <i> Epistle to [[Diognetus]] </i> (viii. 9f.; <i> c. </i> [Note: . circa, about.]a.d. 150?). This may also be the meaning of St. Luke in Acts; but it is equally probable that he refers to the OT ‘servant of Jahweh.’ This is clearly the meaning in &nbsp;Matthew 12:18, whore &nbsp;Isaiah 42:1 is quoted: ‘Behold my servant whom I have chosen,’ etc. </p> <p> But what is the significance of the title ‘Son of God’? It was not exactly a now title when used in the NT, though &nbsp;Daniel 3:25 cannot be quoted for it (‘a son of the gods,’ Revised Version; Authorized Versionwrongly, ‘the Son of God’). It is probable that &nbsp;Psalms 2:7 was t </p>

<p> <strong> GOD </strong> . The object of this article is to give a brief sketch of the history of belief in God as gathered from the Bible. The existence of God is everywhere assumed in the sacred volume; it will not therefore be necessary here to consider the arguments adduced to show that the belief in God’s existence is reasonable. It is true that in &nbsp; Psalms 14:1; &nbsp; Psalms 53:1 the ‘fool’ ( <em> i.e. </em> the ungodly man) says that there is no God; but the meaning doubtless is, not that the existence of God is denied, but that the ‘fool’ alleges that God does not concern Himself with man (see &nbsp; Psalms 10:4 ). </p> <p> <strong> 1. Divine revelation gradual </strong> . God ‘spake,’ <em> i.e. </em> revealed Himself, ‘by divers portions and in divers manners’ (&nbsp; Hebrews 1:1 ). The world only gradually acquired the knowledge of God which we now possess; and it is therefore a gross mistake to look for our ideas and standards of responsibility in the early ages of mankind. The world was educated ‘precept upon precept, line upon line’ (&nbsp; Isaiah 28:10 ); and it is noteworthy that even when the gospel age arrived, our Lord did not in a moment reveal all truth, but accommodated His teaching to the capacity of the people (&nbsp; Mark 4:33 ); the chosen disciples themselves did not grasp the fulness of that teaching until [[Pentecost]] (&nbsp; John 16:12 f.). The fact of the very slow growth of conceptions of God is made much clearer by our increased knowledge with respect to the composition of the OT; now that we have learnt, for example, that the Mosaic code is to be dated, as a whole, centuries later than Moses, and that the patriarchal narratives were written down, as we have them, in the time of the Kings, and are coloured by the ideas of that time, we see that the idea that Israel had much the same conception of God in the age of the [[Patriarchs]] as in that of the [[Prophets]] is quite untenable, and that the fuller conception was a matter of slow growth. The fact of the composite character of the Pentateuch, however, makes it very difficult for us to find out exactly what were the conceptions about God in patriarchal and in Mosaic times; and it is impossible to be dogmatic in speaking of them. We can deal only with probabilities gathered from various indications in the literature, especially from the survival of old customs. </p> <p> <strong> 2. Names of God in OT </strong> . It will be convenient to gather together the principal OT names of God before considering the conceptions of successive ages. The names will to some extent be a guide to us. </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) <strong> Elohim; </strong> the ordinary Hebrew name for God, a plural word of doubtful origin and meaning. It is used, as an ordinary plural, of heathen gods, or of supernatural beings (&nbsp; 1 Samuel 28:13 ), or even of earthly judges (&nbsp; Psalms 82:1; &nbsp; Psalms 82:5 , cf. &nbsp; John 10:34 ); but when used of the One God, it takes a singular verb. As so used, it has been thought to be a relic of pre-historic polytheism, but more probably it is a ‘plural of majesty,’ such as is common in Hebrew, or else it denotes the <em> fulness </em> of God. The singular <strong> Eloah </strong> is rare except in Job; it is found in poetry and in late prose. </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) <strong> [[El]] </strong> , common to Semitic tribes, a name of doubtful meaning, but usually interpreted as ‘the Strong One’ or as ‘the Ruler.’ It is probably not connected philologically with <em> [[Elohim]] </em> (Driver, <em> [[Genesis]] </em> , p. 404). It is used often in poetry and in proper names; in prose rarely, except as part of a compound title like <em> El Shaddai </em> , or with an epithet or descriptive word attached; as ‘God of Bethel,’ <em> [[El-Bethel]] </em> (&nbsp; Genesis 31:13 ); ‘a jealous God,’ <em> El qannâ’ </em> (&nbsp; Exodus 20:5 ). </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) <strong> El Shaddai </strong> . The meaning of <em> Shaddai </em> is uncertain; the name has been derived from a root meaning ‘to overthrow,’ and would then mean ‘the Destroyer’; or from a root meaning ‘to pour,’ and would then mean ‘the Rain-giver’; or it has been interpreted as ‘my Mountain’ or ‘my Lord.’ Traditionally it is rendered ‘God Almighty,’ and there is perhaps a reference to this sense of the name in the words ‘He that is mighty’ of &nbsp; Luke 1:49 . According to the Priestly writer (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), the name was characteristic of the patriarchal age (&nbsp; Exodus 6:3 , cf. &nbsp; Genesis 17:1; &nbsp; Genesis 28:3 ). ‘Shaddai’ alone is used often in OT as a poetical name of God (&nbsp; Numbers 24:4 etc.), and is rendered ‘the Almighty.’ </p> <p> ( <em> d </em> ) <strong> El Elyon </strong> , ‘God Most High,’ found in &nbsp; Genesis 14:18 ff. (a passage derived from a ‘special source’ of the Pentateuch, <em> i.e. </em> not from J [Note: Jahwist.] , E [Note: Elohist.] , or P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ), and thought by Driver ( <em> Genesis </em> , p. 165) perhaps to have been originally the name of a [[Canaanite]] deity, but applied to the true God. ‘Elyon’ is also found alone, as in &nbsp; Psalms 82:5 (so tr. [Note: translate or translation.] into Greek, &nbsp; Luke 1:32; &nbsp; Luke 1:35; &nbsp; Luke 1:76; &nbsp; Luke 6:35 ), and with ‘Elohim’ in &nbsp; Psalms 57:2 , in close connexion with ‘El’ and with ‘Shaddai’ in &nbsp; Numbers 24:15 , and with ‘Jahweh’ in &nbsp; Psalms 7:17; &nbsp; Psalms 18:13 etc. That ‘El Elyon’ was a commonly used name is made probable by the fact that it is found in an [[Aramaic]] translation in &nbsp; Daniel 3:26; &nbsp; Daniel 4:2; &nbsp; Daniel 5:18-21 and in a Greek translation in 1Es 6:31 etc., &nbsp; Mark 5:7 , &nbsp; Acts 16:17 , and so in &nbsp; Hebrews 7:1 , where it is taken direct from &nbsp; Genesis 14:18 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] . </p> <p> ( <em> e </em> ) <strong> [[Adonai]] </strong> (= ‘Lord’), a title, common in the prophets, expressing dependence, as of a servant on his master, or of a wife on her husband (Ottley, <em> BL </em> 2 p. 192 f.). </p> <p> ( <em> f </em> ) <strong> [[Jehovah]] </strong> , properly <strong> Yahweh </strong> (usually written <strong> Jahweh </strong> ), perhaps a pre-historic name. Prof. H. Guthe ( <em> EBi </em> <em> [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] </em> ii. art. ‘Israel,’ § <strong> 4 </strong> ) thinks that it is of primitive antiquity and cannot be explained; that it tells us nothing about the nature of the Godhead. This is probably true of the name in pre-Mosaic times; that it was then in existence was certainly the opinion of the Jahwist writer (&nbsp; Genesis 4:25 , J [Note: Jahwist.] ), and is proved by its occurrence in proper names, <em> e.g. </em> in ‘Jochebed,’ the name of Moses’ mother (&nbsp; Exodus 6:20 , P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ). What it originally signified is uncertain; the root from which it is derived might mean ‘to blow’ or ‘to breathe,’ or ‘to fall,’ or ‘to be.’ Further, the name might have been derived from the causative ‘to make to be,’ and in that case might signify ‘Creator.’ But, as Driver remarks ( <em> Genesis </em> , p. 409), the important thing for us to know is not what the name meant originally, but what it came actually to denote to the Israelites. And there can be no doubt that from Moses’ time onwards it was derived from the ‘imperfect’ tense of the verb ‘to be,’ and was understood to mean ‘He who is wont to be,’ or else ‘He who will be.’ This is the explanation given in &nbsp; Exodus 3:10 ff.; when God Himself speaks, He uses the first person, and the name becomes ‘I am’ or ‘I will be.’ It denotes, then, Existence; yet it is understood as expressing active and self-manifesting Existence (Driver, p. 408). It is almost equivalent to ‘He who has life in Himself’ (cf. &nbsp; John 5:26 ). It became the common name of God in post-Mosaic times, and was the specially <em> personal </em> designation. </p> <p> We have to consider whether the name was used by the patriarchs. The Jahwist writer (J [Note: Jahwist.] ) uses it constantly in his narrative of the early ages; and &nbsp;Genesis 4:26 (see above) clearly exhibits more than a mere anachronistic use of a name common in the writer’s age. On the other hand, the Priestly writer (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) was of opinion that the patriarchs had not used the name, but had known God as ‘El Shaddai’ (&nbsp; Exodus 6:2 f.); for it is putting force upon language to suppose that P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] meant only that the patriarchs did not understand the full meaning of the name ‘Jahweh,’ although they used it. P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] is consistent in not using the name ‘Jahweh until the Exodus. So the author of Job, who lays his scene in the patriarchal age, makes the characters of the dialogue use Shaddai,’ etc., and only once (12:9) ‘Jahweh’ (Driver, p. 185). We have thus contradictory authorities. Driver (p. xix.) suggests that though the name was not absolutely new in Moses’ time, it was current only in a limited circle, as is seen from its absence in the composition of patriarchal proper names. </p> <p> ‘Jehovah’ is a modern and hybrid form, dating only from a.d. 1518. The name ‘Jahweh’ was so sacred that it was not, in later [[Jewish]] times, pronounced at all, perhaps owing to an over-literal interpretation of the Third Commandment. In reading ‘Adonai’ was substituted for it; hence the vowels of that name were in MSS attached to the consonants of ‘Jahweh’ for a guide to the reader, and the result, when the MSS are read <em> as written </em> (as they were never meant by Jewish scribes to be read), is ‘Jehovah.’ Thus this modern form has the consonants of one word and the vowels of another. The [[Hellenistic]] Jews, in Greek, cubstituted ‘Kyrios’ (Lord) for the sacred name, and it is thus rendered in LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and NT. This explains why in EV [Note: English Version.] ‘the Lord’ is the usual rendering of ‘Jahweh.’ The expression <em> ‘Tetragrammaton’ </em> is used for the four consonants of the sacred name, YHWH, which appears in Greek capital letters as <em> Pipi </em> , owing to the similarity of the Greek capital <strong> <em> p </em> </strong> to the Hebrew <em> h </em> , and the Greek capital <em> i </em> to the Hebrew <strong> <em> y </em> </strong> and <em> w </em> [thus, Heb. יהוה = Gr. ×€×—×€×” ]. </p> <p> ( <em> g </em> ) <strong> [[Jah]] </strong> is an apocopated form of <em> Jahweh </em> , and appears in poetry ( <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; Psalms 68:4 , &nbsp; Exodus 15:2 ) in the word ‘Hallelujah’ and in proper names. For <em> Jah Jahweh </em> see &nbsp; Isaiah 11:2; &nbsp; Isaiah 26:4 . </p> <p> ( <em> h </em> ) <strong> Jahweh TsÄ•bâôth </strong> (‘Sabaoth’ of &nbsp; Romans 9:29 and &nbsp; James 5:4 ), in Ev ‘Lord of hosts’ (wh. see), appears frequently in the prophetical and post-exilic literature (&nbsp; Isaiah 1:9; &nbsp; Isaiah 6:3 , &nbsp; Psalms 84:1 etc.). This name seems originally to have referred to God’s presence with the armies of Israel in the times of the monarchy; as fuller conceptions of God became prevalent, the name received an ampler meaning. Jahweh was known as God, not only of the armies of Israel, but of all the hosts of heaven and of the forces of nature (Cheyne, <em> Aids to [[Devout]] Study of [[Criticism]] </em> , p. 284). </p> <p> We notice, lastly, that ‘Jahweh’ and ‘Elohim’ are joined together in &nbsp;Genesis 2:4 to &nbsp; Genesis 3:22; &nbsp; Genesis 9:26 , &nbsp; Exodus 9:30 , and elsewhere. Jahweh is identified with the Creator of the Universe (Ottley, <em> BL </em> p. 195). We have the same conjunction, with ‘Sabaoth’ added (‘Lord God of hosts’), in &nbsp; Amos 5:27 . ‘Adonai’ with ‘Sabaoth’ is not uncommon. </p> <p> <strong> 3. Pre-Mosaic conceptions of God </strong> . We are now in a position to consider the growth of the revelation of God in successive ages; and special reference may here be made to Kautzsch’s elaborate monograph on the ‘Religion of Israel’ in Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> , Ext. vol. pp. 612 734, for a careful discussion of OT conceptions of God. With regard to those of pre-Mosaic times there is much room for doubt. The descriptions written so many centuries later are necessarily coloured by the ideas of the author’s age, and we have to depend largely on the survival of old customs in historical times customs which had often acquired a new meaning, or of which the original meaning was forgotten. [[Certainly]] pre-Mosaic Israel conceived of God as attached to certain places or pillars or trees or springs, as we see in &nbsp; Genesis 12:6; &nbsp; Genesis 13:18; &nbsp; Genesis 14:7; &nbsp; Genesis 35:7 , &nbsp; Joshua 24:26 etc. It has been conjectured that the stone circle, [[Gilgal]] (&nbsp; Joshua 4:2-8; &nbsp; Joshua 4:20 ff.), was a heathen sanctuary converted to the religion of Jahweh. A. B. [[Davidson]] (Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> ii. 201) truly remarks on the difficulty in primitive times of realizing deity apart from a local abode; later on, the [[Ark]] relieved the difficulty without representing Jahweh under any form, for His presence was attached to it (but see below, § <strong> 4 </strong> ). Traces of ‘Totemism,’ or belief in the blood relationship of a tribe and a natural object, such as an animal, treated as the protector of the tribe, have been found in the worship of Jahweh under the form of a molten bull (&nbsp; 1 Kings 12:28; but this was doubtless derived from the Canaanites), and in the avoidance of unclean animals. Traces of ‘Animism,’ or belief in the activity of the spirits of one’s dead relations, and its consequence ‘Ancestor-worship,’ have been found in the mourning customs of Israel, such as cutting the hair, wounding the flesh, wearing sackcloth, funeral feasts, reverence for tombs, and the levirate marriage, and in the name <em> elohim </em> ( <em> i.e. </em> supernatural beings) given to Samuel’s spirit and (probably) other spirits seen by the witch of [[Endor]] (&nbsp; 1 Samuel 28:13 ). Kautzsch thinks that these results are not proved, and that the belief in demoniacal powers explains the mourning customs without its being necessary to suppose that [[Animism]] had developed into Ancestor-worship. [[Polytheism]] has been traced in the plural ‘Elohim’ (see <strong> 2 </strong> above), in the <em> teraphim </em> or household gods (&nbsp; Genesis 31:30 , &nbsp; 1 Samuel 19:13; &nbsp; 1 Samuel 19:16 : found in temples, &nbsp; Judges 17:5; &nbsp; Judges 18:14; cf. &nbsp; Hosea 3:4 ); and patriarchal names, such as <em> Abraham, [[Sarah]] </em> , have been taken for the titles of pre-historic divinities. Undoubtedly Israel was in danger of worshipping foreign gods, but there is no trace of a <em> Hebrew </em> polytheism (Kautzsch). It will be seen that the results are almost entirely negative; and we must remain in doubt as to the patriarchal conception of God. It seems clear, however, that communion of the worshipper with God was considered to be effected by sacrifice. </p> <p> <strong> 4. Post-Mosaic conceptions of God </strong> . The age of the Exodus was undoubtedly a great crisis in the theological education of Israel. [[Moses]] proclaimed Jahweh as the God of Israel, supreme among gods, alone to be worshipped by the people whom He had made His own, and with whom He had entered into covenant. But the realization of the truth that there is none other God but Jahweh came by slow degrees only; <em> henotheism </em> , which taught that Jahweh alone was to be worshipped by Israel, while the heathen deities were real but inferior gods, gave place only slowly to a true <em> monotheism </em> in the popular religion. The old name <em> Micah </em> (= ‘Who is like Jahweh?’, &nbsp; Judges 17:1 ) is one indication of this line of thought. The religion of the [[Canaanites]] was a nature-worship; their deities were personified forces of nature, though called ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady’ ( <em> Baal, [[Baalah]] </em> ) of the place where they were venerated (Guthe, <em> EBi </em> <em> [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] </em> ii. art. ‘Israel,’ § 6); and when left to themselves the [[Israelites]] gravitated towards nature-worship. The great need of the early post-Mosaic age, then, was to develop the idea of <em> personality </em> . The defective idea of individuality is seen, for example, in the putting of Achan’s household to death (&nbsp; Joshua 7:24 f.), and in the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites. (The defect appears much later, in an Oriental nation, in &nbsp; Daniel 6:24 , and is constantly observed by travellers in the East to this day.) Jahweh, therefore, is proclaimed as a personal God; and for this reason all the older writers freely use anthropomorphisms. They speak of God’s arm, mouth, lips, eyes; He is said to move (&nbsp; Genesis 3:8; &nbsp; Genesis 11:6; &nbsp; Genesis 18:1 f.), to wrestle (&nbsp; Genesis 32:24 ff.). Similarly He is said to ‘repent’ of an action (&nbsp; Genesis 6:6 , &nbsp; Exodus 32:14; but see &nbsp; 1 Samuel 15:29 .), to be grieved, angry, jealous, and gracious, to love and to hate; in these ways the intelligence, activity, and power of God are emphasized. As a personal God He enters into covenant with Israel, protecting, ruling, guiding them, giving them victory. The wars and victories of Israel are those of Jahweh (&nbsp; Numbers 21:14 , &nbsp; Judges 5:23 ). </p> <p> The question of images in the early post-Mosaic period is a difficult one. Did Moses tolerate images of Jahweh? On the one hand, it seems certain that the [[Decalogue]] in some form or other comes from Moses; the conquest of [[Canaan]] is inexplicable unless Israel had some primary laws of moral conduct (Ottley, <em> BL </em> p. 172 f.). But, on the other hand, the Second [[Commandment]] need not have formed part of the original Decalogue; and there is a very general opinion that the making of images of <em> Jahweh </em> was thought unobjectionable up to the 8th cent. b.c., though Kautzsch believes that images of wood and stone were preferred to metal ones because of the [[Canaanitish]] associations of the latter (&nbsp; Exodus 34:17 , but see &nbsp; Judges 17:3 ); he thinks also that the fact of the Ark being the shrine of Jahweh and representing His presence points to its having contained an image of Jahweh (but see § 3 above), and that the ephod was originally an image of Jahweh (&nbsp; Judges 8:26 f.), though the word was afterwards used for a gold or silver casing of an image, and so in later times for a sort of waistcoat. In our uncertainty as to the date of the various sources of the [[Hexateuch]] it is impossible to come to a definite conclusion about this matter; and Moses, like the later prophets, <em> may </em> have preached a high doctrine which popular opinion did not endorse. To this view Barnes (Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> , art. ‘Israel,’ ii. 509) seems to incline. At least the fact remains that images of Jahweh were actually used for many generations after Moses. </p> <p> <strong> 5. The conceptions of the Prophetic age </strong> . This age is marked by a growth, perhaps a very gradual growth, towards a true monotheism. More spiritual conceptions of God are taught; images of Jahweh are denounced; God is unrestricted in space and time ( <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; 1 Kings 8:27 ), and is enthroned in heaven. He is holy (&nbsp; Isaiah 6:3 ) separate from sinners (cf. &nbsp; Hebrews 7:26 ), for this seems to be the sense of the Hebrew word; the idea is as old as &nbsp; 1 Samuel 6:20 . He is the ‘Holy One of Israel’ (&nbsp; Isaiah 1:4 and often). He is Almighty, present everywhere (&nbsp; Jeremiah 23:24 ), and full of love. The prophets, though they taught more spiritual ideas about God, still used anthropomorphisms: thus, Isaiah <em> saw </em> Jahweh on His throne (&nbsp; Isaiah 6:1 ), though this was only in a vision. The growth of true monotheistic ideas may be traced in such passages as &nbsp; Deuteronomy 4:35; &nbsp; Deuteronomy 4:39; &nbsp; Deuteronomy 6:4; &nbsp; Deuteronomy 10:14 , &nbsp; 1 Kings 8:60 , &nbsp; Isaiah 37:16 , &nbsp; Joel 2:27; it culminates in Deutero-Isaiah (&nbsp; Isaiah 43:10 ‘Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me’; &nbsp; Isaiah 44:6 ‘I am the first and I am the last, and beside me there is no God’; so &nbsp; Isaiah 45:5 ). The same idea is expressed by the teaching that Jahweh rules not only His people but all nations, as in the numerous passages in Deutero-Isaiah about the Gentiles, in &nbsp; Jeremiah 10:7 , often in Ezekiel ( <em> e.g. </em> &nbsp; Jeremiah 35:4; &nbsp; Jeremiah 35:9; &nbsp; Jeremiah 35:15 of Edom), &nbsp; Malachi 1:5; &nbsp; Malachi 1:11; &nbsp; Malachi 1:14 , and elsewhere. The earlier prophets had recognized Jahweh as Creator (though Kautzsch thinks that several passages like &nbsp; Amos 4:13 are later glosses); but Deutero-Isaiah emphasizes this attribute more than any of his brethren (&nbsp; Isaiah 40:12; &nbsp; Isaiah 40:22; &nbsp; Isaiah 40:28; &nbsp; Isaiah 41:4; &nbsp; Isaiah 42:5; &nbsp; Isaiah 44:24; &nbsp; Isaiah 45:12; &nbsp; Isaiah 45:18; &nbsp; Isaiah 48:13 ). </p> <p> We may here make a short digression to discuss whether the heathen deities, though believed by the later Jews, and afterwards by the Christians, to be no gods, were yet thought to have a real existence, or whether they were considered to be simply non-existent, creatures of the imagination only. In &nbsp;Isaiah 14:12 (the [[Babylonian]] king likened to false divinities?) and &nbsp; Isaiah 24:21 the heathen gods seem to be identified with the fallen angels (see Whitehouse, in Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> i. 592); so perhaps in Deutero-Isaiah (&nbsp; Isaiah 46:1 f.). In later times they are often identified with demons. In Eth. [[Enoch]] (19:1) [[Uriel]] speaks of the evil angels leading men astray into sacrificing to demons as to gods (see Charles’s note; and also xcix. 7). And the idea was common in Christian times; it has been attributed to St. Paul (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 10:20; though &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 8:5 f. points the other way, whether these verses are the Apostle’s own words or are a quotation from the letter of the Corinthians). Justin [[Martyr]] ( <em> Apol </em> . i. 9, 64, etc.), [[Tatian]] ( <em> Add. to the Greeks </em> , 8), and Irenæus ( <em> Hær </em> . iii. 6:3), while denying that the heathen deities are really gods, make them to have a real existence and to be demons; [[Athenagoras]] ( <em> Apol </em> . 18, 28), Clement of [[Alexandria]] ( <em> Exh. to the Greeks </em> , 2f.), and Tertullian (&nbsp; Revelation 10 &nbsp;Revelation 10 ) make them to be mere men or beasts deified by superstition, or combine both ideas. </p> <p> <strong> 6. Post-exilic conceptions of God </strong> . In the period from the [[Exile]] to Christ, a certain deterioration in the spiritual conception of God is visible. It is true that there was no longer any danger of idolatry, and that this age was marked by an uncompromising monotheism. Yet there was a tendency greatly to exaggerate God’s <em> transcendence </em> , to make Him self-centred and self-absorbed, and to widen the gulf between Him and the world (Sanday, in Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> ii. 206). This tendency began even at the Exile, and accounts for the discontinuance of anthropomorphic language. In the Priest’s Code (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) this language is avoided as much as possible. And later, when the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] was translated, the alterations made to avoid anthropomorphisms are very significant. Thus in &nbsp; Exodus 15:3 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] the name ‘Man of war’ (of Jahweh) disappears; in &nbsp; Exodus 19:3 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] Moses went up not ‘to Elohim,’ but ‘to the <em> mount </em> of God’; in &nbsp; Exodus 24:10 the words ‘they saw Elohim of Israel’ become ‘they saw <em> the place </em> where the God of Israel stood.’ So in the [[Targums]] man is described as being created in the image of <em> the angels </em> , and many other anthropomorphisms are removed. The same tendency is seen in the almost constant use of ‘Elohim’ rather than of ‘Jahweh’ in the later books of OT. The tendency, only faintly marked in the later canonical books, is much more evident as time went on. Side by side with it is to be noticed the exaltation of the Law, and the inconsistent conception of God as subject to His own Law. In the [[Talmud]] He is represented as a great Rabbi, studying the Law, and keeping the [[Sabbath]] (Gilbert, in Hastings’ <em> DCG </em> <em> [Note: CG Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels.] </em> i. 582). </p> <p> Yet there were preparations for the full teaching of the gospel with regard to distinctions in the Godhead. The old narratives of the Theophanies, of the mysterious ‘Angel of the Lord’ who appeared at one time to be God and at another to be distinct from Him, would prepare men’s minds in some degree for the Incarnation, by suggesting a personal unveiling of God (see Liddon, <em> BL </em> ii. i. β ); even the common use of the plural name ‘Elohim,’ whatever its original significance (see § <strong> 2 </strong> above), would necessarily prepare them for the doctrine of distinctions in the Godhead, as would the <em> quasi- </em> personification of ‘the Word’ and ‘Wisdom’, as in Proverbs, Job, Wisdom, Sirach, and in the later Jewish writers, who not only personified but deified them (Scott, in Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> , Ext. vol. p. 308). Above all, the quasi-personification of the ‘Spirit of God’ in the prophetical books (esp. &nbsp; Isaiah 48:16; &nbsp; Isaiah 63:10 ) and in the Psalms (esp. &nbsp; Psalms 51:11 ), and the expectation of a superhuman King Messiah, would tend in the same direction. </p> <p> <strong> 7. Christian development of the doctrine of God </strong> . We may first deal with the development in the conception of God’s <strong> fatherhood </strong> . As contrasted with the OT, the NT emphasizes the <em> universal </em> fatherhood and love of God. The previous ages had scarcely risen above a conception of God as Father of Israel, and in a special sense of [[Messiah]] (&nbsp; Psalms 2:7 ); they had thought of God only as <em> ruling </em> the [[Gentiles]] and bringing them into subjection. Our Lord taught, on the other hand, that God is Father of all and loving to all; He is kind even ‘toward the unthankful and evil’ (&nbsp; Luke 6:35 , cf. &nbsp; Matthew 5:45 ). Jesus therefore used the name ‘Father’ more frequently than any other. Yet He Himself bears to the Father a unique relationship; the Voice at the Baptism and at the [[Transfiguration]] would otherwise have no meaning (&nbsp; Mark 1:11; &nbsp; Mark 9:7 and || Mt. Lk.). Jesus never speaks to His disciples of the Father as ‘our Father’; He calls Him absolutely ‘the Father’ (seldom in Synoptics, &nbsp; Matthew 11:27; &nbsp; Matthew 24:36 [RV [Note: Revised Version.] ] &nbsp; Matthew 28:19 [see § <strong> 8 </strong> ], &nbsp; Mark 13:32 , &nbsp; Luke 10:22 , <em> passim </em> in Jn.), or ‘my Father’ (very frequently in all the Gospels, also in &nbsp; Revelation 2:27; &nbsp; Revelation 3:5 ), or else ‘my Father and your Father’ (&nbsp; John 20:17 ). The use of ‘his Father’ in &nbsp; Mark 8:38 and || Mt. Lk. is similar. This unique relationship is the point of the saying that God sent His only-begotten Son to save the world (&nbsp; John 3:16 f., &nbsp; 1 John 4:9 ) a saying which shows also the universal fatherhood of God, for salvation is offered to all men (so &nbsp; John 12:32 ). The passage &nbsp; Matthew 11:27 (= &nbsp; Luke 10:22 ) is important as being ‘among the earliest materials made use of by the Evangelists,’ and as containing ‘the whole of the [[Christology]] of the Fourth Gospel’ (Plummer, <em> ICC </em> <em> [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] </em> , ‘St Luke,’ p. 282; for the latest criticism on it see Sanday, <em> Criticism of the Fourth Gosp </em> . p. 223 f.). It marks the unique relation in which Jesus stands to the Father. We have, then, in the NT three senses in which God is Father. ( <em> a </em> ) He is the <em> Father of Jesus Christ </em> . ( <em> b </em> ) He is the <em> Father of all His creatures </em> (cf. &nbsp; Acts 17:28 , &nbsp; James 1:17 f., &nbsp; Hebrews 12:9 ), of Gentiles as well as of Jews; &nbsp; Mark 7:27 implies that, though the Jews were to be fed first, the Gentiles were also to be fed. He is the Father of all the Jews, as well as of the disciples of Jesus; the words ‘One is your Father’ were spoken to the multitudes also (&nbsp; Matthew 23:1; &nbsp; Matthew 23:9 ). ( <em> c </em> ) But in a very special sense He is <em> Father of the disciples </em> , who are taught to pray ‘Our Father’ (&nbsp; Matthew 6:9; in the shorter version of &nbsp; Luke 11:2 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , ‘Father’), and who call on Him as Father (&nbsp; 1 Peter 1:17 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). For Pauline passages which teach this triple fatherhood see art, Paul the Apostle, iii. 1. The meaning of the doctrine of the universal fatherhood is that God is love (&nbsp; 1 John 4:6 ), and that He manifests His love by sending His Son into the world to save it (see above). </p> <p> <strong> 8. Distinctions in the Godhead </strong> . We should not expect to find the nomenclature of Christian theology in the NT. The writings contained therein are not a manual of theology; and the object of the technical terms invented or adopted by the Church was to explain the doctrine of the Bible in a form intelligible to the Christian learner. They do not mark a development of doctrine in times subsequent to the Gospel age. The use of the words ‘Persons’ and ‘Trinity’ affords an example of this. They were adopted in order to express the teaching of the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead; that Jesus is no mere man, but that He came down from heaven to take our nature upon Him; that He and the Father are one thing (&nbsp; John 10:30 , see below), and yet are distinct (&nbsp; Mark 13:32 ); that the Spirit is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Son (&nbsp; Romans 8:9 , see below). At the same time Christian theology takes care that we should not conceive of the Three [[Persons]] as of three individuals. The meaning of the word ‘Trinity’ is, in the language of the <em> Quicunque vult </em> , that ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God.’ </p> <p> The present writer must profoundly dissent from the view that Jesus’ teaching about God showed but little advance on that of the prophets, and that the ‘Trinitarian’ idea as found in the Fourth Gospel and in &nbsp;Matthew 28:19 was a development of a later age, say of the very end of the 1st century. Confessedly a great and marvellous development took place. To whom are we to assign it, if not to our Lord? Had a great teacher, or a school of teachers, arisen, who could of themselves produce such an absolute revolution in thought, how is it that contemporary writers and posterity alike put them completely in the background, and gave to Jesus the place of the Great Teacher of the world? This can be accounted for only by the revolution of thought being the work of Jesus Himself. An examination of the literature will lead us to the same conclusion. </p> <p> ( <em> a </em> ) We begin with St. Paul, as our earliest authority. The ‘Apostolic benediction’ (&nbsp; 2 Corinthians 13:14 ) which, as Dr. Sanday remarks (Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> ii. 213), has no dogmatic object and expounds no new doctrine indeed expounds no doctrine at all unequivocally groups together Jesus Christ, God [the Father], and the Holy Ghost as the source of blessing, and in that remarkable order. It is inconceivable that St. Paul would have done this had he looked on Jesus Christ as a mere man, or even as a created angel, and on the Holy Ghost only as an influence of the Father. But how did he arrive at this triple grouping, which is strictly consistent with his doctrine elsewhere? We cannot think that he invented it; and it is only natural to suppose that he founded it upon some words of our Lord. </p> <p> ( <em> b </em> ) The command to baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (&nbsp; Matthew 28:19 ), if spoken by our Lord, whatever the exact meaning of the words, whether as a formula to be used, or as expressing the result of Christian baptism would amply account for St. Paul’s benediction in &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 13:14 . But it has been strenuously denied that these words are authentic, or, if they are authentic, that they are our Lord’s own utterance. We must carefully distinguish these two allegations. <em> First </em> , it is denied that they are part of the First Gospel. It has been maintained by Mr. Conybeare that they are an interpolation of the 2nd cent., and that the original text had: ‘Make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them,’ etc. All extant manuscripts and versions have our present text (the Old Syriac is wanting here); but in several passages of [[Eusebius]] ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> . a.d. 260 340) which refer to the verse, the words about baptism are not mentioned, and in some of them the words ‘in my name’ are added. The allegation is carefully and impartially examined by Bp. Chase in <em> JThSt </em> <em> [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] </em> vi. 483 ff., and is judged by him to be baseless. As a matter of fact, nothing is more common in ancient writers than to omit, in referring to a [[Scripture]] passage, any words which are not relevant to their argument. Dean Robinson ( <em> JThSt </em> <em> [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] </em> vii. 186), who controverts Bp. Chase’s interpretation of the baptismal command, is yet entirely satisfied with his defence of its authenticity. <em> Secondly </em> , it is denied that the words in question were spoken by our Lord; it is said that they belong to that later stage of thought to which the Fourth Gospel is ascribed. As a matter of fact, it is urged, the earliest baptisms were not into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in the name of Jesus Christ, or into the name of the Lord Jesus, or into Christ Jesus, or into Christ (&nbsp; Acts 2:38; &nbsp; Acts 8:16; &nbsp; Acts 10:48; &nbsp; Acts 19:5 , &nbsp; Romans 6:3 , &nbsp; Galatians 3:27 ). Now it is not necessary to maintain that in any of these places a formula of baptism is prescribed or mentioned. The reverse is perhaps more probable (see Chase, <em> l.c. </em> ). The phrases in Acts need mean only that converts were united to Jesus or that they became Christians (cf. &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 10:2 ); the phrase in &nbsp; Matthew 28:19 may mean that disciples were to be united to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by baptism, without any formula being enjoined; or if we take what seems to be the less probable interpretation (that of Dean Robinson), that ‘in the name’ means ‘by the authority of,’ a similar result holds good. We need not even hold that &nbsp; Matthew 28:19 represents our Lord’s <em> ipsissima verba </em> . But that it faithfully represents our Lord’s teaching seems to follow from the use of the benediction in &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 13:14 (above), and from the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the sole form of baptizing that we read of was that of &nbsp; Matthew 28:19 , as in <em> [[Didache]] </em> 7 (the words quoted exactly, though in § <strong> 9 </strong> Christians are said to have been baptized into the name of the Lord), in Justin Martyr, <em> Apol </em> . i. 61 (he does not quote the actual words, but paraphrases, and at the end of the same chapter says that ‘he who is illuminated is washed in the name of Jesus Christ’), and in Tertullian, <em> adv. Prax </em> . 26 (paraphrase), <em> de Bapt </em> . <strong> 13 </strong> (exactly), <em> de PrÅ“scr. Hær </em> . 20 (paraphrase). Thus the second generation of Christians must have understood the words to be our Lord’s. But the same doctrine is found also in numerous other passages of the NT, and we may now proceed briefly to compare some of them with &nbsp; Matthew 28:19 , prefacing the investigation with the remark that the suspected words in that verse occur in the most Jewish of the Gospels, where such teaching is improbable unless it comes from our Lord (so Scott in Hastings’ <em> DB </em> <em> [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] </em> , Ext. vol. p. 313). </p> <p> ( <em> c </em> ) That the Fourth Gospel is full of the doctrine of ‘Father, Son, and Spirit’ is allowed by all (see esp. &nbsp; John 14:1-31; &nbsp; John 15:1-27; &nbsp; John 16:1-33 ). The Son and the Spirit are both Paracletes, sent by the Father; the Spirit is sent by the Father and also by Jesus; Jesus has all things whatsoever the Father has; the Spirit takes the things of Jesus and declares them unto us. In &nbsp; John 10:30 our Lord says: ‘I and the Father are one thing’ (the numeral is neuter), <em> i.e. </em> one essence the words cannot fall short of this (Westcott, <em> in loc. </em> ). But the same doctrine is found in all parts of the NT. Our Lord is the only-begotten Son (see § <strong> 7 </strong> above), who was pre-existent, and was David’s Lord in heaven before He came to earth (&nbsp; Matthew 22:45 : this is the force of the argument). He claims to judge the world and to bestow glory (&nbsp; Matthew 25:34 , &nbsp; Luke 22:69; cf. &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 5:10 ), to forgive sins and to bestow the power of binding and loosing (&nbsp; Mark 2:5; &nbsp; Mark 2:10 , &nbsp; Matthew 28:18; &nbsp; Matthew 18:18; cf. &nbsp; John 20:23 ); He invites sinners to come to Him (&nbsp; Matthew 11:28; cf. &nbsp; Matthew 10:37 , &nbsp; Luke 14:26 ); He is the teacher of the world (&nbsp; Matthew 11:29 ); He casts out devils as Son of God, and gives authority to His disciples to cast them out (&nbsp; Mark 3:11 f., &nbsp; Mark 3:15 ). The claims of Jesus are as tremendous, and (In the great example of humility) at first sight as surprising, in the Synoptics as in Jn. (Liddon, <em> BL </em> v. iv.). Similarly, in the Pauline Epistles the Apostle clearly teaches that Jesus is God (see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. <strong> 3 </strong> , <strong> 4 </strong> ). In them God the Father and Jesus Christ are constantly joined together (just as Father, Son, and Spirit are joined in the Apostolic benediction), <em> e.g. </em> in &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 1:3; &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 8:6 . So in &nbsp; 1 Peter 1:2 we have the triple conjunction ‘the foreknowledge of God the Father,’ ‘the sanctification of the Spirit,’ ‘the blood of Jesus Christ.’ The same conjunction is found in &nbsp; Judges 1:20 f. ‘Praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life’; cf. also &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 , &nbsp; Romans 8:14-17 etc. </p> <p> The Holy Spirit is represented in the NT as a Person, not as a mere Divine influence. The close resemblance between the Lukan and the Johannine accounts of the promise of the Spirit is very noteworthy. St. Luke tells us of ‘the promise of my Father,’ and of the command to tarry in the city until the [[Apostles]] were ‘clothed with power from on high’ (&nbsp;Luke 24:49 ); this is interpreted in &nbsp; Acts 1:5 as a baptism with the Holy Ghost, and one of the chief themes of Acts is the bestowal of the Holy Ghost to give life to the Church (&nbsp; Acts 2:4; &nbsp; Acts 2:33; &nbsp; Acts 8:15 ff; &nbsp; Acts 19:2 ff. etc.). This is closely parallel to the promise of the [[Paraclete]] in &nbsp; John 14:1-31; &nbsp; John 15:1-27; &nbsp; John 16:1-33 . Both the First and the Third [[Evangelists]] ascribe the conception of Jesus to the action of the Holy Ghost (&nbsp; Matthew 1:18; &nbsp; Matthew 1:20 , &nbsp; Luke 1:35 , where ‘the Most High’ is the Father, cf. &nbsp; Luke 6:35 f.). At the baptism of Jesus, the Father and the Spirit are both manifested, the appearance of the dove being an indication that the Spirit is distinct from the Father. The Spirit can be sinned against (&nbsp; Mark 3:29 and || Mt. Lk.); through Him Jesus is filled with Divine grace for the ministry (&nbsp; Luke 4:1; &nbsp; Luke 4:14; &nbsp; Luke 4:18 ), and casts out devils (&nbsp; Matthew 12:28; cf. &nbsp; Luke 11:20 ‘the finger of God’). The Spirit inspired David (&nbsp; Mark 12:36 ). So in St. Paul’s Epistles He intercedes, is grieved, is given to us, gives life (see art. Paul the Apostle, iii. 6). And the distinctions in the Godhead are emphasized by His being called the ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘Spirit of Christ’ in the same verse (&nbsp; Romans 8:9 ). That He is the Spirit of Jesus appears also from &nbsp; Acts 16:7 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 3:17 , &nbsp; Galatians 4:6 , &nbsp; Philippians 1:19 , &nbsp; 1 Peter 1:11 . </p> <p> This very brief epitome must here suffice. It is perhaps enough to show that the revelation which Jesus Christ made caused an immeasurable enlargement of the world’s conception of God. Our Lord teaches that God is One, and at the same time that He is no mere Monad, but Triune. Cf. art. Trinity. </p> <p> A. J. Maclean. </p>

<p> an immaterial, intelligent, and free Being; of perfect goodness, wisdom, and power; who made the universe, and continues to support it, as well as to govern and direct it, by his providence. Philologists have hitherto considered the word God as being of the same signification with good; and this is not denied by M. Hallenberg. But he thinks that both words originally denoted <em> unity; </em> and that the root is אתד , <em> unus; </em> whence the Syriac <em> Chad </em> and <em> Gada; </em> the Arabic <em> Ahd </em> and <em> Gahd; </em> the Persic <em> Choda </em> and <em> Chuda; </em> the Greek αγαθος and λαθος ; the Teutonic <em> Gud; </em> the German <em> Gott; </em> and our Saxon <em> God. </em> The other names of God, this author thinks, are referable to a similar origin. </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> By his immateriality, intelligence, and freedom, God is distinguished from Fate, Nature, Destiny, Necessity, Chance, <em> Anima Mundi, </em> and from all the other fictitious beings acknowledged by the Stoics, Pantheists, Spinosists, and other sorts of Atheists. The knowledge of God, his nature, attributes, word, and works, with the relations between him and his creatures, makes the subject of the extensive science called theology. In Scripture God is defined by, "I am that I am, [[Alpha]] and Omega; the Beginning and End of all things." Among philosophers, he is defined a Being of infinite perfection; or in whom there is no defect of any thing which we conceive may raise, improve, or exalt his nature. He is the First Cause, the First Being, who has existed from the beginning, has created the world, or who subsists necessarily, or of himself. </p> <p> <strong> 3. </strong> The plain argument, says Maclaurin, in his "Account of Sir I. Newton's Philosophical Discoveries," for the existence of the Deity, obvious to all, and carrying irresistible conviction with it, is from the evident contrivance and fitness of things for one another, which we meet with throughout all parts of the universe. There is no need of nice or subtle reasonings in this matter; a manifest contrivance immediately suggests a contriver. It strikes us like a sensation; and artful reasonings against it may puzzle us, but it is without shaking our belief. No person, for example that knows the principles of optics, and the structure of the eye, can believe that it was formed without skill in that science; or that the ear was formed without the knowledge of sounds; or that the male and female in animals were not formed for each other, and for continuing the species. All our accounts of nature are full of instances of this kind. The admirable and beautiful structure of things for final causes, exalts our idea of the Contriver; the unity of design shows him to be one. The great motions in the system performed with the same facility as the least, suggest his almighty power, which gave motion to the earth and the celestial bodies with equal ease as to the minutest particles. The subtilty of the motions and actions in the internal parts of bodies, shows that his influence penetrates the inmost recesses of things, and that he is equally active and present every where. The simplicity of the laws that prevail in the world, the excellent disposition of things, in order to obtain the best ends, and the beauty which adorns the work of nature, far superior to any thing in art, suggest his consummate wisdom. The usefulness of the whole scheme, so well contrived for the intelligent beings that enjoy it, with the internal disposition and moral structure of these beings themselves, shows his unbounded goodness. These are arguments which are sufficiently open to the views and capacities of the unlearned, while at the same time they acquire new strength and lustre from the discoveries of the learned. The Deity's acting and interposing in the universe, show that he governs as well as formed it; and the depth of his counsels, even in conducting the material universe, of which a great part surpasses our knowledge, keeps up an reward veneration and awe of this great Being, and disposes us to receive what may be otherwise revealed to us concerning him. It has been justly observed, that some of the laws of nature now known to us must have escaped us if we had wanted the sense of seeing. It may be in his power to bestow upon us other senses, of which we have at present no idea; without which it may be impossible for us to know all his works, or to have more adequate ideas of himself. In our present state, we know enough to be satisfied of our dependency upon him, and of the duty we owe to him, the Lord and Disposer of all things. He is not the object of sense; his essence, and, indeed, that of all other substances, are beyond the reach of all our discoveries; but his attributes clearly appear in his admirable works. We know that the highest conceptions we are able to form of them, are still beneath his real perfections; but his power and dominion over us, and our duty toward him, are manifest. </p> <p> <strong> 4. </strong> Though God has given us no innate ideas of himself, says Mr. Locke, yet, having furnished us with those faculties our minds are endowed with, he hath not left himself without a witness; since we have sense, perception, and reason, and cannot want a clear proof of him as long as we carry ourselves about us, To show, therefore, that we are capable of knowing, that is, of being certain that there is a God, and how we may come by this certainty, I think we need go no farther than ourselves, and that undoubted knowledge we have of our own existence. I think it is beyond question, that man has a clear perception of his own being; he knows certainly that he exists, and that he is something. In the next place, man knows, by an intuitive certainty, that bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles. If, therefore, we know there is some real Being, it is an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something; since what was not from eternity had a beginning; and what had a beginning must be produced by something else. Next it is evident, that what has its being from another must also have all that which is in, and belongs to, its being from another too; all the powers it has must be owing to, and derived from, the same source. This eternal source, then, of all being, must be also the source and original of all power; and so this eternal Being must be also the most powerful. Again: man finds in himself perception and knowledge: we are certain, then, that there is not only some Being, but some knowing, intelligent Being, in the world. There was a time, then, when there was no knowing Being, or else there has been a knowing Being from eternity. If it be said there was a time when that eternal Being had no knowledge, I reply, that then it is impossible there should have ever been any knowledge; it being as impossible that things wholly void of knowledge, and operating blindly, and without any perception, should produce a knowing Being, as it is impossible that a triangle should make itself three angles bigger than two right ones. Thus from the consideration of ourselves, and what we infallibly find in our own constitutions, our reason leads us to the knowledge of this certain and evident truth, that there is an eternal, most powerful, and knowing Being, which, whether any one will call God, it matters not. The thing is evident; and from this idea, duly considered, will easily be deduced all those other attributes we ought to ascribe to this eternal Being. From what has been said, it is plain to me, that we have a more certain knowledge of the existence of a God, than of any thing our senses have not immediately discovered to us. Nay, I presume I may say that we more certainly know that there is a God, than that there is any thing else without us. When I say we <em> know, </em> I mean, there is such a knowledge within our reach, which we cannot miss, if we will but apply our minds to that as we do to several other inquiries. It being then unavoidable for all rational creatures to conclude that something has existed from eternity, let us next see what kind of thing that must be. There are but two sorts of beings in the world that man knows or conceives; such as are purely material without sense or perception, and sensible, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be. These two sorts we shall call cogitative and incogitative beings; which to our present purpose are better than material and immaterial. If, then, there must be something eternal, it is very obvious to reason that it must be a cogitative being; because it is as impossible to conceive that bare incogitative matter should ever produce a thinking, intelligent being, as that nothing should of itself produce matter. Let us suppose any parcel of matter eternal, we shall find it in itself unable to produce any thing. Let us suppose its parts firmly at rest together, if there were no other being in the world, must it not eternally remain so, a dead inactive lump? Is it possible to conceive that it can add motion to itself, or produce any thing? Matter, then, by its own strength cannot produce in itself so much as motion. The motion at has must also be from eternity, or else added to matter by some other being, more powerful than matter. But let us suppose motion eternal too, yet matter, incogitative matter, and motion could never produce thought: knowledge will still be as far beyond the power of nothing to produce. [[Divide]] matter into as minute parts as you will, vary its figure and motion as much as you please, it will operate no otherwise upon other bodies of proportionable bulk, than it did before this division. The minutest particles of matter knock, impel, and resist one another, just as the greater do; so that if we suppose nothing eternal, matter can never begin to be; if we suppose bare matter without motion eternal, motion can never begin to be; if we suppose only matter and motion to be eternal, thought can never begin to be; for it is impossible to conceive that matter, either with or without motion, could have originally in and from itself, sense, perception, and knowledge, as is evident from hence, that then sense, perception, and knowledge must be a property eternally inseparable from matter, and every particle of it. Since, therefore, whatsoever is the first eternal Being must necessarily be cogitative; and whatsoever is first of all things must necessarily contain in it, and actually have, at least all the perfections that can ever after exist, it necessarily follows, that the first eternal Being cannot be matter. If, therefore, it be evident that something, must necessarily exist from eternity, it is also evident that that something must necessarily be a cogitative Being. For it is as impossible that incogitative matter should produce a cogitative Being, as that nothing, or the negation of all being, should produce a positive Being or matter. </p> <p> This discovery of the necessary existence of an eternal mind sufficiently leads us to the knowledge of God. For it will hence follow, that all other knowing beings that have a beginning must depend upon him, and have no other ways of knowledge or extent of power than what he gives them; and therefore if he made those, he made also the less excellent pieces of this universe, all inanimate bodies, whereby his omniscience, power, and providence will be established, and from thence all his other attributes necessarily follow. </p> <p> <strong> 5. </strong> In the Scriptures no attempt is made to prove the existence of a God; such an attempt would have been entirely useless, because the fact was universally admitted. The error of men consisted, not in denying a God, but in admitting too many; and one great object of the Bible is to demonstrate that there is but one. No metaphysical arguments, however, are employed in it for this purpose. The proof rests on facts recorded in the history of the Jews, from which it appears that they were always victorious and prosperous so long as they served the only living and true God, Jehovah, the name by which the Almighty made himself known to them, and uniformly unsuccessful when they revolted from him to serve other gods. What argument could be so effectual to convince them that there was no god in all the earth but the God of Israel? The sovereignty and universal providence of the Lord Jehovah are proved by predictions delivered by the Jewish prophets, pointing out the fate of nations and of empires, specifying distinctly their rise, the duration of their power, and the causes of their decline; thus demonstrating that one God ruled among the nations, and made them the unconscious instruments of promoting the purposes of his will. In the same manner, none of the attributes of God are demonstrated in Scripture by reasoning: they are simply affirmed and illustrated by facts; and instead of a regular deduction of doctrines and conclusions from a few admitted principles, we are left to gather them from the recorded feelings and devotional expressions of persons whose hearts were influenced by the fear of God. These circumstances point out a marked singularity in the Scriptures, considered as a repository of religious doctrines. The writers, generally speaking, do not reason, but exhort and remonstrate; they do not attempt to fetter the judgment by the subtleties of argument, but to rouse the feelings by an appeal to palpable facts. This is exactly what might have been expected from teachers acting under a divine commission, and armed with undeniable facts to enforce their admonitions. </p> <p> <strong> 6. </strong> In three distinct ways do the sacred writers furnish us with information on this great and essential subject, the existence and the character of God; from the <em> names </em> by which he is designated; from the <em> actions </em> ascribed to him; and from the <em> attributes </em> with which he is invested in their invocations and praises; and in those lofty descriptions of his nature which, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have recorded for the instruction of the world. These attributes will be considered under their respective heads; but the impression of the general view of the divine character, as thus revealed, is too important to be omitted. </p> <p> <strong> 7. </strong> The <em> names </em> of God as recorded in Scripture convey at once ideas of overwhelming greatness and glory, mingled with that awful mysteriousness with which, to all finite minds, and especially to the minds of mortals, the divine essence and mode of existence must ever be invested. Though ONE, he is אלהים , ELOHIM, GODS, <em> persons adorable. </em> He is יהוה , JEHOVAH, <em> self-existing; </em> אל , EL, <em> strong, powerful; </em> אהיה , EHIEH, <em> I am, I will be, self- existence, independency, all-sufficiency, immutability, eternity; </em> שדי , SHADDAI, <em> almighty, all-sufficient; </em> אדן , ADON, <em> Supporter, Lord, Judge. </em> These are among the adorable appellatives of God which are scattered throughout the revelation that he has been pleased to make of himself: but on one occasion he was pleased more particularly to declare his <em> name, </em> that is, such of the qualities and attributes of the divine nature as mortals are the most interested in knowing; and to unfold, not only his natural, but also those of his moral attributes by which his conduct towards his creatures is regulated. "And the Lord passed by and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and fourth generation," Exodus 34. This is the most ample and particular description of the character of God, as given by himself in the sacred records; and the import of the several titles by which he has thus in his infinite condescension manifested himself, has been thus exhibited. He is not only JEHOVAH, <em> self-existent, </em> and EL, <em> the strong or mighty God; </em> but he is, says Dr. A. Clarke, " רחום , ROCHUM, <em> the merciful Being, </em> who is full of tenderness and compassion; חנון , CHANUN, <em> the gracious One, </em> he whose nature is goodness itself, the loving God. ארכּ? פים , EREC APAYIM <em> long- suffering, </em> the Being who, because of his tenderness, is not easily irritated, but suffers long and is kind; רב , RAB, <em> the great or mighty One: </em> חסד , CHESED, <em> the bountiful Being, </em> he who is exuberant in his beneficence; אמת , EMETH, <em> the Truth, </em> or <em> True One, </em> he alone who can neither deceive nor be deceived; נצר חסד , NOTSER CHESED, <em> the [[Preserver]] of bountifulness, </em> he whose beneficence never ends, keeping mercy, for thousands of generations, showing compassion and mercy while the world endures; נשא עון ופשע וחטאה , NOSE AVON VAPESHA VECHATAAH, <em> he who bears away iniquity, transgression, and sin; </em> properly the <em> Redeemer, </em> the <em> Pardoner, </em> the <em> Forgiver, </em> the Being whose prerogative it is to forgive sin, and save the soul; נקה לא ינקה NAKEH LO YINNAKEH, <em> the righteous Judge, </em> who distributes justice with an impartial hand; and עין פקד , PAKED AVON, &c, <em> he who visits iniquity, </em> he who punishes transgressors, and from whose justice no sinner can escape; the God of retributive and vindictive justice." </p> <p> <strong> 8. </strong> The second means by which the Scriptures convey to us the knowledge of God, is by the <em> actions </em> which they ascribe to him. They contain, indeed, the important record of his dealings with men in every age which is comprehended within the limit of the sacred history; and, by prophetic declaration, they also exhibit the principles on which he will govern the world to the end of time; so that the whole course of the divine administration may be considered as exhibiting a singularly illustrative comment upon those attributes of his nature which, in their abstract form, are contained in such declarations as those which have been just quoted. The first act ascribed to God is that of creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing; and by his fiat alone arranging their parts, and peopling them with living creatures. By this were manifested—his <em> eternity and self- existence, </em> as he who creates must be before all creatures, and he who gives being to others can himself derive it from none:—his <em> almighty power, </em> shown both in the act of creation and in the number and vastness of the objects so produced:—his <em> wisdom, </em> in their arrangement, and in their fitness to their respective ends:—and his <em> goodness, </em> as the whole tended to the happiness of <em> sentient </em> beings. The foundations of his natural and moral government are also made manifest by his creative acts. In what he made out of nothing he had an absolute right and prerogative; it awaited his ordering, and was completely at his disposal: so that to alter or destroy his own work, and to prescribe the laws by which the intelligent and rational part of his creatures should be governed, are rights which none can question. Thus on the one hand his character of <em> Lord </em> or <em> [[Governor]] </em> is established, and on the other our duty of lowly <em> homage </em> and absolute <em> obedience. </em> </p> <p> <strong> 9. </strong> Agreeably to this, as soon as man was created, he was placed under a rule of conduct. [[Obedience]] was to be followed with the continuance of the divine favour; transgression, with death. The event called forth new manifestations of the character of God. His tender <em> mercy, </em> in the compassion showed to the fallen pair; his <em> justice, </em> in forgiving them only in the view of a satisfaction to be hereafter offered to his justice by an innocent representative of the sinning race; his <em> love </em> to that race, in giving his own Son to become this Redeemer, and in the fulness of time to die for the sins of the whole world; and his <em> holiness, </em> in connecting with this provision for the pardon of man the means of restoring him to a sinless state, and to the obliterated image of God in which he had been created. Exemplifications of the divine <em> mercy </em> are traced from age to age, in his establishing his own worship among men, and remitting the punishment of individual and national offences in answer to prayer offered from penitent hearts, and in dependence upon the typified or actually offered universal sacrifice:—of his <em> condescension, </em> in stooping to the cases of individuals; in his dispensations both of providence and grace, by showing respect to the poor and humble; and, principally, by the incarnation of God in the form of a servant, admitting men into familiar and friendly intercourse with himself, and then entering into heaven to be their patron and advocate, until they should be received into the same glory, "and so be for ever with the Lord:"—of his strictly <em> righteous government, </em> in the destruction of the old world, the cities of the plain, the nations of Canaan, and all ancient states, upon their "filling up the measure of their iniquities;" and, to show that "he will by no means clear the guilty;" in the numerous and severe punishments inflicted even upon the chosen seed of Abraham, because of their transgressions:—of his <em> long-suffering, </em> in frequent warnings, delays, and corrective judgments inflicted upon individuals and nations, before sentence of utter excision and destruction:—of <em> faithfulness </em> and <em> truth, </em> in the fulfilment of promises, often many ages after they were given, as in the promises to Abraham respecting the possession of the land of Canaan by his seed, and in all the "promises made to the fathers" respecting the advent, vicarious death, and illustrious offices of the "Christ," the Saviour of the world:—of his <em> immutability, </em> in the constant and unchanging laws and principles of his government, which remain to this day precisely the same, in every thing universal, as when first promulgated, and have been the rule of his conduct in all places as well as through all time:—of his <em> prescience </em> of future events, manifested by the predictions of Scripture:— and of the depth and stability of his <em> counsel, </em> as illustrated in that plan and purpose of bringing back a revolted world to obedience and felicity, which we find steadily kept in view in the Scriptural history of the acts of God in former ages; which is still the end toward which all his dispensations bend, however wide and mysterious their sweep; and which they will finally accomplish, as we learn from the prophetic history of the future, contained in the Old and New Testaments. </p> <p> Thus the course of divine operation in the world has from age to age been a manifestation of the divine character, continually receiving new and stronger illustrations until the completion of the Christian revelation by the ministry of Christ and his inspired followers, and still placing itself in brighter light and more impressive aspects as the scheme of human redemption runs on to its consummation. From all the acts of God as recorded in the Scriptures, we are taught that he alone is God; that he is present every where to sustain and govern all things; that his wisdom is infinite, his counsel settled, and his power irresistible; that he is holy, just, and good; the Lord and the Judge, but the Father and the Friend, of man. </p> <p> <strong> 10. </strong> More at large do we learn what God is, from the declarations of the inspired writings. As to his <em> substance, </em> that "God is a Spirit." As to his <em> duration, </em> that "from everlasting to everlasting he is God;" "the King, eternal, immortal, invisible." That, after all the manifestations he has made of himself, he is, from the infinite perfection and glory of his nature, <em> incomprehensible: </em> "Lo, these are but parts of his ways, and how little a portion is heard of him!" "Touching the Almighty, we cannot find him out." That he is <em> unchangeable: </em> "The Father of Lights, with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." That "he is the fountain of life," and the only independent Being in the universe: "Who only hath immortality." That every other being, however exalted, has its existence from him: "For by him were all things created, which are in heaven and in earth, whether they are visible or invisible." That the existence of every thing is upheld by him, no creature being for a moment independent of his support: "By him all things consist;" "upholding all things by the word of his power." That he is <em> omnipresent: </em> "Do not I fill heaven and earth with my presence, saith the Lord?" That he is <em> omniscient. </em> "All things are naked and open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do." That he is the absolute Lord and [[Owner]] of all things: "The heavens, even the heaven of heavens, are thine, and all the parts of them:" "The earth is thine, and the fulness thereof, the world and them that dwell therein:" "He doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth." That his <em> providence </em> extends to the minutest objects: "The hairs of your head are all numbered:" "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father." That he is a Being of unspotted <em> purity </em> and perfect <em> rectitude: </em> "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts!" "A God of truth, and in whom is no iniquity:" "Of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." That he is <em> just </em> in the administration of his government: "Shall not the Judge of the whole earth do right?" "Clouds and darkness are round about him; judgment and justice are the habitation of his throne." That his <em> wisdom </em> is unsearchable: "O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" And, finally, that he is <em> good </em> and <em> merciful: </em> "Thou art good, and thy mercy endureth for ever:" "His tender mercy is over all his works:" "God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ:" "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them:" "God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." </p> <p> <strong> 11. </strong> Under these deeply awful but consolatory views, do the Scriptures present to us the supreme object of our worship and trust; and they dwell upon each of the above particulars with inimitable sublimity and beauty of language, and with an inexhaustible variety of illustration. Nor can we compare these views of the divine nature with the conceptions of the most enlightened of Pagans, without feeling how much reason we have for everlasting gratitude, that a revelation so explicit, and so comprehensive, should have been made to us on a subject which only a revelation from God himself could have made known. It is thus that Christian philosophers, even when they do not use the language of the Scriptures, are able to speak on this great and mysterious doctrine, in language so clear, and with conceptions so noble; in a manner too so equable, so different from the sages of antiquity, who, if at any time they approach the truth when speaking of the divine nature, never fail to mingle with it some essentially erroneous or grovelling conception. "By the Word of Gods," says Dr. Barrow, "we mean a Being of infinite wisdom, goodness, and power, the Creator and the Governor of all things, to whom the great attributes of eternity and independency, omniscience and immensity, perfect holiness and purity, perfect justice and veracity, complete happiness, glorious majesty, and supreme right of dominion belong; and to whom the highest veneration, and most profound submission and obedience are due." "Our notion of Deity," says [[Bishop]] Pearson, "doth expressly signify a Being or Nature of infinite perfection; and the infinite perfection of a being or nature consists in this, that it be absolutely and essentially necessary; an actual Being of itself; and potential, or causative of all beings beside itself, independent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed." "God is a Being," says Lawson, "and not any kind of being; but a substance, which is the foundation of other beings. And not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are perfect in their kind, yet limited and finite. But God is absolutely, fully, and every way infinitely perfect; and therefore above spirits, above angels, who are perfect comparatively. God's infinite perfection includes all the attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all dependency, borrowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality, contingency; ignorance, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all imperfections whatever. It includes necessity of being, independency, perfect unity, simplicity, immensity, eternity, immortality; the most perfect life, knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss, and all these in the highest degree. We cannot pierce into the secrets of this eternal Being. Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can proceed no farther, faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can understand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason; but reason itself dictates unto us, that we must believe far more of God than it can inform us of." To these we may add an admirable passage from Sir Isaac Newton: "The word GOD frequently signifies <em> Lord; </em> but every lord is not God: it is the dominion of a spiritual Being or Lord that constitutes God; true dominion, true God; supreme, the Supreme; reigned, the false god. From such true dominion it follows, that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; and from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect; he is eternal and infinite; omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and is present from infinity to infinity. He governs all things that exist, and knows all things that are to be known; he is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present; he endures always, and is present every where; he is omnipresent, not only virtually, but also substantially; for power without substance cannot subsist. All things are contained and move in him, but without any mutual passion; he suffers nothing from the motions of bodies; nor do they undergo any resistance from his omnipresence. It is confessed, that God exists necessarily, and by the same necessity he exists always and every where. Hence also he must be perfectly similar, all eye, all ear, all arm, all the power of perceiving, understanding, and acting; but after a manner not at all corporeal, after a manner not like that of men, after a manner wholly to us unknown. He is destitute of all body, and all bodily shape; and therefore cannot be seen, heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any thing corporeal. We have ideas of the attributes of God, but do not know the substance of even any thing; we see only the figures and colours of bodies, hear only sounds, touch only the outward surfaces, smell only odours, and taste tastes; and do not, cannot, by any sense, or reflex act, know their inward substances; and much less can we have any notion of the substance of God. We know him by his properties and attributes." </p> <p> <strong> 12. </strong> Many able works in proof of the existence of God have been written, the arguments of which are too copious for us even to analyze. It must be sufficient to say that they all proceed, as it is logically termed, either <em> a priori, </em> from cause to effect, or, which is the safest and most satisfactory mode, <em> a posteriori, </em> from the effect to the cause. The irresistible argument from the marks of <em> design </em> with which all nature abounds, to one great intelligent, designing Cause, is by no writers brought out in so clear and masterly a manner as by Howe, in his "Living temple," and Paley, in his "Natural Theology." </p>

<p> The Bible makes no attempt to prove the existence of God, but assumes it from the outset (&nbsp;Genesis 1:1). This God is neither an impersonal ‘force’ nor an abstract ‘principle’ but a living person, and people find true meaning to existence by coming into a living relationship with him (&nbsp;John 17:3). </p> <p> '''The personal God revealed''' </p> <p> As people observe the physical world, they may conclude that there is an intelligent and powerful God who is the ultimate cause and controller of all things (&nbsp;Acts 17:23-27; &nbsp;Romans 1:19-20; &nbsp;Hebrews 3:4; see CREATION). As they reflect upon their awareness of right and wrong, they may conclude that there is a moral God to whom all rational creatures are answerable (&nbsp;Acts 17:23; &nbsp;Romans 2:15-16). However, God has not left people with only a vague or general knowledge of himself. He has revealed himself more fully through history, and he has recorded that revelation in the Bible (&nbsp;Jeremiah 1:1-3; &nbsp;2 Peter 1:21; see REVELATION). The central truth of that revelation is that there is only one God (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 6:4; &nbsp;Isaiah 44:6; &nbsp;Jeremiah 10:10; &nbsp;Mark 12:29; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 1:9; &nbsp;1 Timothy 2:5), though he exists in the form of a trinity (see TRINITY). </p> <p> In any study of the character of God, we must bear in mind that God is a unified personality. He is not made up of different parts, nor can he be divided into different parts. Also, he is not simply a person who has certain qualities (e.g. goodness, truth, love, holiness, wisdom) but he is the full expression of these qualities. The Bible’s way of putting this truth into words is to say that God is love, he is light, he is truth (&nbsp;John 14:6; &nbsp;1 John 1:5; &nbsp;1 John 4:16; see LOVE; LIGHT; TRUTH). (In the present article many of the qualities, or attributes, of God can be mentioned only briefly. For fuller details see the separate articles as indicated.) </p> <p> '''Eternal and independent''' </p> <p> Since it is impossible to give a complete definition or description of God, the Bible makes no attempt to do so. In addition, it forbids the use of anything in nature or anything made by human hands as a physical image of God, for such things can lead only to wrong ideas about God (&nbsp;Exodus 20:4-5; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 4:15-19; see IDOL, IDOLATRY). </p> <p> When Moses asked for a name of God that would give the Israelites some idea of his character, the name that God revealed to him was ‘I am who I am’ (&nbsp;Exodus 3:14). The name was given not to satisfy curiosity, but to tell God’s people that their God was independent, eternal, unchangeable and able always to do what he, in his absolute wisdom, knew to be best. (Concerning this and other names of God see YAHWEH.) </p> <p> God’s existence cannot be measured according to time, for he is without beginning and without end. He is eternal (&nbsp;Psalms 90:2; &nbsp;Isaiah 48:12; &nbsp;John 5:26; &nbsp;Romans 1:23; &nbsp;Romans 16:26; &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:17; &nbsp;Revelation 1:8; &nbsp;Revelation 4:8; see ETERNITY). He is answerable to no one. He does not need to give reasons for his decisions or explanations of his actions (&nbsp;Psalms 115:3; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:13-14; &nbsp;Daniel 4:35; &nbsp;Acts 4:28; &nbsp;Romans 9:20-24), though in his grace he may sometimes do so (&nbsp;Genesis 18:17-19; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:9). His wisdom is infinite and therefore beyond human understanding (&nbsp;Psalms 147:5; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:28; &nbsp;Daniel 2:20; &nbsp;Romans 11:33; &nbsp;Romans 16:27; see WISDOM). </p> <p> A God who is infinite has no needs. Nothing in the works of creation or in the activities of humans or angels can add anything to him or take anything from him (&nbsp;Psalms 50:10-13; &nbsp;Acts 17:24-25; &nbsp;Romans 11:36). He is under obligation to no one, he needs no one, and he depends on no one. Whatever he does, he does because he chooses to, not because he is required to (&nbsp;Ephesians 1:11). But, again in his grace, he may choose people to have the honour of serving him (&nbsp;Psalms 105:26-27; &nbsp;Acts 9:15). </p> <p> '''Majestic and sovereign''' </p> <p> As the creator and ruler of all things, God is pictured as enthroned in majesty in the heavens (&nbsp;Psalms 47:7; &nbsp;Psalms 93:1-2; &nbsp;Psalms 95:3-5; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:3; see GLORY). Nothing can compare with his mighty power (&nbsp;Isaiah 40:12-15; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:25-26; &nbsp;Jeremiah 32:17; &nbsp;Romans 1:20; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:19-20; &nbsp;Ephesians 3:20; see POWER). </p> <p> God is the possessor of absolute authority and nothing can exist independently of it (&nbsp;Psalms 2:1-6; &nbsp;Isaiah 2:10-12; &nbsp;Isaiah 2:20-22; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:23; see AUTHORITY). He maintains the whole creation (&nbsp;Psalms 147:8-9; &nbsp;Matthew 5:45; &nbsp;Colossians 1:17), he controls all life (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 7:15; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 28:60; &nbsp;Job 1:21; &nbsp;Psalms 104:29-30; &nbsp;Matthew 10:29) and he directs all events, small and great, towards the goals that he has determined (&nbsp;Genesis 45:5-8; &nbsp;Psalms 135:6 : &nbsp;Proverbs 16:33; &nbsp;Isaiah 10:5-7; &nbsp;Isaiah 44:24-28; &nbsp;Isaiah 46:9-11; &nbsp;Amos 3:6; &nbsp;Amos 4:6-11; &nbsp;John 11:49-53; &nbsp;Acts 2:23; &nbsp;Acts 17:26; &nbsp;Romans 8:28; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:11; see PREDESTINATION; PROVIDENCE). Yet people have the freedom to make their own decisions, and they are responsible for those decisions (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 30:15-20; &nbsp;Isaiah 1:16-20; &nbsp;Matthew 27:21-26; &nbsp;Romans 9:30-32). </p> <p> There are no limits to God’s knowledge or presence. This is a cause for both fear and joy: fear, because it means that no sin can escape him; joy, because it means that no one who trusts in his mercy can ever be separated from him (&nbsp;Psalms 139:1-12; &nbsp;Proverbs 15:3; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:27-28; &nbsp;Isaiah 57:15; &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:24; &nbsp;Hebrews 4:13). God is not only over all things, but is also in all things (&nbsp;Acts 17:24; &nbsp;Acts 17:27-28; &nbsp;Ephesians 4:6). </p> <p> Since God is sovereign, people must submit to him and obey him. Refusing to do this, they rebel against him. They want to be independent, but instead they become slaves of sin (&nbsp;Genesis 3:1-7; &nbsp;John 8:34; see SIN). They cannot escape God’s judgment through anything they themselves might do. They can do nothing but repent of their rebellion and surrender before the sovereign God, trusting solely in his grace for forgiveness (&nbsp;Acts 17:30-31; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:8; see GRACE). </p> <p> The rebellion of sinners, though in opposition to God, does not destroy God’s sovereignty. God allows evil to happen, but he never allows it to go beyond the bounds that he has determined (&nbsp;Job 1:12; see EVIL; SATAN). God still works according to his purposes, for his own glory. He still causes to happen whatever does happen, even to the salvation of rebellious sinners (&nbsp;Isaiah 14:24; &nbsp;Isaiah 37:26; &nbsp;Matthew 25:34; &nbsp;Acts 2:23; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:5; &nbsp;Ephesians 3:20; see ELECTION). </p> <p> '''Invisible yet personal''' </p> <p> From the above it is clear that God is not an impersonal ‘force’, but a personal being. He has knowledge, power, will and feelings. Human beings also have knowledge, power, will and feelings, but that does not mean that God is like a human being (&nbsp;Hosea 11:9). On the contrary, human beings have these attributes only because God has them; for they have been made in God’s image (&nbsp;Genesis 1:26; see IMAGE). </p> <p> Being spirit, God is invisible (&nbsp;John 4:24; &nbsp;Romans 1:20; &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:17; &nbsp;Hebrews 11:27). Since human language cannot properly describe a person who has no physical form, the Bible has to use pictures and comparisons when speaking of God. It may speak of God as if he has human features, functions and emotions, but such expressions should not be understood literally (&nbsp;Genesis 2:2; &nbsp;Numbers 12:8; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 29:20; &nbsp;Deuteronomy 33:27; &nbsp;Psalms 2:4; &nbsp;John 10:29; &nbsp;Hebrews 4:13). </p> <p> Not only is God a person, but believers are so aware of a personal relationship with him that they can collectively call him ‘our God’ and individually ‘my God’ (&nbsp;Acts 2:39; &nbsp;Philippians 4:19). They have an increased appreciation of God’s character through their understanding of Jesus Christ; because, in the person of Jesus Christ, God took upon himself human form and lived in the world he had created (&nbsp;John 1:14; &nbsp;John 1:18; &nbsp;John 14:9; &nbsp;Colossians 1:15; see JESUS CHRIST). God is the Father of Jesus Christ (&nbsp;Mark 14:36; &nbsp;John 5:18; &nbsp;John 8:54) and through Jesus Christ he becomes the Father of all who believe (&nbsp;Romans 8:15-17; see FATHER). </p> <p> '''Unchangeable yet responsive''' </p> <p> Although God is personal, he is unchangeable. Everything in creation changes, but the Creator never changes (&nbsp;Psalms 33:11; &nbsp;Malachi 3:6; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:10-12; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:24). This does not mean that God is mechanical, that he has no emotions, or that he is the helpless prisoner of his own laws. What it means may be summarized from two aspects. </p> <p> Firstly, the unchangeability of God means that, because he is infinite, there is no way in which any of his attributes can become greater or less. They cannot change for either better or worse. God can neither increase nor decrease in knowledge, love, righteousness, truth, wisdom or justice, because he possesses these attributes in perfection (&nbsp;Exodus 34:6-7). </p> <p> Secondly, God’s unchangeability means that he is consistent in all his dealings. His standards do not change according to varying emotions or circumstances as do the standards of human beings. His love is always perfect love, his righteousness is always perfect righteousness (&nbsp;Hebrews 6:17-18; &nbsp;James 1:17). God’s unchangeable nature guarantees that every action of his is righteous, wise and true. </p> <p> We must not understand God’s unchangeability to mean that he is unmoved by human suffering on the one hand or human rebellion on the other. In his mercy he may have compassion on the weak, and in his wrath he may punish the guilty (&nbsp;Exodus 2:23-25; &nbsp;Exodus 32:9-10; &nbsp;James 5:4; &nbsp;1 Peter 3:12). He may change his treatment of people from blessing to judgment when they rebel (&nbsp;Genesis 6:6-7; &nbsp;1 Samuel 15:11; &nbsp;1 Samuel 15:23) or from judgment to blessing when they repent (&nbsp;Joel 2:13-14; &nbsp;Jonah 3:10). </p> <p> This does not mean that events take God by surprise and he has to revise his plans. He always knows the end from the beginning, and he always bases his plans on his perfect knowledge and wisdom (&nbsp;Numbers 23:19; &nbsp;1 Samuel 15:29; &nbsp;Isaiah 14:24; &nbsp;Isaiah 46:9-10; &nbsp;Romans 11:29). </p> <p> '''Righteous yet loving''' </p> <p> When the Bible speaks of God as holy, the emphasis is not so much on his sinlessness and purity as on his ‘separateness’ from all other things. A thing that was holy, in the biblical sense, was a thing that was set apart from the common affairs of life and consecrated entirely to God. God is holy as the supreme and majestic one who exists apart from all else and rules over all (&nbsp;Exodus 15:11; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:25; &nbsp;John 17:11; &nbsp;Revelation 4:8-9; &nbsp;Revelation 15:4; see HOLINESS). Any vision of such a holy God overpowers the worshipper with feelings of awe, terror and unworthiness (&nbsp;Job 40:1-4; &nbsp;Isaiah 6:1-5; &nbsp;Habakkuk 3:3; &nbsp;Habakkuk 3:16; &nbsp;Revelation 1:17). </p> <p> Since holiness means separation from all that is common, it includes separation from sin. Therefore, God’s holiness includes his moral perfection. He is separate from evil and opposed to it (&nbsp;Habakkuk 1:12-13). The Bible usually speaks of this moral holiness of God as his righteousness (&nbsp;Psalms 11:7; &nbsp;Psalms 36:6; &nbsp;Isaiah 5:16; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:9; &nbsp;1 John 3:7; see RIGHTEOUSNESS). God’s attitude to sin is one of wrath, or righteous anger. He cannot ignore sin but must deal with it (&nbsp;Psalms 9:8; &nbsp;Isaiah 11:4-5; &nbsp;Jeremiah 30:23-24; &nbsp;Romans 1:18; &nbsp;Romans 2:8; see WRATH; JUDGMENT). </p> <p> But God is also a God of love, grace, mercy and longsuffering, and he wants to forgive repentant sinners (&nbsp;Psalms 86:5; &nbsp;Psalms 145:8-9; &nbsp;Romans 2:4; &nbsp;Titus 3:4; &nbsp;2 Peter 3:9; &nbsp;1 John 4:16; see LOVE; PATIENCE). His love is not in conflict with his righteousness. The two exist in perfect harmony. Because he loves, he acts righteously, and because his righteous demands against sin are met, his love forgives. All this is possible only because of what Jesus Christ has done on behalf of sinners (&nbsp;Romans 3:24; see PROPITIATION). The God who is the sinners’ judge is also the sinners’ saviour (&nbsp;Psalms 34:18; &nbsp;Psalms 50:1-4; &nbsp;1 Timothy 2:3; &nbsp;2 Timothy 4:18; &nbsp;Titus 3:4-7; see SALVATION). </p>

<p> God is <i> unique </i> in nature. No person, object, or idea can be compared to God. [[Anything]] said about God must be based on His revelation of Himself to us. Anything said about God must be said in human terms, the only terms we have and understand. The reality of God is always much greater than human minds can understand or express. </p> <p> God as the Bible's Primary [[Subject]] The Bible and history begin with God (&nbsp;Genesis 1:1 ). The last chapter of the Bible describes God as the “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (&nbsp;Revelation 22:13 NRSV). All the way through Scripture God is primary. For Christians the primacy of God is reassuring, liberating, and instructive. It reassures us that God controls all existence. It liberates us to know the loving, redeeming God seeks to set us free. It instructs us to be able to look for signs of God throughout His universe. </p> <p> God as [[Present]] with Us God is present in His world in a unique manner. He is never separated from any part of His creation. As spirit, God has the perfect capability of being present everywhere in the world at once. The psalmist exclaimed, “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there” (&nbsp;Psalm 139:7-8 ). The prophet looked for the Messiah to be named Emmanuel, meaning, “God with us”; and Matthew reported that God fulfilled that promise in Jesus (&nbsp;Isaiah 7:14; &nbsp;Matthew 1:23 ). The end time will make the presence of God even more clear: God will live with His people (&nbsp;Revelation 21:3 ). Atheists affirm the total absence of God, saying God does not exist, but most human experience affirms a sense of the divine within the reality of life. In some mysterious way God is immanent, that is, He is present in the day-to-day human existence. He enters into personal relationships with the people who inhabit His world. </p> <p> The Bible speaks of God's presence in two major ways: in space and in relationships. Theologians used the term <i> omnipresence </i> , derived from Latin, to speak of God's presence everywhere in all the world's space. Moses experienced that presence on a wilderness mountain (&nbsp;Exodus 3:1 ); Isaiah, in the Jerusalem [[Temple]] (&nbsp;Isaiah 6:1 ); and Paul, on an international highway (&nbsp;Acts 9:1 ). Most often the Bible speaks in terms of God being present in relationships. He called Israel to be His people (&nbsp;Exodus 19:3-6 ). He appeared to Elijah in a “still, small voice” (&nbsp;1 Kings 19:12 ). Most of all God appeared Person to person in the human flesh of His Son Jesus. </p> <p> God as [[Mystery]] [[Revealed]] in Christ The personal presence of God in Jesus Christ is the central and normative source of knowledge about God. Christ is known today through the witness of inspired Scripture and through the personal witness of the Holy Spirit. Still, what is revealed is the mystery of Christ. Even as it is revealed, God's revelation in Jesus Christ remains mysterious (&nbsp;Romans 16:25-26; &nbsp;Ephesians 3:1-10; &nbsp;Colossians 1:24-27; &nbsp;Colossians 4:2-4 ). Faith believes that what remains hidden in mystery is totally consistent with what is revealed in Christ. </p> <p> Revelation of Christ in the form of Bible narrative allows us to describe God but not to define Him. Perhaps the closest we can come to a definition is that God is the holy Being who is love in servant form. This rises out of Bible statements: “the Lord our God is holy” (&nbsp;Psalm 99:9 ); “God is love” (1John 4:8,&nbsp;1 John 4:16 ). These contain partial descriptions, not definitions. The norm for a definition comes in Jesus, who said, “but I am among you as one who serves” (&nbsp;Luke 22:27 NRSV). Thus Christian preaching echoes Paul: “we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord; and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake” (2 or. &nbsp; Luke 4:5 NRSV). </p> <p> God's Unique Nature God is the only God. He is not simply the greatest of many gods—He is the only true God. God is the <i> living </i> God. This separates Him from all other gods and idols, which are merely forms humans have created in the image of things God created (&nbsp; Isaiah 41:22-24; &nbsp;Isaiah 44:9-20; &nbsp;Isaiah 46:1-2 ,Isaiah 46:1-2,&nbsp;46:6-7 ). “The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king” (&nbsp;Jeremiah 10:10; compare &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 1:9 ). Christians see this in Jesus, joining Peter in confessing, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (&nbsp;Matthew 16:16 ). </p> <p> The living God is also Lord and Master. In English translations He is Lord in two ways. Lord spelled with small caps represents the Hebrew <i> Yahweh </i> , the personal name of God, by which He introduced Himself to Moses (&nbsp;Exodus 3:15; &nbsp;Exodus 6:3 ). See &nbsp;Exodus 34:23 ). He is “Lord of lords” (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:17 ). The New Testament proclaims, “let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (&nbsp;Acts 2:36 NIV). Thus Jesus receives the same titles as the Father, leading to a doctrine of the Trinity. </p> <p> God is <i> holy </i> . The most basic word we have to describe God is holy. This is the unique quality of God's existence that marks Him off as separate and distinct from all else. Holiness includes the ideas of righteousness and purity, but it is more. Holiness belongs to God alone. It sets Him above us in majesty, power, authority, righteousness, and love. Persons or objects can be said to be holy only by virture of being drawn into relationship with God. (Compare &nbsp;Isaiah 5:16; &nbsp;Isaiah 6:3; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:15-16 .) </p> <p> God is <i> eternal </i> . He has no beginning and no ending. All else begins and ends as an expression of the will of God, but God has always existed and will always continue to exist. </p> <p> God is <i> spirit </i> . He is not material or physical as we are. As spirit, He does not have the limitations of material form. Spirit is the highest form of existence. It enables God to be with His people everywhere simultaneously. As spirit, God chose to humble Himself and take on the form of human flesh (&nbsp;Philippians 2:6-11 ). </p> <p> God is <i> love </i> . “God is love itself” is the nearest humans can get to making a non-symbolic statement about God (1John 4:8,&nbsp;1 John 4:16 ). His love is coordinated perfectly with His righteousness. God's love is always righteous, and His righteousness is always marked by love. Love is the primary motivation behind revelation (&nbsp;John 3:16 ). God's love is expressed as His mercy in forgiving sinners and in rescuing or blessing those who do not deserve His attention. His love is expressed in grace, the love and power of God reaching to those who do not deserve His blessing. God's grace is shown in forgiveness, conversion, blessing, nurturing, and chastising of individual persons. God's grace creates a response of love, faith, and obedience in the hearts of people whom He is trying to reach. His grace also works in and through His servants to give them guidance and power as they seek to carry out His will. </p> <p> God is <i> Father </i> . The love of God finds supreme expression as Father. God is known in Scripture as Father in three separate senses that must not be confused: (1) He is Father of Jesus Christ in a unique sense—by incarnation (&nbsp;Matthew 11:25-27; &nbsp;Mark 14:36; &nbsp;Romans 8:15; &nbsp;Galatians 4:6; &nbsp;2 Peter 1:17 ); (2) He is Father of believers—by adoption or redemption (&nbsp;Matthew 5:43-48; &nbsp;Luke 11:2 , &nbsp;Luke 11:13; &nbsp;Galatians 3:26 ); (3) He is Father of all persons—by creation (&nbsp;Psalm 68:5; &nbsp;Isaiah 64:8; &nbsp;Malachi 2:10; &nbsp;Matthew 5:45; &nbsp;1 Peter 1:17 ). </p> <p> God is <i> intimate </i> . He is not an impersonal force like gravity, exerting influence in some mechanical, automatic way. He has personal characteristics, just as we do. God is living, working in His world, and relating to His people. He is aware of what is going on, makes plans, and carries them out. He forms relationships and has purpose and will. He is a jealous God, taking himself seriously and insisting that others take Him seriously (&nbsp;Exodus 34:14; &nbsp;Nahum 1:2; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 10:22 ). He wants more than divided loyalty or indifference from His people. </p> <p> Attributes of God God has distinctive qualities that summarize what He is like. </p> <p> God's <i> glory </i> refers to the weight or influence He carries in the universe and to the overwhelming brillance when He appears to people (&nbsp; Exodus 16:7-10; &nbsp;Isaiah 6:3; &nbsp;Ephesians 1:12-17; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:3 ). It is His presence in all His sovereign power, righteousness, and love. Sometimes the Bible describes the glory of God as a physical manifestation. Sometimes it is a spiritual perception as in a sense of tremendous awe before God. We see the glory of God when we are deeply impressed with a sense of His presence and power. </p> <p> God's <i> wisdom </i> is His perfect awareness of what is happening in all of His creation in any given moment. This includes His knowledge of the final outcome of His creation and of how He will work from beginning to ending of human history (&nbsp; Job 11:4-12; &nbsp;Job 28:1-28; &nbsp;Psalm 139:1; &nbsp;Romans 11:1 ). It also includes His ability to know what is best for each and every one of His creatures. Sometimes this is called His omniscience. </p> <p> God's <i> power </i> is His ability to accomplish His purposes and carry out His will in the world. He can do what needs to be done in any circumstance (&nbsp; Job 36:22-33; &nbsp;Isaiah 40:10-31; &nbsp;Daniel 3:1-30; &nbsp;Matthew 19:16-26; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:18-25 ). This is sometimes called His omnipotence. </p> <p> God's <i> righteousness </i> expresses itself in many ways (&nbsp; Exodus 2:23-25; &nbsp;Joshua 23:1-16; &nbsp;Psalm 71:14-21; &nbsp;Isaiah 51:5-8; &nbsp;Acts 10:34-35; &nbsp;Romans 3:5-26 ). He is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. He is faithful, constant, and unchanging in His character. He works for the right, seeking to extend righteousness and justice throughout the world. He defends the defenseless, helpless, victimized, and oppressed. He opposes evil through personal expressions of His wrath, anger, judgment, punishment, and jealousy. He sits in present and eternal judgment on those who do evil. </p> <p> His attributes show that God is able to accomplish His will. Nothing can limit Him except limits He places on Himself. </p> <p> God at Work in His World God is not an inert being far removed from the world. God is the personal God who cares about and works in the world He created. [[Creation]] was His first work but certainly not His last. </p> <p> God works as <i> Redeemer </i> to save the sinful, rebellious human creatures and to renew His fallen creation. He makes salvation possible. His love makes Him a saving kind of God. He redeemed Israel in the Exodus from Egypt (&nbsp; Exodus 1-15 ); through the prophets He promised a Messiah who would save His people, and in Jesus Christ provided that salvation (&nbsp;John 3:16 ). [[Redemption]] in Christ completes creation, carrying out the purposes of God and making final, complete salvation possible. </p> <p> God works <i> in history </i> . The sovereign God exercises His lordship or ownership of the world by continuing to work in His world and through His people. God allows people the freedom to be themselves and make their own free choices but works within those choices to accomplish His eternal purposes. This is called God's providence. God has not predetermined all the events of human history; yet He continues to work in that history in ways we do not necessarily see or understand. </p> <p> God works toward and in the <i> end time </i> to fulfill His eternal purposes. God will one day bring His purposes to fulfillment, bringing history to a close and ushering in eternity. The sovereign, absolute Lord will accomplish His will in His world. </p> <p> God as Trinity Finally, God has revealed Himself as Father and Creator, as Son and Savior, and as Holy Spirit and Comforter. This has led the church to formulate the uniquely Christian doctrine of the Trinity. New Testament passages make statements about the work and person of each member of the Trinity to show that each is God; yet the Bible strongly affirms that God is one, not three (&nbsp;Matthew 28:19; &nbsp;John 16:5-11; &nbsp;Romans 1:1-4; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:4-6; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 13:14; &nbsp;Ephesians 4:4-6 ). The doctrine of the Trinity is a human attempt to explain this biblical evidence and revelation. It is an explicit formulation of the doctrine of God in harmony with the early Christian message that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 5:19 ). It expresses the diversity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in the midst of the unity of God's being. See Christ; [[Holy Spirit]]; [[Trinity]] . </p> <p> John W. Eddins, Jr. and J. Terry Young </p>

<p> <em> 'Êl </em> (אֵל, Strong'S #410), “god.” This term was the most common general designation of deity in the ancient Near East. While it frequently occurred alone, <em> 'êl </em> was also combined with other words to constitute a compound term for deity, or to identify the nature and functions of the “god” in some manner. Thus the expression “God, the God of Israel” (Gen. 33:20) identified the specific activities of Israel’s God. </p> <p> In the ancient world, knowledge of a person’s name was believed to give one power over that person. A knowledge of the character and attributes of pagan “gods” was thought to enable the worshipers to manipulate or influence the deities in a more effective way than they could have if the deity’s name remained unknown. To that extent, the vagueness of the term <em> 'êl </em> frustrated persons who hoped to obtain some sort of power over the deity, since the name gave little or no indication of the god’s character. This was particularly true for El, the chief Canaanite god. The ancient Semites stood in mortal dread of the superior powers exercised by the gods and attempted to propitiate them accordingly. They commonly associated deity with the manifestation and use of enormous power. Perhaps this is reflected in the curious Hebrew phrase, “the power [ <em> 'êl </em> ] of my hand” (Gen. 31:29, KJV; RSV, “It is in my power”; cf. Deut. 28:32). Some Hebrew phrases in the Psalms associated <em> 'êl </em> with impressive natural features, such as the cedar trees of [[Lebanon]] (Ps. 80:10) or mountains (Ps. 36:6). In these instances, <em> 'êl </em> conveys a clear impression of grandeur or majesty. </p> <p> Names with <em> 'êl </em> as one of their components were common in the Near East in the second millennium B.C. The names [[Methusael]] (Gen. 4:18) and [[Ishmael]] (Gen. 16:11) come from a very early period. In the Mosaic period, <em> 'êl </em> was synonymous with the Lord who delivered the Israelites from bondage in Egypt and made them victorious in battle (Num. 24:8). This tradition of the Hebrew <em> 'êl </em> as a “God” who revealed Himself in power and entered into a covenant relationship with His people was prominent in both poetry (Ps. 7:11; 85:8) and prophecy (Isa. 43:12; 46:9). The name of <em> 'êl </em> was commonly used by the Israelites to denote supernatural provision or power. This was both normal and legitimate, since the covenant between “God” and Israel assured an obedient and holy people that the creative forces of the universe would sustain and protect at all times. Equally, if they became disobedient and apostate, these same forces would punish them severely. </p> <p> <em> ‘Ĕlâhh </em> (אֱלָהּ, Strong'S #426), “god.” This Aramaic word is the equivalent of the Hebrew <em> ĕloâh. </em> It is a general term for “God” in the Aramaic passages of the Old Testament, and it is a cognate form of the word <em> ’allah </em> the designation of deity used by the Arabs. The word was used widely in the Book of Ezra, occurring no fewer than 43 times between Ezra 4:24 and 7:26. On each occasion, the reference is to the “God” of the Jewish people, whether the speaker or writer was himself Jewish or not. Thus the governor of the province “Beyond the River” (i.e., west of the river Euphrates) spoke to king [[Darius]] of the “house of the great God” (Ezra 5:8). So also [[Cyrus]] instructed Sheshbazzar, the governor, that the “house of God be builded” in Jerusalem (Ezra 5:15). </p> <p> While the [[Persians]] were certainly not worshipers of the “God” of Israel, they accorded Him the dignity that befitted a “God of heaven” (Ezra 6:10). This was done partly through superstition; but the pluralistic nature of the newly-won [[Persian]] empire also required them to honor the gods of conquered peoples, in the interests of peace and social harmony. When Ezra himself used the word <em> ĕlâhh </em> , he frequently specified the God of the Jews. Thus he spoke of the “God of Israel” (5:1; 6:14), the “God of heaven” (5:12; 6:9) and “God of Jerusalem” (7:19); he also associated “God” with His house in Jerusalem (5:17; 6:3). In the decree of Artaxerxes, Ezra was described as “the priest, the scribe of the God of heaven” (7:12, 21). This designation would have sounded strange coming from a pagan Persian ruler, had it not been for the policy of religious toleration exercised by the Achaemenid regime. [[Elsewhere]] in Ezra, <em> ĕlâhh </em> is associated with the temple, both when it was about to be rebuilt (5:2, 13) and as a finished edifice, consecrated for divine worship (6:16). </p> <p> In the only verse in the Book of Jeremiah that was written in Aramaic (10:11), the word <em> ĕlâhh </em> appears in plural form to describe “gods” that had not participated in the creation of the universe. Although such false “gods” were being worshiped by pagan nations (and perhaps worshiped by some of the Hebrews who were in exile in Babylonia), these deities would ultimately perish because they were not eternal in nature. </p> <p> In the Book of Daniel, <em> ĕlâhh </em> was used both of heathen “gods” and the one true “God” of heaven. The [[Chaldean]] priests told Nebuchadnezzar: “And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh” (Dan. 2:11). The [[Chaldeans]] referred to such “gods” when reporting that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refused to participate in idol worship on the plain of [[Dura]] (Dan. 3:12). The “gods” were enumerated by Daniel when he condemned Nebuchadnezzar’s neglect of the worship of Israel’s one true “God” (Dan. 5:23). In Dan. 3:25, the word refers to a divine being or messenger sent to protect the three Hebrews (Dan. 3:28). In Dan. 4:8-9, 18; and 5:11, the phrase “the spirit of the holy gods” appears (KJV, RSV, NEB, NIV). Elsewhere the references to <em> ĕlâhh </em> are to the living “God” whom Daniel worshiped. </p> <p> <em> ‘Ĕlôahh </em> (אֱלֹהַּ, Strong'S #433), “god.” This Hebrew name for “God” corresponds to the Aramaic <em> ĕlâhh </em> and the Ugaritic <em> il </em> (or, if denoting a goddess, <em> ilt </em> ). The origin of the term is unknown, and it is used rarely in Scripture as a designation of deity. Indeed, its distribution throughout the various books of the Bible is curiously uneven. <em> Ĕlôahh </em> occurs 40 times in the Book of Job between 3:4 and 40:2, while in the remainder of the Old Testament it is used no more than 15 times. </p> <p> [[Certain]] scholars regard the word as being a singular version of the common plural form <em> 'ĕlôahim </em> , a plural of majesty. <em> Ĕlôahh </em> is commonly thought to be vocative in nature, meaning “O God.” But it is not clear why a special form for the vocative in an address to God should be needed, since the plural <em> 'ĕlôahim </em> is frequently translated as a vocative when the worshiper is speaking directly to God, as in Ps. 79:1. There is an obvious general linguistic relationship between <em> 'ĕlôahh </em> and <em> 'ĕlôahim </em> but determining its precise nature is difficult. </p> <p> The word <em> 'ĕlôah </em> is predominant in poetry rather than prose literature, and this is especially true of the Book of Job. Some scholars have suggested that the author of Job deliberately chose a description for godhead that avoided the historical associations found in a phrase such as “the God of Bethel” (Gen. 31:13) or “God of Israel” (Exod. 24:10). But even the Book of Job is by no means historically neutral, since places and peoples are mentioned in introducing the narrative (cf. Job 1:1, 15, 17). Perhaps the author considered <em> 'ĕlôahh </em> a suitable term for poetry and used it accordingly with consistency. This is also apparently the case in Ps. 18:31, where <em> 'ĕlôah </em> is found instead of <em> 'êl </em> , as in the parallel passage of 2 Sam. 22:32. <em> Ĕlôahh </em> also appears as a term for God in Ps. 50:22; 139:19; and Prov. 30:5. Although <em> Ĕlôahh </em> as a divine name is rarely used outside Job, its literary history extends from at least the second millennium B.C. (as in Deut. 32:15) to the fifth century B.C. (as in Neh. 9:17). </p> <p> <em> 'Êl </em> <em> shadday </em> (אֵל, Strong'S #410, שַׁדַּי, Strong'S #7706), “God Almighty.” This combination of <em> ‘el </em> with a qualifying term represents a religious tradition among the Israelites that was probably in existence by the third millennium B.C. A few centuries later, <em> shadday </em> appeared in Hebrew personal names such as [[Zurishaddai]] (Num. 1:6) and [[Ammishaddai]] (Num. 1:12). The earliest Old Testament appearance of the appellation as a title of deity (“God Almighty”) is in Gen. 17:1, where “God” identifies Himself in this way to Abraham. </p> <p> Unfortunately, the name is not explained in any manner; and even the directions “walk before me, and be thou perfect” throw no light on the meaning of <em> shadday. </em> Scholars have attempted to understand the word relating it to the [[Akkadian]] <em> shadu </em> (“mountain”), as though “God” had either revealed His mighty power in association with mountain phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or that He was regarded strong and immutable, like the “everlasting hills” of the blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49:26). Certainly the associating of deity with mountains was an important part of Mesopotamian religion. The “gods” were believed to favor mountaintop dwellings, and the Sumerians constructed their staged temple-towers or ziggurats as artificial mountains for worship. It was customary to erect a small shrine on the uppermost stage of the ziggurat so that the patron deity could descend from heaven and inhabit the temple. The Hebrews began their own tradition of mountain revelation just after the Exodus, but by this time the name <em> ‘el shadday </em> had been replaced by the tetragrammaton of Yahweh (Exod. 3:15, 6:3). </p> <p> <em> 'Êl </em> <em> shadday </em> served as the patriarchs’ covenant name for “God,” and continued as such until the time of Moses, when a further revelation took place (Exod. 6:3). The Abrahamic covenant was marked by a degree of closeness between “God” and the human participants that was distinctive in Hebrew history. “God Almighty” revealed Himself as a powerful deity who was able to perform whatever He asserted. But the degree of intimacy between <em> 'êl shadday </em> and the patriarchs at various stages shows that the covenant involved God’s care and love for this growing family that He had chosen, protected, and prospered. He led the covenant family from place to place, being obviously present with them at all times. His covenant formulations show that He was not preoccupied with cultic rites or orgiastic celebrations. Instead, He demanded a degree of obedience that would enable Abraham and his descendants to walk in His presence, and live blameless moral and spiritual lives (Gen. 17:1). The true covenantal service of <em> 'êl shadday </em> , therefore, was not cultic or ritualistic, but moral and ethical in character. </p> <p> In the early Mosaic era, the new redemptive name of “God” and the formulation of the Sinai covenant made <em> 'êl shadday </em> largely obsolete as a designation of deity. Subsequently, the name occurs about 35 times in the Old Testament, most of which are in the Book of Job. Occasionally, the name is used synonymously with the tetragrammaton of Yahweh (Ruth 1:21; Ps. 91:1-2), to emphasize the power and might of “God” in characteristic fashion. <em> ‘El ‛ôlâm </em> (אֵל, Strong'S #410, עֹלָם, Strong'S #5769), “God of eternity; God the everlasting; God for ever.” The word <em> ‛ôlâm </em> has related forms in various ancient Near Eastern languages, all of which describe lengthy duration or distant time. The idea seems to be quantitative rather than metaphysical. Thus in Ugaritic literature, a person described as <em> ’bd ‘lm </em> was a “permanent slave,” the term |‘lm(the same as the Hebrew <em> ‛ôlâm </em> ) expressing a period of time that could not be measured other than as lengthy duration. </p> <p> Only in rare poetic passages such as Ps. 90:2 are temporal categories regarded inadequate to describe the nature of God’s existence as <em> 'êl </em> <em> ‛ôlâm </em> . In such an instance, the Creator is deemed to have been “from everlasting to everlasting”; but even this use of <em> ôlâm </em> expresses the idea of continued, measurable existence rather than a state of being independent of temporal considerations. </p> <p> The name <em> 'êl </em> <em> ‛ôlâm </em> was associated predominantly with Beer-sheba (Gen. 21:25-34). The settlement of Beer-sheba was probably founded during the Early Bronze Age, and the Genesis narrative explains that the name means “well of the oath” (Gen. 21:31). But it could also mean “well of the seven”—i.e., the seven lambs that were set apart as witnesses of the oath. </p> <p> Abraham planted a commemorative tree in Beer-sheba and invoked the name of the Lord as <em> 'êl </em> <em> ‛ôlâm. </em> The fact that Abraham subsequently stayed many days in the land of the [[Philistines]] seems to imply that he associated continuity and stability with <em> 'êl </em> <em> ‛ôlâm </em> , who was not touched by the vicissitudes of time. Although Beer-sheba may have been a place where the Canaanites worshiped originally, the area later became associated with the veneration of the God of Abraham. </p> <p> At a subsequent period, Jacob journeyed to Beer-sheba and offered sacrifices to the God of Isaac his father. He did not offer sacrifices to <em> 'êl </em> <em> ‛ôlâm </em> by name, however; and although he saw a visionary manifestation of God, he received no revelation that this was the God Abraham had venerated at Beer-sheba. Indeed, God omitted any mention of Abraham, stating that He was the God of Jacob’s father. </p> <p> Gen. 21:33 is the only place in the Old Testament where the title <em> 'êl </em> <em> ‛ôlâm </em> occurs. Isa. 40:28 is the only other instance where <em> ‛ôlâm </em> is used in conjunction with a noun meaning God. See also [[Lord]]. </p>

<p> The names by which God makes Himself known are various. </p> <p> 1. <i> El, </i> 'the strong or mighty one.' It is often used of God, especially in Job and the Psalms. &nbsp; Job 5:8; &nbsp;Psalm 22:1 , etc.; and of the Lord Jesus in &nbsp;Isaiah 9:6 . It is also used for the false gods, &nbsp;Psalm 81:9; &nbsp;Daniel 11:36; and is translated 'mighty' in &nbsp;Psalm 29:1; &nbsp;Psalm 82:1 . </p> <p> 2. <i> Eloah </i> ( <i> [[Elah]] </i> Chaldee), <i> Elohim. </i> The names most commonly used for God the Creator, the One with whom man has to do, the supreme Deity. &nbsp;Genesis 1:1-31 . (Running all through the O.T. to &nbsp;Malachi 3:18 .) These words are also applied to God's representatives, such as angels and judges. &nbsp;Exodus 22:28; &nbsp;Psalm 82:6; and also to false gods. &nbsp;Leviticus 19:4 . <i> Elohim </i> (which is plural, called the plural of majesty or excellency) is the word of most frequent occurrence. When it is distinctly used for the one true God the article is often added. </p> <p> 3. <i> Jehovah. </i> This is a name of relationship with men, especially with Israel, taken by God in time. It is derived from <i> havah, </i> 'to exist,' and may be expanded into 'who is, who was, and is to come.' God thus reveals Himself in time as the ever-existing One: that is, in Himself eternally, He is always the same: cf. &nbsp; Hebrews 1:12 . The above 'relationship' may be seen in the change from Elohim, the Creator, in &nbsp;Genesis 1 , to Jehovah Elohim in &nbsp;Genesis 2 , when man was brought into relationship with God. Again in &nbsp;Genesis 7:16 Elohim ordered Noah to make the ark but Jehovah shut him in. Unfortunately the name Jehovah is seldom employed in the A.V. It is generally represented by LORD (sometimes GOD) printed in small capitals.* There is a contraction of Jehovah into <i> Jah, </i> also translated in the A.V. by LORD, except in &nbsp; Psalm 68:4 , where Israel is exhorted to sing unto God, and "extol him by his name JAH." Jah signifies the absolute supremacy of the self-existing One; whereas Jehovah was the name made known to Israel, and on which they could count. "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM," &nbsp;Exodus 3:14 , where the word is <i> Ehyeh, </i> which is from the same root as Jehovah, the Eternal existing One; He that was, and is, and the coming One. </p> <p> * In fourplaces the A.V. has preserved the name Jehovah, namely, &nbsp;Exodus 6:8; &nbsp;Psalm 83:18;&nbsp;Isaiah 12:2; &nbsp;Isaiah 26:4 . </p> <p> 4. <i> Shaddai </i> , 'the Almighty,' is another name of God, and is often so translated, especially in Job, without any other name attached. &nbsp;Job 6:4 ,14; &nbsp;Psalm 68 :14, etc. At times it is associated with one of the above words, and was the name by which He was especially known to the Patriarchs, as El Shaddai, God Almighty, &nbsp;Exodus 6:3; which passage does not mean that the Patriarchs had not heard of the name of Jehovah, but that it was not the especial name for them. </p> <p> 5. <i> Elyon, </i> 'the Most High,' is another name of God, which stands alone, as in &nbsp;Deuteronomy 32:8; &nbsp;2 Samuel 24:14; and in &nbsp;Daniel 4:17-34 (from a kindred word); or it has one of the above words added and is then 'the most high God,' &nbsp; Genesis 14:20; or 'the LORDmost high.' &nbsp;Psalm 7:17 . It is not confined to Israel, for He is "the Most High over <i> all </i> the earth." &nbsp; Psalm 83:18 . </p> <p> 6,7. <i> [[Adon]] </i> and <i> Adonai, </i> and the plural <i> Adonim, </i> are all translated 'Lord'; they occur frequently, and are found in some of the following compounds:- </p> <p> Adon Jehovah, &nbsp;Exodus 23:17 , the Lord GOD. </p> <p> Adon Jehovah Elohim, &nbsp;Isaiah 51:22 , thy Lord, the LORD,and thy God. </p> <p> Adon Jehovah Sabaoth, &nbsp;Isaiah 19:4 , the Lord, the LORDOF HOSTS. </p> <p> Adonai Elohim, &nbsp;Psalm 86:12 , O Lord my God: cf. &nbsp;Daniel 9:3,9,15 . </p> <p> Adona Jehovah, &nbsp;Deuteronomy 9:26 , O Lord GOD (occurs frequently). </p> <p> Adonai Jehovah Sabaoth, &nbsp;Jeremiah 2:19 , the Lord GOD of hosts. </p> <p> El Elohim, &nbsp;Genesis 33:20 , El-elohe [Israel]; &nbsp;Genesis 46:3 , God, the God [of thy father]. </p> <p> El Elohim Jehovah, &nbsp;Joshua 22:22 , the LORDGod of gods. </p> <p> El Shaddai, &nbsp;Genesis 28:3 , etc., God Almighty. </p> <p> Jah Jehovah, &nbsp;Isaiah 26:4 , the LORDJEHOVAH. </p> <p> Jehovah Adon, &nbsp;Nehemiah 10:29 , the LORDour Lord. </p> <p> Jehovah Adonai, &nbsp;Psalm 68:20 , GOD the Lord. </p> <p> Jehovah El, &nbsp;Psalm 31:5 , O LORDGod. </p> <p> Jehovah Elohim, &nbsp;Genesis 9:26 , etc., the LORDGod. </p> <p> Jehovah Elohim [[Sabaoth]] Adonai, &nbsp;Amos 5:16 , the LORD,the God of hosts, the Lord. </p> <p> Jehovah Jehovah El, &nbsp;Exodus 34:6 , the LORD,the LORDGod. </p> <p> Jehovah Sabaoth, &nbsp;Jeremiah 46:18 , the LORDof hosts. </p> <p> Jehovah Sabaoth Elohim, &nbsp;Jeremiah 27:4 , etc., the LORDof hosts, the God [of Israel]. </p> <p> For <i> titles </i> in combination with Jehovah, See JEHOVAH. </p> <p> The true pronunciation of Jehovah is declared to be lost: the Jews when reading the O.T. never utter it (from a constrained interpretation of &nbsp;Leviticus 24:16 ), but say, 'the name,' 'the great and terrible name,' etc. </p> <p> In the N.T. the word Θεός is constantly translated God; and Κύριος is the word commonly rendered Lord. In the O.T. the latter is used by the LXX as the translation of Jehovah, so in the N.T. it often represents Jehovah, and is then mostly, if not always, without the article, as in &nbsp;Matthew 1:20,22,24 , etc. The Lord is also called 'the Almighty,' &nbsp;Revelation 1:8 , etc.; and there are a few compound names as in the O.T.: </p> <p> God Almighty, &nbsp;Revelation 16:14; &nbsp;Revelation 19:15 . </p> <p> Lord Almighty, &nbsp;2 Corinthians 6:18 . </p> <p> Lord God Almighty, &nbsp;Revelation 4:8; &nbsp;Revelation 11:17; &nbsp;Revelation 15:3; &nbsp;Revelation 16:7; &nbsp;Revelation 21:22 . </p> <p> Lord of Sabaoth, &nbsp;Romans 9:29; &nbsp;James 5:4 . </p> <p> The characteristic name of God in the N.T. in relationship with His saints is that of FATHER:it was used anticipatively in the Lord's intercourse with His disciples, but made a reality after His resurrection, when He sent the message: "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." &nbsp;John 20:17 . </p> <p> THE TRINITY. In reference to this term the Father is God. &nbsp;Philippians 2:11; &nbsp;1 Thessalonians 1:1 , etc. The Lord Jesus is God. &nbsp;Isaiah 9:6; &nbsp;Matthew 1:23; &nbsp;John 1:1; &nbsp;Romans 9:5; &nbsp;Philippians 2:6; &nbsp;Colossians 2:9; &nbsp;1 Timothy 3:16; &nbsp;Hebrews 1:8 . The Holy Spirit is God: "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." &nbsp;Genesis 1:2 . [[Ananias]] lied to 'the Holy Ghost,' 'unto God;' and [[Sapphira]] unto the 'Spirit of the Lord,' &nbsp;Acts 5:3,4,9; 'Spirit of God.' &nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:11; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 3:16 , etc. That there are three divine Persons (if we may so express it) is plain from scripture. The Father sent the Son, and He came to earth. The Father sent the Holy Spirit, and the Lord Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, and He came from heaven. He is a divine Person, of which there are many proofs (See HOLY SPIRIT).There is but one God. </p> <p> Scripture reveals what God is in Himself, 'God is love' (used absolutely), &nbsp;1 John 4:8; and 'God is light' (used relatively, in opposition to darkness), &nbsp;1 John 1:5; and Christ is the expression of both in a Man. The principal of God's attributes and characteristics as revealed in scripture are </p> <p> 1. His Eternity. &nbsp;Habakkuk 1:12; &nbsp;Romans 1:20 . </p> <p> 2. Invisibility. &nbsp;Colossians 1:15 . </p> <p> 3. Immortality. &nbsp;Psalm 90:2; &nbsp;1 Timothy 1:17 . </p> <p> 4. Omnipotence. &nbsp;Job 24:1; &nbsp;Matthew 19:26; only Potentate. &nbsp;1 Timothy 6:15 . </p> <p> 5. Omnipresence. &nbsp;Psalm 139:7-10; &nbsp;Jeremiah 23:23,24 . </p> <p> 6. Omniscience. &nbsp;1 Chronicles 28:9; &nbsp;Isaiah 42:8,9; &nbsp;Romans 8:29,30; &nbsp;Hebrews 4:13 . </p> <p> 7. Incorruptibility. &nbsp;Romans 1:23; &nbsp;James 1:13 . </p> <p> 8. Immutability. &nbsp;Malachi 3:6; &nbsp;James 1:17 . </p> <p> 9. Wisdom. &nbsp;Psalm 104:24; &nbsp;Romans 11:33-36 . </p> <p> 10. Holiness. &nbsp;Psalm 47:8; &nbsp;Psalm 99:3,5; &nbsp;Revelation 4:8 . </p> <p> 11. Justice. &nbsp;Psalm 89:14; &nbsp;2 Timothy 4:8 . </p> <p> 12. [[Grace]] and mercy. &nbsp;Psalm 136; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:3; &nbsp;Ephesians 2:4 . </p> <p> 13. Longsuffering. &nbsp;Exodus 34:6; &nbsp;Romans 9:22 . </p> <p> 14. Faithfulness. &nbsp;Psalm 36:5; &nbsp;Hebrews 10:23 . </p> <p> God's eternal power and divinity may be known in creation, &nbsp;Romans 1:20; but He has revealed Himself in the person of Christ, the Son, the eternal Word. God has been pleased also to reveal Himself in His written word. His purposes, His ways, and what He has done for sinful man, all demand universal reverence, adoration, and worship. </p>

<div> '''1: θεός ''' (Strong'S #2316 — — theos — theh'-os ) </div> <p> (I) in the polytheism of the Greeks, denoted "a god or deity," e.g., &nbsp;Acts 14:11; &nbsp;19:26; &nbsp;28:6; &nbsp;1 Corinthians 8:5; &nbsp;Galatians 4:8 . </p> &nbsp;Mark 12:29&nbsp;1 Timothy 2:5&nbsp;John 5:26&nbsp;James 1:17&nbsp;Romans 1:20&nbsp;Matthew 10:29&nbsp;Acts 17:26-28&nbsp;Matthew 19:26&nbsp;Acts 2:23&nbsp;15:18&nbsp;Romans 11:33&nbsp;Romans 11:36&nbsp;1 Corinthians 8:6&nbsp;Ephesians 3:9&nbsp;Revelation 4:11&nbsp;10:6&nbsp;1 Peter 1:15&nbsp;1 John 1:5&nbsp;John 17:25&nbsp;1 Corinthians 1:9&nbsp;10:13&nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:24&nbsp;2 Thessalonians 3:3&nbsp;1 John 1:9&nbsp;1 John 4:8,16&nbsp;Romans 9:15,18&nbsp;Titus 1:2&nbsp;Hebrews 6:18[[Good]]&nbsp;Matthew 20:18,19&nbsp;John 1:1-3&nbsp;1:18&nbsp;Romans 1:4&nbsp;9:5&nbsp;Philippians 3:21&nbsp;Colossians 1:15&nbsp;2:3&nbsp;Titus 2:13&nbsp;Hebrews 1:3&nbsp;13:8&nbsp;1 John 5:20&nbsp;Revelation 22:12,13&nbsp;Matthew 28:19&nbsp;Luke 1:35&nbsp;John 14:16&nbsp;15:26&nbsp;16:7-14&nbsp;Romans 8:9,26&nbsp;1 Corinthians 12:11&nbsp;2 Corinthians 13:14&nbsp;Acts 27:23&nbsp;John 1:1&nbsp;Romans 7:22&nbsp;Revelation 1:17&nbsp;Titus 2:13&nbsp; 2 Peter 1:1&nbsp;Acts 7:2&nbsp;Romans 15:33&nbsp;16:20&nbsp;Philippians 4:9&nbsp;1 Thessalonians 5:23&nbsp;Hebrews 13:20&nbsp;2 Corinthians 13:11&nbsp;Romans 15:5&nbsp;2 Corinthians 1:3&nbsp;Romans 15:13&nbsp;1 Peter 5:10&nbsp;Matthew 22:32&nbsp;Mark 15:34&nbsp;Luke 18:11,13&nbsp;John 20:28&nbsp;Acts 4:24&nbsp; Hebrews 1:8&nbsp;10:7&nbsp;Matthew 16:23&nbsp;Mark 8:33&nbsp;1 Corinthians 2:11&nbsp;Matthew 22:21&nbsp;Mark 12:17&nbsp;Luke 20:25&nbsp;Romans 15:17&nbsp;Hebrews 2:17&nbsp;5:1&nbsp;John 10:34&nbsp;Psalm 82:6&nbsp;2 Corinthians 4:4&nbsp;Philippians 3:19

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

<p> We enter with profound veneration and holy awe upon any attempt to explain what is in itself beyond the grasp of men or angles to apprehend. When we pronounce the glorious name of God, we desire to imply all that is great, gracious, and glorious in that holy name; and having said this, we have said all that we can say. The Scriptures have given several names, by way of expressing all that can be expressed of him; that he is the First and the Last, and the Author and Creator of all things. It is worthy observation, that the Lord speaking of himself to Moses, (&nbsp;Exodus 6:2-3) saith, "I am JEHOVAH: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai,) but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." By which we are not to imagine, that the Lord was not known to the patriarchs as their Creator, and as self-existing; but the meaning is, that he had not so openly revealed himself. They know him in his adorable perfections, but not so clearly in his covenant relations. So that the name itself was not so different, as the great things implied in the name. For certain it is, that very early in the church men began to call upon the name of JEHOVAH, (&nbsp;Genesis 4:26) And [[Abram]] told the king of Sodom, that he had lifted up his hand unto the Lord, the most High God. Here we have both the names expressly used by Abram, &nbsp;Genesis 14:22. But certain it is, that never until this revelation by Moses, did the church understand how the incommunicable name of JEHOVAH became the security of fulfilling all the promises. </p> <p> And this seems to be more fully revealed from the very manner in which the Lord communicated it to Moses. I AM that I AM; that is, I have a being in myself, and, consequently, I give being to all my promises. And it is worthy farther of remark, that the very name JEHOVAH carries this with it; for it is an Hemantick noun, formed from Hayah, he was; as expressing his eternity. The Jews had so high a veneration for this sacred name, that they never used it but upon memorable occasions. We are told by Eusebius, that in his days the Jews wrote the holy name in [[Samaritan]] characters, when they had occasion to mention the name of the Lord, lest that strangers, and not of the stock of Israel, should profane it. And in modern times it is generally observed by the seed of Abraham, when marking the number fifteen (which in the ordinary way of doing it by letters would take the Yod (10,) and the He (5.) forming the incommunicable name of Jah,) they always take the [[Teth]] and the Vau, that is the 9 and the 6, instead of it, to make the number fifteen by. A plain proof in what high veneration the sacred name was held by them. It were devoutly to be wished, that men calling themselves Christians were always to give so lively an evidence of their reverence to that "glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD." (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 28:58) </p> <p> It is said in the history of the Jews, that after their return from Babylon, they lost the true pronunciation of this glorious name JEHOVAH. And certain it is, that none know the real and correct manner in which it should be pronounced. But what a precious thought is it to the believer in Jesus that "if any man love God, the same is known by him." (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 8:3) I only add, that in confirmation of the blessed doctrine: of our holy faith, it is our happiness to know, that this glorious name is equally applied to each and to all the persons of the GODHEAD. To God the Father, &nbsp;Ephesians 1:3; to God the Son, &nbsp;John 1:1; and to God the Holy Ghost, &nbsp;Acts 5:3-4. And to the whole Three glorious persons in the unity of the divine essence, &nbsp;1 John 5:7. </p> <p> (See Jehovah.) </p>

<p> (See GENESIS, on Εlohim and Υahweh ). ΕLΟΗΙΜ expresses the might of the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. ΕLΥΟΝ , His sublimity, (&nbsp;Genesis 14:22), "the Most High." SΗΑDDΑΙ , the "Almighty," His all sufficiency (&nbsp;Genesis 17:1; &nbsp;Philippians 4:19; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 3:5; &nbsp;2 Corinthians 12:9). JΕΗΟVΑΗ , His unchangeable faithfulness to His covenanted promises to His people. ΑDΟΝΑΙ , His lordship, which being delegated to others as also is His might as ELOHIM, ADONAI and ELOHIM are used occasionally of His creatures, angels and men in authority, judges, etc. (&nbsp;Psalms 8:5; &nbsp;Psalms 97:7 (Hebrew); &nbsp;Psalms 82:1; &nbsp;Psalms 82:6-7.) "Lord" in small letters stands for Hebrew ADONAI in KJV, but in capitals ("LORD") for JEHOVAH. ELYON, SHADDAI, and JEHOVAH are never used but of GOD; Jehovah the personal God of the Jews, and of the church in particular. </p> <p> ΕLΟΑΗ , the singular, is used only in poetry. The derivation is 'aalah "to fear," as &nbsp;Genesis 31:42; &nbsp;Genesis 31:53, "the fear of Isaac," or 'aalah "to be mighty." The plural ELOHIM: is the common form in prose and poetry, expressing that He combines in Himself all the fullness of divine perfections in their manifold powers and operations; these the heathen divided among a variety of gods. ELOHIM concentrates all the divine attributes assigned to the idols severally, and, besides those, others which corrupt man never of himself imagined, infinite love, goodness, justice, wisdom, creative power, inexhaustible riches of excellence; unity, self existence, grace, and providence are especially dwelt on, &nbsp;Exodus 3:13-15; &nbsp;Exodus 15:11; &nbsp;Exodus 34:6-7. The plural form hints at the plurality of Persons, the singular verb implies the unity of Godhead. </p> <p> The personal acts attributed to the Son (&nbsp;John 1:3; &nbsp;Psalms 33:6; &nbsp;Proverbs 8:22-32; &nbsp;Proverbs 30:4; &nbsp;Malachi 3:1, the Lord the Sender being distinct from the Lord the Sent who "suddenly comes") and to the Holy Spirit respectively (&nbsp;Genesis 1:2; &nbsp;Psalms 104:30) prove the distinctness of the Persons. The thrice repeated "LORD" (&nbsp;Numbers 6:25-27) and "Holy" (&nbsp;Isaiah 6:3) imply the same. But reserve was maintained while the tendency to polytheism prevailed, and as yet the redeeming and sanctifying work of the Son and the blessed Spirit was unaccomplished; when once these had been manifested the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity was fully revealed in New Testament. </p> <p> The sanctions of the law are temporal rather than spiritual, because a specimen was to be given in Israel of God's present moral government. So long as they obeyed, [[Providence]] engaged national prosperity; dependent not on political rules or military spirit, as in worldly nations, but on religious faithfulness. Their sabbatical year, in which they neither tilled nor gathered, is a sample of the continued interposition of a special providence. No legislator without a real call from God would have promulgated a code which leans on the sanction of immediate and temporal divine interpositions, besides the spiritual sanctions and future retributions. </p>

<li> The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are, <p> (a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. </p> <p> (b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. </p> <p> (c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. [[Conscience]] and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." </p> <p> The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in &nbsp;Exodus 34:6,7 . (see also &nbsp;Deuteronomy 6:4; &nbsp;10:17; &nbsp;Numbers 16:22; &nbsp;Exodus 15:11; &nbsp;33:19; &nbsp;Isaiah 44:6; &nbsp;Habakkuk 3:6; &nbsp;Psalm 102:26; &nbsp;Job 34:12 .) They are also systematically classified in &nbsp;Revelation 5:12,7:12 . </p> <p> God's attributes are spoken of by some as absolute, i.e., such as belong to his essence as Jehovah, Jah, etc.; and relative, i.e., such as are ascribed to him with relation to his creatures. Others distinguish them into communicable, i.e., those which can be imparted in degree to his creatures: goodness, holiness, wisdom, etc.; and incommunicable, which cannot be so imparted: independence, immutability, immensity, and eternity. They are by some also divided into natural attributes, eternity, immensity, etc.; and moral, holiness, goodness, etc. </p> <div> <p> '''Copyright Statement''' These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by [[Thomas]] Nelson, 1897. Public Domain. </p> <p> '''Bibliography Information''' Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'God'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/g/god.html. 1897. </p> </div> </li>

<p> This name, the derivation of which is uncertain, we give to that eternal, infinite, perfect, and incomprehensible Being, the Creator of all things, who preserves and governs all by his almighty power and wisdom, and is the only proper object of worship. The proper Hebrew name for God is &nbsp;Exodus 3:14 , God replies to Moses, when he asks Him His name, I AM THAT I AM; which means either, I am he who I am, or, I am what I am. In either case the expression implies the eternal self-existence of Jehovah, and his incomprehensible nature. The name I AM means the same as [[Jehovah]] , the first person being used instead of he third. </p> <p> The Bible assumes and asserts the existence of God, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;" and is itself the most illustrious proof of his existence, as well as our chief instructor as to his nature and will. It puts a voice into the mute lips of creation; and not only reveals God in his works, but illustrates his ways in providence, displays the glories of his character, his law, and his grace, and brings man into true and saving communion with him. It reveals him to us as a Spirit, the only being from everlasting and to everlasting by nature, underived, infinite, perfect, and unchangeable in power, wisdom, omniscience, omnipresence, justice, holiness, truth, goodness, and mercy. He is but one God, and yet exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and this distinction of the Thee in One is, like his other attributes, from everlasting. He is the source, owner, and ruler of all beings, foreknows and predetermines all events, and is the eternal judge and arbiter of the destiny of all. True religion has its foundation in the right knowledge of God, and consists in supremely loving and faithfully obeying him. See [[Jesus Christ]] , and HOLY, HOLINESS SPIRIT. </p>

<p> When the people had settled down in peaceful relations with their neighbors, and began to have commercial and diplomatic transactions with them, it was inevitable that they should render their neighbor's gods some degree of reverence and worship. [[Courtesy]] and friendship demanded as much (compare &nbsp;2 Kings 5:18 ). When Solomon had contracted many foreign alliances by marriage, he was also bound to admit foreign worship into Jerusalem (&nbsp;1 Kings 11:5 ). But [[Ahab]] was the first king who tried to set up the worship of Baal, side by side with that of Yahweh, as the national religion (James M.A. D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'God'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/g/god.html. 1915.1 King '''Copyright Statement''' These files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software. '''Bibliography Information''' Orr </p>