exlim/blb
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
blb/study/isbe/3800.html

112 lines
484 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<script src="../../js/basepath.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/nav.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainHeader.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
isbe = [];
isbe[3801]='Gilboa, Mount`gil-bo\'-a (har hagilboa, "Mount of the Gilboa"): Unless we should read "Gilboa" for "Gilead" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,3);">Jud 7:3</a> (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GILEAD+(2)">GILEAD, 2</a>) this mountain is mentioned in Scripture only in connection with the last conflict of Saul with the Philistines, and his disastrous defeat (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,4);">1Sa 28:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,1,8);">31:1, 8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',1,6,21);">2Sa 1:6, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,12);">21:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,1,8);">1Ch 10:1, 8</a>). If Zer\'in be identical with Jezreel—a point upon which Professor R.A.S. Macalister has recently cast some doubt—Saul must have occupied the slopes on the northwest side of the mountain, near "the fountain which is in Jezreel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',29,1);">1Sa 29:1</a>). The Philistines attacked from the plain, and the battle went sore against the men of Israel, who broke and fled; and in the flight Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchi-shua, sons of Saul, were slain. Rather than be taken by his lifelong foes, Saul fell upon his sword and died (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',31,1);">1Sa 31:1</a>).<P>The modern name of the mountain is Jebel Faqu\'a. It rises on the eastern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, and, running from Zer\'in to the southeast, it then sweeps southward to join the Samarian uplands. It presents an imposing appearance from the plain, but the highest point, Sheikh Burqan, is not more than 1,696 ft. above sea level. In the higher reaches the range is rugged and barren; but vegetation is plentiful on the lower slopes, especially to the west. The Kishon takes its rise on the mountain. Under the northern cliffs rises \'Ain Jalud, possibly identical with <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HAROD,+WELL+OF">HAROD, WELL OF</a>, which see. In Jelbun, a village on the western declivity, there is perhaps an echo of the old name.``54';
isbe[3802]='Gilead (1)`gil\'-e-ad (ha-gil\'adh, "the Gilead"): The name is explained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,46);">Ge 31:46</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,51);">51</a>, as derived from Hebrew gal, "a cairn," and \'edh, "witness," agreeing in meaning with the Aramaic yegharsahadhutha\'. The Arabic jilead means "rough," "rugged."<P>(1) A city named in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,8);">Ho 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,11);">12:11</a>, possibly to be identified with Gilead near to Mizpah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,17);">Jud 10:17</a>). If this is correct, the ancient city may be represented by the modern Jil\'ad, a ruin about 5 miles north of es-Salt.<P>(2) A mountain named in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,3);">Jud 7:3</a>. Gideon, ordered to reduce the number of men who were with him, commanded all who were "fearful and trembling" to "return and depart from Mt. Gilead." the Revised Version, margin reads "return and go round about from Mt. Gilead." Gideon and his army lay to the south of the plain of Jezreel on the lower slopes of Gilboa. It has been suggested (Studer, Comm., at the place) that, as the Midianites lay between the men of the northern tribes and their homes, they were told to cross the Jordan, make a detour through Gilead, and thus avoid the enemy. Possibly, however, we should read Gilboa for Gilead; or part of the mountain may have borne the name of Gilead. The last suggestion is favored by the presence of a strong spring under the northern declivity of Gilboa, nearly 2 miles from Zer\'in, possibly to be identified with the Well of Harod. In the modern name, \'Ain Jalud, there may be an echo of the ancient Gilead.<P>(3) The name is applied generally to the mountain mass lying between the Yarmuk on the north, and Wady Chesban on the south; the Jordan being the boundary on the west, while on the east it marched with the desert.<P>1. The Land of Gilead:<P>Mount Gilead—literally, "Mount of the Gilead"—may refer to some particular height which we have now no means of identifying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,23);">Ge 31:23</a>). The name Jebel Jil\'ad is still, indeed, applied to a mountain south of Nahr ez-Zerqa and north of es-Salt; but this does not meet the necessities of the passage as it stands. The same expression in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,12);">De 3:12</a> obviously stands for the whole country. This is probably true also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,1);">So 4:1</a>. The name Gilead is sometimes used to denote the whole country east of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25);">Ge 37:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,9);">Jos 22:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,9);">2Sa 2:9</a>, etc.). Again, along with Bashan, it indicates the land east of Jordan, as distinguished from the Moab plateau (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,10);">De 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,11);">Jos 13:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,33);">2Ki 10:33</a>).<P>2.Bashan:<P>In the north Gilead bordered upon Geshur and Maacah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,11,13);">Jos 13:11, 13</a>); and here the natural boundary would be formed by the deep gorge of the Yarmuk and Wady esh-Shellaleh. In pre-Israelite times the Jabbok (Nahr ez-Zerqa), which cuts the country in two, divided the kingdom of Sihon from that of Og (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,16);">De 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,2);">Jos 12:2</a>). The frontiers between the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh cannot be indicated with any certainty. Probably they varied at different times (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,24);">Jos 13:24</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,8,9,11,16);">1Ch 5:8-9, 11, 16</a>). It greatly increases the difficulty that so many of the cities named are still unidentified. But in any case it is clear that the bulk of Gilead fell to Gad, so that Gilead might stand for Gad (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,17);">Jud 5:17</a>). <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HAVVOTH-JAIR">HAVVOTH-JAIR</a> (which see), "the villages of Jair," lay in Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,4);">Jud 10:4</a>). The modern division of the country follows the natural features. From the Yarmuk to Nahr ez-Zerqa is the district of \'Ajlun; and from the Zerqa to the Arnon is el-Belqa.<P>3. Geology:<P>The geological formation is the same as that of Western Palestine, but the underlying sandstone, which does not appear west of the Jordan, forms the base slopes of the chain of Moab and Gilead, and is traceable as far as the Jabbok. It is covered in part by the more recent white marls which form the curious peaks of the foothills immediately above the Jordan valley; but reaches above them to an elevation of 1,000 ft. above the Mediterranean on the south, and forms the bed of the Buqei\'a basin farther east, and 1,000 ft. higher. Above this lies the hard, impervious dolomite limestone which appears in \'the rugged hills round\' the Jabbok and in Jebel \'Ajlun, rising on an average 1,500 ft. above the sandstone and forming the bed of the copious springs. It also dips toward the Jordan valley, and the water from the surface of the plateau, sinking down to the surface of their formation, bursts out of the hill slopes on the west in perennial brooks. It was from the ruggedness of this hard limestone that Gilead obtained its name. Above this again is the white chalk of the desert plateau, the same as that found in Samaria and Lower Galilee, with bands of flint or chert in contorted layers, or strewn in pebbles on the surface. Where this formation is deep the country is bare and arid, supplied by cisterns and deep wells. Thus the plateau becomes desert, while the hill slopes abound in streams and springs; and for this reason Western Gilead is a fertile country, and Eastern Gilead is a wilderness (Conder, DB, under the word).<P>4. Mountains:<P>The uplands of Gilead may be described as the crumpling of the edge of the great eastern plateau ere it plunges into the Ghor. The average height of the range is about 4,000 ft. above the Jordan valley, or 3,000 ft. above the Mediterranean. The greatest height is toward the south, where it culminates in Jebel Osh\'a (3,597 ft.), to the north of es-Salt. This mountain commands a most spacious view. To the east of it lies the hollow (an old lake bottom) of el-Buqei\'a, fully 1,500 ft. lower. In the north we have Jebel Hakart (3,408 ft.) W, of Reimun. Almost as high (3,430 ft.) is Jebei Kafkafah, about 12 miles to the northeast. A striking point (2,700 ft.) fully 2 miles northwest of \'Ajlun, is crowned by Qal\'at er-Rabad, whence again a view of extraordinary extent is gained.<P>5. Streams and Products:<P>The Yarmuk and the Zerqa (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JABBOK">JABBOK</A> are the main streams, but almost every valley has its perennial brook. While not so rich as the volcanic loam in the North and in and the south, the soil of Gilead amply repays the labor of the husbandman. Of flowers the most plentiful are the phlox, the cistus and the narcissus. Hawthorn, mastic and arbutus abound, while many a glen and slope is shady with shaggy oak woods, and, in the higher reaches, with pines. The streams are fringed with oleander. The monotony of the stony plateau is broken by clumps of the hardy white broom. In the lower ground are found the tamarisk and the lotus, with many a waving cane-brake. The scenery is more beautiful and picturesque than that of any other district of Palestine. The soil is not now cultivated to any great extent; but it furnishes ample pasture for many flocks and herds (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',6,5);">So 6:5</a>).<P>The Ishmaelites from Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',37,25);">Ge 37:25</a>) were carrying "spicery and balm and myrrh." From old time Gilead was famed for its <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BALM">BALM</A> (which see). The lot, translated "myrrh" in the above passage, was probably the gum produced by the Cistus ladaniferus, a flower which still abounds in Gilead.<P>6. History:<P>After the conquest, as we have seen, Gilead passed mainly into the hands of Gad. An Ammonite attack was repulsed by the prowess of Jephthah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,1);">Jud 11:1</a>); and the spite of the Ephraimites was terribly punished (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',12,1);">Jud 12:1</a>). Gilead at first favored the cause of Ishbosheth (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,9);">2Sa 2:9</a>), but after the murder of that prince the Gileadites came with the rest of Israel to David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,1);">2Sa 5:1</a>). By the conquest of the fortress Rabbah, which the Ammonites had continued to hold, the land passed finally under the power of David (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,26);">2Sa 12:26</a>). David fled to Mahanaim from Absalom, and that rebel prince perished in one of the forests of Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',17,24);">2Sa 17:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,6);">18:6</a>). Joab\'s census included Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,6);">2Sa 24:6</a>). Solomon had two commissariat districts in Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,13);">1Ki 4:13</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',4,19);">19</a>). Before Ramoth-gilead, which he sought to win back from the Syrians who had captured it, Ahab received his death wound (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,1);">1Ki 22:1</a>). The Syrians asserted their supremacy in Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',10,32);">2Ki 10:32</a>f) where Moab and Israel had contended with varying fortune (M S). At length Tiglath-pileser overran the country and transported many of the inhabitants (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,29);">2Ki 15:29</a>). This seems to have led to a reconquest of the land by heathenism, and return to Gilead was promised to Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,10);">Zec 10:10</a>).<P>At a later time the Jewish residents in Gilead were exposed to danger from their heathen neighbors. On their behalf Judas Maccabeus invaded the country and met with striking success (1Macc 5:9ff). Alexander Janneus, who had subdued Gilead, was forced to yield it again to the king of Arabia (Ant., XIII, xiv, 2; BJ, I, iv, 3). During the Roman period, especially in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, the land enjoyed great prosperity. Then were built such cities as Gadara and Gerasa, which are still imposing, even in ruins. The appearance of the Moslem armies was the signal for its decay. Attempts were made to recover it for Christianity by Baldwin I (1118 AD) and Baldwin II (1121 AD); and the Crusaders left their mark in such strong-holds as Kal\'at er-Rabad and the castle at es-Salt. With the reassertion of Moslem supremacy a curtain falls over the history of the district; and only in comparatively recent times has it again become known to travelers. The surveys directed by the Palestine Exploration Fund, in so far as they have been carried out, are invaluable. North of the Jabbok are many villages, and a fair amount of cultivation. Es Salt is the only village of any importance in the south. It is famous for its raisins. Its spacious uplands, its wooded and well-watered valleys have been for centuries the pasture-land of the nomads.<P>LITERATURE.<P>Useful information will be found in Merrill, east of the Jordan; Oliphant, Land of Gilead; Thomson, LB; and especially in Conder, Heth and Moab, and in Memoirs of the Survey of Eastern Palestine``54';
isbe[3803]='Gilead (2)`(gil\'adh):<P>(1) A son of Machir, grandson of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,29,30);">Nu 26:29-30</a>).<P>(2) The father of Jephthah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,1,2);">Jud 11:1-2</a>).<P>(3) A Gadite, the son of Michael (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,14);">1Ch 5:14</a>).``1';
isbe[3804]='Gilead, Balm of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BALM+OF+GILEAD">BALM OF GILEAD</a>`1';
isbe[3805]='Gilead, Mount``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GILEAD">GILEAD</a>`1';
isbe[3806]='Gileadites`gil\'-e-ad-its:<P>(1) A branch of the tribe of Manasseh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,29);">Nu 26:29</a>).<P>(2) Natives of the district of Gilead (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,3);">Jud 10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,1);">11:1</a>, etc.).``1';
isbe[3807]='Gilgal`gil\'-gal (gilgal, "circle"; Galgala): The article is always with the name except in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,9);">Jos 5:9</a>. There are three places to which the name is attached:<P>(1) The first camp of Israel after crossing the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',4,19);">Jos 4:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,9,10);">5:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,6);">9:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,7);">10:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,6);">14:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,7);">15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,30);">De 11:30</a>). According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,7);">Jos 15:7</a> it lay to the north of the valley of Achor, which formed the border between Judah and Benjamin. Here 12 memorial stones taken from the bed of the river were set up by Joshua, after the miraculous crossing of the Jordan; and here (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,5);">Jos 5:5</a>) the people were circumcised preparatory to their possession of the land, when it is said in Joshua, with a play upon the word, "This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you." Whereupon the Passover was celebrated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,10);">Jos 5:10</a>) and the manna ceased (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',5,12);">Jos 5:12</a>). To Gilgal the ark returned every day after having compassed the city of Jericho during its siege (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,11);">Jos 6:11</a>). Hither the Gibeonites came to make their treaty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',9,3);">Jos 9:3</a>), and again (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,6);">Jos 10:6</a>) to ask aid against the Amorites. Gilgal was still the headquarters of the Israelites after the battle with the Amorites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,15);">Jos 10:15</a>); again after Joshua\'s extensive victorious campaign in the hill country of Judea extending to Kadesh-barnea and Gaza (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,15);">Jos 10:15</a>); and still later upon his return from the great battle at the Waters of Merom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',14,6);">Jos 14:6</a>). At the conclusion of the conquest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',18,1);">Jos 18:1</a>), the headquarters were transferred to Shiloh on the summit of the mountain ridge to the west.<P>Gilgal reappears frequently in subsequent history. Samuel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,16);">1Sa 7:16</a>) made it one of the three places where he annually held circuit court, the other places being Bethel and Mizpah. The Septuagint text adds that these were holy places. The place continued as one of special resort for sacrifices (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,8);">1Sa 10:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,8,9,10);">13:8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,21);">15:21</a>), while it was here that Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,33);">1Sa 15:33</a>), and that Saul was both crowned (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',11,14,15);">1Sa 11:14-15</a>) and rejected as king. It was at Gilgal, also (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',19,15);">2Sa 19:15</a>), that the people assembled to welcome David as he returned from his exile beyond Jordan during Absalom\'s rebellion. The early prophets refer to Gilgal as a center of idolatry in their day (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,15);">Ho 4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,15);">9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',12,11);">12:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,4);">Am 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',5,5);">5:5</a>). Micah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',6,5);">6:5</a>) represents Gilgal as at the other end of the Dead Sea from Shittim.<P>In 1874 Conder recognized the name Gilgal as surviving in Barker Jiljuilieh, a pool beside a tamarisk tree 3 miles east of old Jericho. The pool measures 100 ft. by 84, and is surrounded with a wall of roughly hewn stones. North of the pool Bliss discovered lines of masonry 300 yds. long, representing probably the foundations of an ancient monastery. South of the pool there are numerous mounds scattered over an area of one-third of a square mile, the largest being 50 feet in diameter, and 10 feet in height. On excavation some pottery and glass were found. These ruins are probably those of early Christian occupation, and according to Conder there is nothing against their marking the original site. Up to the Middle Ages the 12 stones of Joshua were referred to by tradition.<P>(2) According to <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,1);">2Ki 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',4,38);">4:38</a>, Elisha for a time made his headquarters at Gilgal, a place in the mountains not far from Bethel identified by Conder as Jiljilia, standing on a high hill on the north side of the Wady el-Jib. It is lower than Bethel, but the phrase in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,2);">2Ki 2:2</a>, "they went down to Beth-el," may refer to their initial descent into the wady. It could not have been said that they went down from Gilgal to Bethel in the Jordan valley. The place seems to be referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,29);">Neh 12:29</a> as Beth-gilgal.<P>(3) Gilgal of the nations: In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,23);">Jos 12:23</a> Gilgal is mentioned as a royal city associated with Dor, evidently upon the maritime plain. Dor is identified with Tantura, while Conder identifies this Gilgal with Jiljuilieh, 30 miles south of Dor and 4 miles north of Anti-patris.``198';
isbe[3808]='Giloh`gi\'-lo (giloh): A town in the hill country of Judah mentioned along with Jattir, Socoh, Debir, Eshtemoa, etc. (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,51);">Jos 15:51</a>). Ahithophel came from here (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,12);">2Sa 15:12</a>) and is called the Gilonite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,34);">2Sa 23:34</a>). Driver infers from this last that the original form was Gilon, not Giloh. Probably the ruins Kb. Jala, in the hills 3 miles northwest of Hulhul, mark the site (PEF, III,313,Sh XXI).``1';
isbe[3809]='Gilonite`gi\'-lo-nit.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GILOH">GILOH</a>`1';
isbe[3810]='Gimel`ge\'-mel, gim\'-el ("g"): The 3rd letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and used as such to designate the 3rd part of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,\'17-24\');">Ps 119</a>; transliterated in this Encyclopedia with the dagesh as "g", and without the dagesh as "gh" (aspirated "g"). It came also to be used for the number three (3), and with the dieresis for 3,000.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ALPHABET">ALPHABET</a>`1';
isbe[3811]='Gimzo`gim\'-zo (gimzo; Gamzo): A town of Judah on the border of the Philistine plain, captured by the Philistines in the days of Ahaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,18);">2Ch 28:18</a>). It is the modern Jimzu, a small mud village about 3 1/2 miles southeast of Ludd (Lydda), on the old mule road from there to Jerusalem (Robinson, BR, II, 248-49; SWP, Il, 297).``1';
isbe[3812]='Gin`jin (moqesh, pach): A noose of hair or wire for snaring wild birds alive. There are over half a dozen traps and net devices indicated by different terms in the Bible. The gin was of horse-hair for small birds and wire for larger ones. It is mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,5);">Am 3:5</a>: "Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is set for him? shall a snare spring up from the ground, and have taken nothing at all?" Job writing in mental and physical discomfort on the ash heap included all methods mentioned in one outburst:<P>"For he is cast into a net by his own feet.<br>And he walketh upon the toils.<br>A gin shall take him by the heel,<br>And a snare shall lay hold on him,<br>A noose is hid for him in the ground.<br>And a trap for him in the way" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',18,8);">Job 18:8</a>).``167';
isbe[3813]='Ginath`gi\'-nath (ginath): Father of Tibni, the unsuccessful rival of Omri (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',16,21,22);">1Ki 16:21-22</a>).``1';
isbe[3814]='Ginnethoi; Ginnethon`gin-e-tho\'-i, gin\'-e-thon (the King James Version Ginnetho), (ginnethoy, and ginnethon): The head of a priestly family. Ginnethoi (Ginnetho) is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,4);">Ne 12:4</a>, and Ginnethon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',10,6);">10:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,16);">12:16</a>.``1';
isbe[3815]='Girdle`gur\'-d\'-l.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR; ARMS">ARMOR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DRESS">DRESS</a>`1';
isbe[3816]='Girgashite`gur\'-ga-shit (girgashi; Gergesaios; also punctuated (?) Girgasite (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,16);">Ge 10:16</a> the King James Version)): A son of (the land of) Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,16);">Ge 10:16</a>), and accordingly enumerated along with the Canaanite\' in the list of tribes or nationalities inhabiting that country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,21);">Ge 15:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,1);">De 7:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',3,10);">Jos 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,11);">24:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,8);">Ne 9:8</a>). It has been supposed that the name survived in that of "the Gergesenes," the King James Version (the Revised Version (British and American) "the Gadarenes"), of <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,28);">Mt 8:28</a>, on the east side of the Sea of Galilee; Josephus (Ant., I, vi, 2), however, states that nothing was known about it. The inscriptions of the Egyptian king, Ramses II, mention the Qarqish who sent help to the Hittites in their war with Egypt; but Qarqish was more probably in Asia Minor than in Syria. Pinches (The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records, 324) would identify the Girgashites with the Kirkishati of an Assyrian tablet; the latter people, however, seem to have lived to the east of the Tigris, and it may be that, as in the case of the Hittites, a colony of the Qarqish, from Asia Minor, was established in Palestine.``157';
isbe[3817]='Girl`gurl: Twice in the Old Testament as the rendering of yaldah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',3,3);">Joe 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,5);">Zec 8:5</a>), in both cases in association with boys. Same word rendered "damsel" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',34,4);">Ge 34:4</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DAUGHTER">DAUGHTER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAID;+MAIDEN">MAID, MAIDEN</a>`1';
isbe[3818]='Girzites`gur\'-zits.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GIZRITES">GIZRITES</a>`1';
isbe[3819]='Gishpa`gish\'-pa (the King James Version Gispa; gishpa\'): An officer of the Nethinim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,21);">Ne 11:21</a>). A comparison with <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',2,43);">Ezr 2:43</a> makes it probable that he is to be identified with Hasupha, and quite possible that this word is a corruption of Hasupha.``1';
isbe[3820]='Gittah-Hepher`git-a-he\'-fer (gittah chepher): the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',19,13);">Jos 19:13</a>) for Gath-hepher. Gittah is correctly Gath with the Hebrew letter, he ("h") locale, meaning "toward Gath."``1';
isbe[3821]='Gittaim`git\'-a-im (gittayim): The town to which the Beerothites tied, and where they lived as gerim, or protected strangers (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,3);">2Sa 4:3</a>). The place need not have been beyond the boundaries of Benjamin, so it may be identical with Gittaim of <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',11,33);">Ne 11:33</a>, which was occupied by Benjamites after the exile. It is named with Hazor and Ramah; but so far the site has not been discovered.``1';
isbe[3822]='Gittites`git\'-its (gittim, plural of gittiy): The inhabitants of Gath. They are mentioned along with the inhabitants of the other chief Philistine cities in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',13,3);">Jos 13:3</a>. It would seem that numbers of them emigrated to Judah, for we find 600 of them acting as a bodyguard to David with Ittai at their head (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,18);">2Sa 15:18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',18,2);">18:2</a>). Obed-edom, to whom David entrusted the ark when he was frustrated in bringing it into the city of David, was a Gittite (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,11);">2Sa 6:11</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,13);">1Ch 13:13</a>). The Gittites seem to have been remarkable for their great stature (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,5);">1Ch 20:5</a>).``1';
isbe[3823]='Gittith`git\'-ith.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MUSIC">MUSIC</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=PSALMS">PSALMS</a>`1';
isbe[3824]='Give`(nathan, yahabh, sum; didomi): "Give" is a very common word in the Old Testament. It is most frequently the translation of nathan, "to give" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,29);">Ge 1:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,6);">3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,9);">Ex 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,\'1-\');">De 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,\'1-\');">20</A>, etc., over 800 instances); nathan is also translated "to give up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,14);">De 23:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,6);">Isa 43:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,8);">Ho 11:8</a>); of yahabh, "to give" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,1);">Ge 30:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,28);">1Ch 16:28</a> the King James Version). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',55,22);">Ps 55:22</a> we have the perfect with suffix, "Cast thy burden upon Yahweh," margin "what he hath given thee"; elsewhere it is the imperative "Give!" (the King James Version in Genesis, "Go to"); sum, "to put," "place" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,26);">Nu 6:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,29);">Pr 8:29</a>); rum, "to lift up," "exalt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,24);">2Ch 30:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',35,7,8,9);">35:7-9</a>, "to give to"); shubh, "to cause to turn back" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,51,52);">Le 25:51-52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,3);">2Ki 17:3</a>, "to give again"); various other words are in single instances translated "give."<P>In the New Testament, the common word is didomi, "to give" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,9);">Mt 4:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,12);">Joh 1:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,1);">Re 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,6);">21:6</a>, etc.); we have also apodidomi, "to give away (from one\'s self)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,36);">Mt 12:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,2);">Lu 16:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,33);">Ac 4:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,40);">19:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',22,12);">Re 22:12</a>); diadidomi, "to give throughout" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,13);">Re 17:13</a>); epididomi, "to give upon or besides" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,9,10);">Mt 7:9-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',13,26);">Joh 13:26</a>); metadidomi, "to give a share" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',12,8);">Ro 12:8</a>); paradidomi, "to give over to" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,28);">Ro 1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,3);">1Co 13:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',2,20);">Ga 2:20</a>, etc.); prodidomi, "to give forth or foremost" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,35);">Ro 11:35</a>); aponemo, "to apportion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,7);">1Pe 3:7</a>); doreomai, "to give as a gift" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,45);">Mr 15:45</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "granted"; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,3,4);">2Pe 1:3-4</a> the King James Version); martureo, "to give testimony or witness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,10);">1Joh 5:10</a>); pareisphero, "to bring forward therewith" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,5);">2Pe 1:5</a>); parecho, "to hold near by" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,1);">Col 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,17);">1Ti 6:17</a>); kataphero, "to bear against or down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,10);">Ac 26:10</a>); charizomai, "to grant as a favor" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,21);">Lu 7:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',27,24);">Ac 27:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,32);">Ro 8:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,18);">Ga 3:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',2,9);">Php 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phm\',1,22);">Phm 1:22</a> the King James Version). A few other words mostly occurring singly are translated "give."<P>Of the many changes in the Revised Version (British and American), the following are among the most important: for "Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies," "Thou hast also made mine enemies turn their backs unto me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,41);">2Sa 22:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,40);">Ps 18:40</a>); for "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',40,19);">Job 40:19</a>), the American Standard Revised Version has "He only that made him giveth him his sword," the English Revised Version, margin "furnished"; for "hasten after another god" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,4);">Ps 16:4</a>), the American Standard Revised Version has "give gifts for" (ERVm); for "give" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,1,2);">Ps 29:1-2</a>, etc.), the American Standard Revised Version has "ascribe"; for "give myself unto wine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',2,3);">Ec 2:3</a>), "cheer my flesh with wine"; for "giveth his life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,11);">Joh 10:11</a>), "layeth down"; "given" is supplied (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,2);">Ac 19:2</a>), where we read instead of "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost," "We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given," margin "there is a Holy Spirit"; for Christ shall give thee light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,14);">Eph 5:14</a>), "Christ shall shine upon thee"; for "give in charge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,7);">1Ti 5:7</a>), "command"; for "not given to wine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,3);">1Ti 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,7);">Tit 1:7</a>), "no brawler," margin "not quarrelsome over wine"; for "she that liveth in pleasure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,6);">1Ti 5:6</a>), "giveth herself to"; for "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,16);">2Ti 3:16</a>), "Every scripture inspired of God," margin "Every scripture is inspired of God"; for "given to filthy lucre" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,7);">Tit 1:7</a>), "greedy of"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',2,16);">Heb 2:16</a>, the American Standard Revised Version has "For verily not of angels doth he give help," margin "For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold," etc. (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,9);">Isa 41:9</a>; Ecclesiasticus 4:11; 8:9 (in the Greek) the English Revised Version, "not of angels doth he take hold") (the idea is that of taking hold of to lift up or help); in Ecclesiasticus 13:15 for "giving thanks to his name," the Revised Version (British and American) reads "make confession to his name"; for "giving all diligent" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,5);">2Pe 1:5</a>), "adding."<P>The prominence of "give" in the Bible reminds us that God is the great Giver (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,5);">Jas 1:5</a>), and of the words of the Lord Jesus, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,35);">Ac 20:35</a>), "Freely ye received, freely give" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,8);">Mt 10:8</a>).``185';
isbe[3825]='Gizonite`gi\'-zon-it: This gentilic name in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',11,34);">1Ch 11:34</a>, "Hashem the Gizonite," is probably an error for "Gunite" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',26,48);">Nu 26:48</a>), and the passage should be corrected, after <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,32);">2Sa 23:32</a>, into "Jashen the Gunite."``1';
isbe[3826]='Gizrites`giz\'-rits (gizri (Kethibh); the King James Version Gezrites): Inhabitants of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GEZER">GEZER</A>, (which see). The Qere reads girzi, Girzites (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',27,8);">1Sa 27:8</a>).``1';
isbe[3827]='Glad Tidings`ti\'-dingz (euaggelizo): "Glad-tidings" occurs in the King James Version in the translation of the verb euaggelizo, "to tell good news" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,19);">Lu 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,1);">8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,32);">Ac 13:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,15);">Ro 10:15</a>); in each instance, except the last, the Revised Version (British and American) translations "good tidings." The verb is also very frequently translated in the King James Version "to preach the gospel," the original meaning of which word (god-spell) is "good news or tidings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,5);">Mt 11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,18);">Lu 4:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,22);">7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,6);">9:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',20,1);">20:1</a>); in the first two passages the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "good tidings," margin "the gospel"; in the last two instances "the gospel" is retained, the American Revised Version, margin "good tidings"—the gospel or good tidings being the announcement of the near approach of the promised, long-looked-for salvation and kingdom of God; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,15);">Ro 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,20);">15:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,17);">1Co 1:17</a>, etc., the King James Version has "the gospel," namely, that of God\'s reconciliation of the world to Himself in Christ; the Revised Version (British and American) in some passages substitutes "good tidings," or gives this in the margin; but "glad tidings" stands only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,15);">Ro 10:15</a>.``185';
isbe[3828]='Glass`glas (zekhukhith; hualos):<P>1. History:<P>Glass is of great antiquity. The story of its discovery by accident, as related by Pliny (NH, xxxvi.65), is apocryphal, but it was natural for the Greeks and Romans to ascribe it to the Phoenicians, since they were the producers of the article as known to them. The Egyptian monuments have revealed to us the manufacture in a time so remote that it must have preceded that of the Phoenicians. A representation of glass-blowing on monuments of the Old Empire, as formerly supposed, is now regarded as doubtful, but undoubted examples of glazed pottery of that age exist. A fragment of blue glass has been found inscribed with the name of Antef III, of the XIth Dynasty, dating from 2000 or more BC (Davis, Ancient Egypt, 324). The oldest dated bottle, or vase, is one bearing the name of Thothmes III, 1500 or more BC, and numerous examples occur of later date. The close connection between Egypt and Syria from the time of Thothmes on must have made glass known in the latter country, and the Phoenicians, so apt in all lines of trade and manufacture, naturally seized on glass-making as a most profitable art and they became very proficient in it. The earliest glass was not very transparent, since they did not know how to free the materials used from impurities. It had a greenish or purplish tinge, and a large part of the examples we have of Phoenician glass exhibit this. But we have many examples of blue, red and yellow varieties which were purposely colored, and others quite opaque and of a whitish color, resembling porcelain (Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Ancient Phoenicia and Its Dependencies). But both they and the Egyptians made excellent transparent glass also, and decorated it with brilliant coloring on the surface (ib; Beni Hasan, Archeol. Survey of Egypt, Pt IV). Layard (Nineveh and Babylon) mentions a vase of transparent glass bearing the name of Sargon (522-505 BC), and glass was early known to the Babylonians.<P>2. Manufacture:<P>Phoenicia was the great center, and the quantities found in tombs of Syria and Palestine go to confirm the statement that this was one of the great industries of this people, to which ancient authors testify (Strabo, Geog.; Pliny, NH). Josephus refers to the sand of the Belus as that from which glass was made (BJ, II, x, 2). It seems to have been especially adapted for the purpose, but there are other places on the coast where plenty of suitable sand could be obtained. The potash required was obtained by burning certain marine and other plants, and saltpeter, or niter, was also employed. The manufacture began centuries BC on this coast, and in the 12th century AD a factory is mentioned as still being worked at Tyre, and the manufacture was later carried on at Hebron, even down to recent times (Perrot and Chipiez).<P>Both the Egyptians and Phoenicians gained such proficiency in making transparent and colored glass that they imitated precious stones with such skill as to deceive the unwary. Necklaces are found composed of a mixture of real brilliants and glass imitations. Cut glass was manufactured in Egypt as early as the XVIIIth Dynasty, and diamonds were made use of in the article. Glass composed of different colors in the same piece was made by placing layers of glass wire, of different colors, one above the other and then fusing them so that they became united in a solid mass without intermingling. Colored designs on the surface were produced by tracing the patterns, while the glass was still warm and plastic, deep enough to receive the threads of colored glass which were imbedded in them. The whole was heated again sufficiently to fuse the threads and attach them to the body. The surface was then made even by polishing. By this process vessels and ornaments of very beautiful design were produced. Many of the specimens, as found, are covered by an exquisite iridescence which is due wholly to the decomposition of the surface by chemical action, from lying buried for centuries in the soil which thus acts upon it. This is often lost in handling by the scaling off of the outer surface.<P>Glass, in the strict sense, is rarely mentioned in Scripture, but it was certainly known to the Hebrews, and occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,17);">Job 28:17</a> (translated "crystal" in the King James Version). Bottles, cups and other vessels in glass must have been in use to some extent. The wine cup of <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,31);">Pr 23:31</a> and the bottle for tears mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',56,8);">Ps 56:8</a> were most likely of glass. Tear bottles are found in great quantities in the tombs throughout the land and were undoubtedly connected with funeral rites, the mourners collecting their tears and placing them in these bottles to be buried with the dead. As mourners were hired for the purpose, the number of these bottles would indicate the extent to which the deceased was honored. These were, of course, small, some quite diminutive (see illustration), as also were the vials or pots to contain the ointment for the eyebrows and eyelashes, used to heighten the beauty of the women, which was probably a custom among the Hebrews as well as their neighbors. Rings, bracelets and anklets of glass are very common and were doubtless worn by the Hebrew women (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,18);">Isa 3:18</a>f). In the New Testament the Greek hualos occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,18,21);">Re 21:18, 21</a>, and the adjective derived from it hualinos in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">4:6</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,2);">15:2</a>. In the other passages, where in the King James Version "glass" occurs, the reference is to "looking-glass," or mirror, which was not made of glass, but of bronze, and polished so as to reflect the light similar to glass. The Hebrew word for this is gillayon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,23);">Isa 3:23</a>), or mar\'ah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',38,8);">Ex 38:8</a>), and the Greek esoptron (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,12);">1Co 13:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,23);">Jas 1:23</a>; compare The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 7:26</span>; Sirach 12:11).<P>The composition of the Phoenician glass varies considerably. The analysis shows that, besides the ordinary constituents of silica, lime, lead, potash or soda, other elements are found, some being used for the purpose of coloring, such as manganese to give the purplish or violet hue, cobalt for blue, copper for red, etc. The articles illustrated above are of ordinary transparent glass with an iridescent surface, caused by decomposition, as mentioned above, indicated by the scaly appearance. Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are tear bottles, no. 4 being only 1 3/4 inches in height; nos. 2 and 3 are ointment vases which were used for the ointment with which ladies were accustomed to color their eyebrows and eyelashes to enhance their beauty. This custom still prevails in the East. The small ladle by the side of the larger vase is of bronze, used in applying the ointment. This vase is double and 6 3/4 inches high, ornamented with glass wire wound upon it while plastic. The larger vases (nos. 6 and 7) are about 6 inches in height. The hand-mirror ("looking-glass" the King James Version) is bronze, and had originally a polished surface, but is now corroded.``138';
isbe[3829]='Glass, Sea of`(thalassa hualine; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,6);">Re 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,2);">15:2</a>): In the vision of heaven in these two apocalyptic passages a "glassy sea" is seen before the throne of God. The pure translucency of the sea is indicated in the former reference by the words, "like unto crystal"; and the fiery element that may symbolize the energy of the Divine holiness is suggested in the latter passage by the trait, "mingled with fire." On the margin of this sea—on the inner side—stood the victorious saints, with harps, singing the song of Moses and of the Lamb (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,\'2-4\');">Re 15:2-4</a>). The imagery here points to a relation with the triumphal song in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,\'1-\');">Ex 15</a>, after the deliverance from Pharaoh at the Red Sea. It is not easy to define the symbolism precisely. The sea, reflecting in its crystalline depths the purity and holiness of the Divine character and administration, speaks at the same time of difficulties surmounted, victory obtained and safety assured, the after-glow of the Divine judgments by which this result has been secured still illuminating the glassy expanse that has been crossed.``132';
isbe[3830]='Gleaning`glen\'-ing (laqat, \'alal): The custom of allowing the poor to follow the reapers in the field and glean the fallen spears of grain is strikingly illustrated in the story of Ruth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',2,\'2-23\');">Ru 2:2-23</a>). This custom had back of it one of the early agricultural laws of the Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,9);">Le 19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,22);">23:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,\'19-21\');">De 24:19-21</a>). Breaking this law was a punishable offense. The generosity of the master of the crop determined the value of the gleanings, as the story of Ruth well illustrates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',2,16);">Ru 2:16</a>). A reaper could easily impose upon the master by leaving too much for the gleaners, who might be his own children. The old Levitical law no longer holds in the land, but the custom of allowing the poor to glean in the grain fields and vineyards is still practiced by generous landlords in Syria. The writer has seen the reapers, even when they exercised considerable care, drop from their hands frequent spears of wheat. When the reapers have been hirelings they have carelessly left bunches of wheat standing behind rocks or near the boundary walls. The owner usually sends one of his boy or girl helpers to glean these. If he is of a generous disposition, he allows some needy woman to follow after the reapers and benefit by their carelessness. It is the custom in some districts, after the main crop of grapes has been gathered, to remove the watchman and allow free access to the vineyards for gleaning the last grapes.<P>Gideon touched the local pride of the men of Ephraim when he declared that the glory of their conquest surpassed his, as the gleanings of their vineyards did the whole crop of Abiezer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,2);">Jud 8:2</a>). Gleaned is used of a captured enemy in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',20,45);">Jud 20:45</a>.<P>Figurative: Israel, because of her wickedness, will be utterly destroyed, even to a thorough gleaning and destruction of those who first escape (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',6,9);">Jer 6:9</a>). The same picture of complete annihilation is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',49,9,10);">Jer 49:9-10</a>.``133';
isbe[3831]='Glede`gled (ra\'ah; gups): A member of the hawk species. It is given among the list of abominations in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,13);">De 14:13</a>, but not in the Leviticus list (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',11,14);">Le 11:14</a>). The kite is substituted. The Arabs might have called one of the buzzards the glede. In England, where specimens of most of these birds appear in migration, the glede is synonymous with kite, and was given the name from glide, to emphasize a gliding motion in flight. <!-- See illustration, p. 1235.-->``1';
isbe[3832]='Glistering`glis\'-ter-ing (pukh, "dye" (spec. "stibium"), "fair colors"; stilbonta): "\'Glistering stones\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,2);">1Ch 29:2</a>) is better<P>than the \'inlaid\' of the Revised Version (British and American); for some kind of colored, brilliant stone seems meant" (HDB, II, 182); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,11);">Isa 54:11</a> Revised Version, margin. The term is employed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,3);">Mr 9:3</a> to denote the white, lustrous appearance of Christ\'s garments at the transfiguration. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. For once the Divine effulgence shone through the veil of the humiliation (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>).``1';
isbe[3833]='Glitter; Glittering`glit\'-er, glit\'-er-ing (baraq, "lightning"): The word is used in sense of "glittering" in the Old Testament with "sword," "spear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,41);">De 32:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,25);">Job 20:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,10,28);">Eze 21:10, 28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',3,3);">Na 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,11);">Hab 3:11</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',21,10);">Eze 21:10</a> the Revised Version (British and American) changes "glitter" to "as lightning," and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,41);">De 32:41</a> the Revised Version, margin gives, "the lightning of my sword." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,23);">Job 39:23</a>, where the word is different (lahabh), the Revised Version (British and American) has "flashing."``1';
isbe[3834]='Glorify`glo\'-ri-fi: The English word is the equivalent of a number of Hebrew and Greek words whose essential significance is discussed more fully under the word <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GLORY">GLORY</A> (which see). The word "glorious" in the phrases "make or render glorious" is used most frequently as a translation of verbs in the original, rather than of genuine adjectives In dealing with the verb it will be sufficient to indicate the following most important uses.<P>(1) Men may glorify God, that is, give to Him the worship and reverence which are His due (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,15);">Isa 24:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',25,3);">25:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',22,23);">Ps 22:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,23);">Da 5:23</a>; Sirach 43:30; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,16);">Mt 5:16</a>, and generally in the Synoptic Gospels and in some other passages of the New Testament).<P>(2) God, Yahweh (Yahweh), glorifies His people, His house, and in the New Testament, His Son, manifesting His approval of them and His interest in them, by His interposition on their behalf (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,5);">Isa 55:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',30,19);">Jer 30:19</a>; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 18:8</span>; Sirach 45:3; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,39);">Joh 7:39</a>, and often in the Fourth Gospel).<P>(3) By a usage which is practically confined to the Old Testament, Yahweh glorifies Himself, that is, secures the recognition of His honor and majesty, by His direction of the course of history, or by His interposition in history, either the history of His own people or of the world at large (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',10,3);">Le 10:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',26,15);">Isa 26:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,22);">Eze 28:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',1,8);">Hag 1:8</a>).``13';
isbe[3835]='Glorious`glo\'-ri-us: The adjective "glorious" is used in the majority of cases as the translation of one of the nouns which are fully discussed in the article <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GLORY">GLORY</A>, and the general meaning is the same, for the glorious objects or persons have the quality which is described by the word "glory," that is, they are honorable, dignified, powerful, distinguished, splendid, beautiful or radiant. It is worthy of note that in many passages in the New Testament where the King James Version has "glorious," the Revised Version (British and American) has the noun "glory." So among others in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,21);">Ro 8:21</a>, the King James Version has "glorious liberty," the Revised Version (British and American) "liberty of the glory of the sons of God." The obsolete use of the word glorious in the sense of "boastful," "vain-glorious," "eager for glory," as it is used in Wycliffe, Tyndale and Bacon, and once or twice in Shakespeare, as in Cymbeline, I,7,in the first speech of Imogen, "Most miserable is the desire that\'s glorious," and in Gower\'s Prologue to Pericles, 1,9, "The purchase of it is to make men glorious" occurs at least once in the apocryphal books, Additions to <span class="noTag">Esther 16:4</a> the King James Version, "but also lifted up with the glorious words of lewd persons."``13';
isbe[3836]='Glory`glo\'-ri (substantive):<P><b>I. METHOD OF TREATMENT</b><P><b>II. GENERAL USE OF THE TERM</b><P class="in15">1. As Applied to External Things<P class="in15">2. As Applied to Yahweh<P><b>III. THE USES OF KABHODH</b><P class="in15">1. Material Wealth<P class="in15">2. Human Dignity and Majesty<P class="in15">3. "My Soul": the Self<P class="in15">4. Self-Manifestation of God (Yahweh)<P class="in30">(1) <span class="noTag">Exodus 23:18</span>ff<P class="in30">(2) <span class="noTag">Isaiah 6</span>><P class="in30">(3) <span class="noTag">Psalms 19:1</span><P class="in30">(4) Sinai and the Temple<P class="in30">(5) Ezekiel\'s Visions<P class="in30">(6) Messianic Ideal<P class="in30">(7) Its Ethical Content<P><b>IV. IN THE APOCRYPHA AND THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. In the Apocrypha:<P class="in30">(1) As Applied to External Things<P class="in30">(2) As Applied to God<P class="in15">2. In the New Testament:<P class="in30">(1) As Applied to Men<P class="in30">(2) As Applied to God<P class="in30">(3) As Applied to the Saints<P class="in30">(4) As Applied to the Messianic Kingdom<P class="in15">3. Its Ethical Significance<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Method of Treatment.<P>In this article we deal, first, with a group of words, translated "glory" in the English Versions of the Bible, and in which the ideas of size, rarity, beauty and adornment are prominent, the emphasis being laid in the first instance in each case upon some external physical characteristic which attracts the attention, and makes the object described by the word significant or prominent.<P>These are (\'addereth) perhaps to be connected with the Assyrian root \'adaru, meaning "wide," "great"; (hadhar, hadharah), perhaps with root-meaning of "brightness"; (hodh), with essentially the same meaning of "brightness," "light"; (Tehar), <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,44);">Ps 89:44</a>, translated "glory" in the King James Version, in the Revised Version (British and American) rendered "brightness"; (yeqara\'), an Aramaic root meaning "rare"; (tiph\'arah), with the root-meaning of "beauty "; and finally (tsebhi), perhaps on the basis of the Assyrian cabu, meaning "desire," "desirable."<P>Secondly, this article will discuss the most common and characteristic word for "glory" in the Old Testament, the Hebrew (kabhodh) including the special phrase "the glory of God" or "the glory of Yahweh." In dealing with the Old Testament usage, attention will also be called to the original Hebrew of the Book of Ecclesiasticus or Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, cited in this article as Sir. Thirdly, with the Greek word (doxa) in the Apocrypha and in the New Testament. The nouns kauchema, kauchesis, translated "glory" or "glorying" in the New Testament, will be dealt with in the concluding paragraphs in which the use of the word glory as a verb will briefly be discussed. It will be possible within the limits of this article to give only the main outlines of the subject as illustrated by a few of the most significant references. The lexicons and the commentaries must be consulted for the details.<P>II. General Use of the Term.<P>In the first group, as has already been stated, the ideas of beauty, majesty and splendor are prominent. And these qualities are predicated first of all, of things. David determines to make the temple which Solomon is to build "a house of fame and of glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,5);">1Ch 22:5</a>).<P>1. As Applied to External Things:<P>Then, and more commonly, glory belongs to men, and especially to men of prominence, like kings. This glory may consist in wealth, power, portion, or even in the inherent majesty and dignity of character of its possessor. The reference is most frequently, however, to the external manifestations. Physical power is suggested in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>, where "glory" of the King James Version is replaced by "majesty" in the Revised Version (British and American). The king\'s glory consists in the multitude of his people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,28);">Pr 14:28</a>). The glory and the pomp of the rebellious people shall descend into Sheol (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,14);">Isa 5:14</a>). Here the reference is clearly to those external things upon which the people depend, and the possession of which is the ground of their confidence.<P>2. As Applied to Yahweh:<P>But chiefly glory is the possesion and characteristic of Yahweh, and is given by Him to His people or to anything which is connected with Him. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,7);">Isa 60:7</a> the Lord promises to glorify the house of His glory, and the meaning is clearly that He will impart to His house something of the beauty and majesty which belong to Him. Glory is one of the qualities which are distinctive of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,11);">1Ch 29:11</a>); and Isaiah, in one of his earliest utterances, uses the word "glory" to describe Yahweh\'s self-manifestation in judgment to bring to naught the pride and power of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,10,19,21);">Isa 2:10, 19, 21</a>). The use of the word in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,61);">Ps 78:61</a> is not quite certain. The most natural interpretation would perhaps be to refer it to the ark as the symbol of the presence of Yahweh, but in view of the parallel word "strength," it is perhaps better to interpret glory as meaning power, and to suppose that the Psalmist means that Yahweh allowed His power to be temporarily obscured, and Himself to be seemingly humiliated on account of the sin of His people.<P>III. The Uses of Kabhodh.<P>The use and significance of kabhodh in the Old Testament and in Sirach: The fundamental idea of this root seems to be "weight," "heaviness," and hence in its primary uses it conveys the idea of some external, physical manifestation of dignity, preeminence or majesty. At least three uses may be distinguished: (1) It defines the wealth or other material possesions which give honor or distinction to a person; (2) the majesty, dignity, splendor or honor of a person; (3) most important of all, it describes the form in which Yahweh (Yahweh) reveals Himself or is the sign and manifestation of His presence.<P>1. Material Wealth:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,1);">Ge 31:1</a> (margin "wealth") it describes the flocks and herds which Jacob has acquired; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',49,16);">Ps 49:16</a>f; as the parallelism indicates, it refers to the wealth of the sinner; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,3);">Isa 10:3</a> it is said that in the day of desolation the heartless plunderers of the poor shall not know where to leave their ill-gotten gain. This idea is also probably to be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hag\',2,7);">Hag 2:7</a>, where the parallelism seems to indicate that the glory with which Yahweh will fill the house is the treasure which He will bring into it. See also Sirach 9:11, where the glory of the sinner which is not to be envied is probably his wealth.<P>2. Human Dignity and Majesty:<P>It describes the majesty and dignity or honor of men due to their adornment or to their position. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,13);">Ge 45:13</a>, Joseph bids his brethren tell their father of his glory in Egypt; according to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,40);">Ex 28:40</a>, the priestly garments are intended for the glorification of their wearers; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,21);">1Sa 4:21</a>f; the loss of the ark means, for Israel, the loss of her glory, that which gave her distinction from, and preeminence over, her neighbors; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,23);">Isa 22:23</a> it is said that Eliakim is to be a throne of glory, i.e. the source and manifestation of the splendor and dignity of his father\'s house; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,9);">Job 19:9</a> the complaint that God has stripped him of his glory must be taken to refer to his dignity and honor. Reference may also be made to the numerous passages in which the glory of Israel and other nations describes their dignity, majesty or distinction; so we hear of the glory of Ephraim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,11);">Ho 9:11</a>), of Moab (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',16,14);">Isa 16:14</a>), of Kedar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,16);">Isa 21:16</a>). This use is quite common in Sir. Sirach 3:10f states that the glory of man comes from the honor of his father; the possessor of wisdom shall inherit glory (4:13; 37:26); note also 4:21 with its reference to "a shame that is glory and grace," and 49:5 where the forfeited independence of Judah is described by the terms "power" and "glory."<P>3. "My Soul": the Self:<P>Closely related to this use of kabhodh to describe the majesty of men is the group of passages in which the phrase "my glory," in parallelism with nephesh, "soul," "self," or some similar expression, means the man himself in his most characteristic nature. In the blessing of Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,6);">Ge 49:6</a>) we read, "Unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou united." Other passages are <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,2);">Ps 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,5);">7:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,9);">16:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',30,12);">30:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',57,8);">57:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',108,1);">108:1</a> and perhaps <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',29,20);">Job 29:20</a>. Some recent interpreters, partly because of the Septuagint rendering in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,6);">Ge 49:6</a> (ta hepata mou), "my liver," and partly because of the Assyrian root, kabittu, meaning "temper" or "heart" (see Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwortebuch, 317a), would read in all these passages kabhedh, literally, "liver" as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,11);">La 2:11</a>, and interpret the figure as referring to the emotions as the expression of the self. The arguments in favor of the change are not without weight. Of course on either interpretation the language is highly figurative. It hardly seems necessary to change the reading, especially as the Septuagint renders the passages in the Psalms and in Job by doxa, the ordinary Greek rendering for kabhodh, and it does not seem improbable that in poetry the word kabhodh might be used to describe the man himself indicating that man as such is honorable and glorious, possibly because as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,1);">Ps 8:1</a>, he is thought of as having been crowned by his Creator with glory and honor.<P>Before leaving this use of kabhodh it is necessary to call attention to the fact that in a few cases it is used to describe things, perhaps because these things are thought of as practically personified. The "glory of the forest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,18);">Isa 10:18</a>) is clearly a personification, referring to the majestic force of the Assyrians. We may probably assume a personification also in the case of the glory of Lebanon in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,2);">Isa 35:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,13);">60:13</a>, and the nature of the parable in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,\'1-\');">Eze 31</a> makes it probable that personification is intended in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',31,18);">31:18</a>.<P>4. Self-manfiestation of God (Yahweh):<P>But unquestionably the most important use of the word kabhodh is its employment either with the following gen. God or Yahweh, or absolutely, to describe the method or the circumstances of the self-manifestation of God. In discussing this subject we shall deal first of all with the use of the term as connected with actual or historical manifestations of the Deity, and then with its use to describe the characteristic features of the ideal state of the future, or, otherwise stated, the Messianic kingdom.<P>(1) <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,18);">Exodus 23:18</a>ff.<P>The significance of the phrase in its earliest occurrence is by no means clear. Notwithstanding the uncertainty as to the exact documentary connection of the famous passage in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,18);">Ex 33:18</a>ff, it seems quite certain that we may claim that this is the earliest historical reference that the Old Testament contains to the glory of Yahweh. "And he (Moses) said, Show me, I pray thee, thy glory. And he (Yahweh) said Thou canst not see my face;...and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand until I have passed by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back; but my face shall not be seen." The passage in its present form bears unmistakable evidences of the editorial hand, due perhaps, as Baentsch (Hand-kommentar zum Altes Testament, "Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers," 279) suggests, to a desire to transform the primitive, concrete, physical theophany into a revelation of the ethical glory of God, but in its basis it belongs to the Jahwist (Jahwist) and is therefore the earliest literary reference to the glory of God in the Old Testament. The glory of Yahweh is clearly a physical manifestation, a form with hands and rear parts, of which Moses is permitted to catch only a passing glimpse, but the implication is clear that he actually does see Yahweh with his physical eyes.<P>It seems not improbable that in its original form it was related that Moses saw the glory, i.e., the form of Yahweh, and thus that we are to find in this narrative the source for the statement in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,8);">Nu 12:8</a>, that he (Moses) will behold (or perhaps better rendering the tense as a frequentative), beholds the form of Yahweh (see also the description in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,\'9-11\');">Ex 24:9-11</a>). The mention of the cloud (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,5);">Ex 34:5</a>) as the accompaniment of the manifestation of Yahweh suggests that the form of Yahweh was thought of as being outlined in cloud and flame, and that Yahweh was originally thought of as manifesting Himself in connection with meteorological or more probably volcanic phenomena.<P>(2) <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">Isaiah 6</a>.<P>Later the glory of Yahweh and the form of Yahweh are no longer identical terms, but the glory is still the physical manifestation of the Divine presence. This is clear from Isaiah\'s account of his great inaugural vision. The prophet sees the enthroned Yahweh with His skirts filling the temple. There is no indication of what it was that he saw or how he recognized that it was Yahweh. The attendant seraphim in addition to the solemn "Holy, Holy, Holy" declare that "the whole earth is full of his glory."<P>Unquestionably His glory is here regarded as something visible, something, a part of which at least, Isaiah sees. The glory as such has no ethical significance except in so far as it is the method of manifestation of one who is undoubtedly an ethical being. The phraseology suggests that the skirts which fill the temple and the glory which fills the whole earth refer to the phenomena of fire and smoke. Some think that the smoke is caused by the clouds of incense that would fill the temple in connection with the sacrificial observances. But in view of Isaiah\'s horror of these observances, this interpretation is very questionable. A more probable interpretation connects the clouds and gloom with the phenomena of a great storm, and even possibly of an earthquake, for it seems highly plausible that the call of Isaiah in the year of the death of King Uzziah coincided with the great earthquake in the days of Uzziah referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,5);">Zec 14:5</a>. (It seems at least probable that the references to the darkness and light in <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,6);">Zec 14:6</a>f may have their origin in the phenomena attendant upon this earthquake. It is probable that the earthquake by which the prophecy of Amos is dated (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,1);">Am 1:1</a>) is also this same historic earthquake.) The clouds and fire attendant upon this storm or earthquake become the media by which the glory of Yahweh is made known to the youthful prophet, and this glory partly reveals and partly conceals the presence of Yahweh of which, through, and in part by means of, these phenomena, Isaiah is made so vividly conscious.<P>(3) <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,1);">Psalms 19:1</a>.<P>This conception of Isaiah that the glory of Yahweh fills the earth is closely related to the thought of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,1);">Ps 19:1</a> that "the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork," the difference being that in the psalm Yahweh\'s glory is manifested in the ordinary rather than in the extraordinary phenomena. Parallel thoughts may be found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,1);">Ps 8:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',57,5);">57:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',108,5);">108:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',113,4);">113:4</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,1,2,3,9);">Ps 29:1-3, 9</a>, as in Isaiah, the glory of Yahweh is revealed in the extraordinary physical phenomena which the psalm describes. Glory here is a purely external, meteorological thing and is the manifestation of the presence of Yahweh, no matter whether the psalm is regarded, as it usually is, as a description of a thunderstorm, or whether with von Gall and others it is taken as a description of the phenomena which accompany the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom (see <a onClick="return mV(\'Joe\',2,30);">Joe 2:30</a>f the English Revised Version).<P>(4) Sinai and the Temple.<P><a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,24);">De 5:24</a> indicates that in theophany at the time of the giving of the law, the glory and the greatness of Yahweh. consisted in the fire and thick darkness which enveloped the mountain, and out of which Yahweh spoke to the people. Essentially the same idea is expressed in the account of the dedication of Solomon\'s temple (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,10);">1Ki 8:10</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',5,14);">2Ch 5:14</a>). The cloud which filled the house of Yahweh, preventing the priests from ministering, is identified with the glory of Yahweh which filled the house. It is noteworthy that in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',7,\'1-3\');">2Ch 7:1-3</a> the glory of Yahweh which fills the house manifests itself in the form of the cloud of smoke from the sacrifices which were consumed by the fire coming down from heaven.<P>(5) Ezekiel\'s Visions.<P>Perhaps the most elaborate description of the glory of Yahweh to be found in the Old Testament is that given by Ezekiel in the various accounts of his visions. It is not easy to interpret his conception, but it seems clear that he does not identify the glory with the stormy clouds, the fire, the cherubim and the chariots. "The appearance of the likeness of the glory of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,28);">Eze 1:28</a>) is not applied to all the phenomena which have been described in the preceding verses, but only to the likeness of form which looked like a man above the sapphire throne ((<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,26);">1:26</a>). The same idea is indicated in (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',9,3);">9:3</a> which states that "the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon it was"; that is, the glory is something peculiar to Yahweh, and is not quite identical with the phenomena which accompany it. This is true of all his visions. The glory of Yahweh manifests itself with all the accompaniments which he describes with such richness of imagery, but the accompaniments are not the glory. For other descriptions of the glory of Yahweh in Ezekiel, see <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,12,23);">3:12, 23</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',8,4);">8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,4,18);">10:4,18</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',11,22);">11:22</a> f.<P>Very similar to this conception of Ezekiel is that given in those passages of the Pentateuch which are usually assigned to the Priestly Code. When the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron on account of the lack of food, the glory of Yahweh appeared in the cloud as they "looked toward the wilderness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',16,7,10);">Ex 16:7, 10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,16);">Ex 24:16</a>). And just as in Ezekiel, the glory is distinguished from its attendant circumstances; for after the completion of the Tent of Meeting, the cloud covers the tent, and the glory of Yahweh fills the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">Ex 40:34</a>f; see also <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,6,23);">Le 9:6, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',14,21);">Nu 14:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',16,19,42);">16:19, 42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',20,6);">20:6</a>). The same thought is suggested in the references in Sirach 17:13; 45:3.<P>(6) Messianic Ideal.<P>These passages just cited stand on the border between the historical and the ideal descriptions of the glory of Yahweh, for whatever may be one\'s views as to the historical worth of P\'s account of the Exodus and the wilderness sojourn, all must agree in seeing in it really the program or constitution for the ideal state of the future. And in this state the distinguishing characteristic is to be the manifest presence of Yahweh in His sanctuary, and this manifestation is the glory. This is the view of Ezekiel, for whom the essential action in the establishment of the new community is the return of the glory of Yahweh to the house of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,2,4,5);">Eze 43:2, 4-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,4);">44:4</a>). The same thought is expressed very clearly in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',4,5);">Isa 4:5</a>f; which may be rendered on the basis of a slight rearrangement and regrouping of the original, \'And Yahweh will create over...Mt. Zion..., a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over everything the glory (of Yahweh) shall be a canopy and a pavilion, and it shall serve as a shelter from the heat, and a refuge and a covert from the storm and the rain.\' This translation has the advantage that it furnishes an intelligible and characteristic conclusion to the description of the Messianic age which the chapter contains. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,10);">Isa 11:10</a>, reading with the Revised Version, margin, "and his resting-place shall be glory," has the same thought, for it is clearly the glory of Yahweh that is manifested in the resting-place of the root of Jesse, and this resting-place can be none other than Mt. Zion (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',24,23);">Isa 24:23</a>).<P>The Psalms and Deuteronomy-Isaiah have many passages in which this phase of the thought is brought out. For both books the restoration of the people from captivity is to be accompanied by, or, perhaps better, itself is, a revelation of the glory of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,5);">Isa 40:5</a>). The children of Israel have been created for the glory of Yahweh, and hence they must be restored that His glory may be made manifest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,7);">Isa 43:7</a>). The light of the restored community is to be the glory of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,1);">Isa 60:1</a>f). The presence of Yahweh brings grace and glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',84,11);">Ps 84:11</a>), and His salvation of those that fear Him causes glory to dwell in the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',85,9);">Ps 85:9</a>). To these and many similar passages in Isaiah and the Psalms may also be added Sirach 36:14, which refers probably to the manifestation of God in glory in the Messianic kingdom.<P>(7) Its Ethical Content.<P>But these passages make it quite evident that "glory" is not always used in the external, literally or figuratively physical sense. It comes to have an ethical significance, and this because, like the holiness with which it is associated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'-\'1);">Isa 6</a>, it is connected with Yahweh, who is more and more exclusively viewed as an ethical being. As holiness gradually loses its physical sense of aloofness, apartness, and comes to describe moral purity, so glory, because it is an attribute or expression of Yahweh, comes to have a moral sense. This transformation, as we have seen, is already being made in the present text of <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,18,20);">Ex 33:18, 20</a>, and the connection with holiness in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">Isa 6</a> makes it almost certain that Isaiah gave the word an ethical connotation. So the God of glory of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',29,3);">Ps 29:3</a> suggests a moral quality because Yahweh is a moral being. All doubt on this matter disappears when we find the word "glory" used as the term for the essential nature of Yahweh, as we have already found it to be used of man. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,8);">Isa 42:8</a>, "I am Yahweh, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another," the meaning would seem to be, my essential character and power, that is, my glory, I will not share with other gods (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,11);">Isa 48:11</a>). And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',58,8);">Isa 58:8</a> the glory must be taken in a figurative sense and refer to Yahweh Himself in His saving grace, who attends His people in advance and in the rear. It hardly seems possible to deny the ethical sense in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,21);">Eze 39:21</a>, where the manifestation of the glory of Yahweh comes as a result of the execution of His purposes of justice and righteousness upon His people. And in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',2,14);">Hab 2:14</a>, the glory of Yahweh which is to be known throughout the earth cannot be limited to any physical, external thing. It is equivalent to the righteous and just will of Yahweh. These passages are sufficient to prove the ethical significance of the word kabhodh, but it may be worth while to quote one more passage and this time from <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,\'1-\');">Ps 97</a> with its wonderful description of the blessings of the righteous rule of Yahweh. It is stated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,6);">97:6</A> that "the heavens declare his righteousness, and all the peoples have seen his glory." His righteousness may include, as Kirkpatrick suggests, "His faithfulness to His people and His sovereign justice in the punishment of all," or it may refer only to the former of these qualities; but in any case, it is a moral act, and by it the peoples recognize the glory of Yahweh as the supreme moral ruler.<P>IV. In Apocrypha and New Testament.<P>"Glory" in the apocryphal books and in the New Testament is almost exclusively the translation of the Greek noun doxa. In all these writings the Old Testament usage seems to be the most important, and it seems to be the fact, if one may judge from the Septuagint and from the original Hebrew of Sir, that the Greek noun doxa, in the great majority of cases, represents the Hebrew kabhodh, so that the underlying thought is Hebrew, even though the words may be Greek<P>1. In the Apocrypha:<P>(1) As Applied to External Things.<P>It will be perhaps a little more convenient to deal with the usage of the Apocrypha separately, following essentially the order that has been adopted for the Old Testament discussion of kabhodh, and bearing in mind that the usage of Sir has been discussed under the Old Testament. The use of the word "glory" to describe the honor, reputation and splendor which belong to men is quite common. In this sense 1Esdras 1:33 refers to the glory of Josiah, while in The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 10:14</a> the perpetual glory given by The Wisdom of Solomon to Joseph must be interpreted in the same way. In 2Macc 5:16,20 glory refers to the beautification and adornment of the temple in a sense like that of tiph\'arah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,7);">Isa 60:7</a>. In Judith 15:9 "glory" is the translation of the Greek gauriama, and indicates that Judith is the pride of Israel.<P>(2) As Applied to God.<P>But the most significant use of doxa in the Apocrypha is that in which it refers to the light and splendor which are regarded as the invariable accompaniments of God. The reference may be to the historic manifestation of God in glory at Mt. Sinai, as in 2Esdras 3:19, or to the manifestation of God in Israel, which is to be the especial characteristic of the Messianic kingdom. In 1Esdras 5:61 songs sung to the praise of the Lord, "because his goodness and his glory are forever in all Israel," are based upon the hope that Yahweh is about to establish the Messianic kingdom among the people who have bound themselves to obey His law. In several passages in 2Esdras the reference seems to be not to the Messianic kingdom in the historical sense, but rather to that kingdom of God which the saints are to inherit after death. This is clearly the thought in 2Esdras 2:36 and in 7:52; also in 8:51 where the context shows clearly that the reference is to the glory of Paradise, which is the heritage of all those who are like Ezra in their devotion to Yahweh (compare also 2Esdras 10:50).<P>But most frequently in the Apocrypha, in a sense which approximates that of the New Testament, the word "glory" refers to the blaze of light and splendor which is the essential expression of the holy majesty of Yahweh. The prayer of Manasseh refers to the unbearable majesty of the glory of Yahweh; while 2Esdras 8:30, trusting in Yahweh\'s glory is equivalent to trusting in Yahweh Himself; and in 16:53 the oath "before God and his glory" is simply before the Lord God Himself. The same thought is expressed in Tobit 12:15; 13:14; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 7:25</span>. In the So of Three Children, verses 31,33, the glory of Yahweh refers to His self-manifestation in His heavenly kingdom, and this is undoubtedly the significance in the frequently recurring doxologies, "Thine is the glory forever."<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>(1) As Applied to Men.<P>In the New Testament, much the same variety of usage is to be noted as in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and it is not easy to trace the exact relationship and order of the various meanings. The ordinary classical use of the word in the sense of "opinion," "judgment," "view," occurs in Hellenistic Greek only in 4Macc 5:17 (18) on the authority of Thayer.<P>It is perhaps as convenient to follow generally the order adopted in the preceding discussion. In some places the word refers to the manifestations and insignia of rank and power, as in the familiar phrase, "Solomon in all his glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,29);">Mt 6:29</a>), or the glory of the kingdoms of the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,8);">Mt 4:8</a>), or the glory of the kings and nations of the earth which shall be brought into the heavenly city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',21,24,26);">Re 21:24, 26</a>). Doxa also defines the praise, honor and dignity of men. This is the meaning in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,41,44);">Joh 5:41, 44</a>, where Christ distinguishes between His accusers and Himself in that He receives not glory from men, while they receive glory one of another (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,18);">Joh 7:18</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,13);">Eph 3:13</a>, Paul declares that his tribulations for those to whom he is writing are a glory or distinction to them, while in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,20);">1Th 2:20</a> he declares that the Thessalonian Christians are his glory and joy.<P>(2) As applied to God.<P>Closely related to this usage is the employment of the word to ascribe honor and praise to God; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,18);">Lu 17:18</a>, where only the stranger returned to give glory to God; or <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',9,24);">Joh 9:24</a>, where the man who had been born blind is bidden to give glory to God; or the phrase "to the glory of God" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,7);">Ro 15:7</a>, where the meaning is to secure the honor and praise of God among men. Similar is the use in the frequently recurring doxologies such as, "Glory to God in the highest," "to him," that is, to God, "be glory," etc.<P>While the foregoing meanings are frequently illustrated in the New Testament, it is undoubtedly true that the characteristic use of the word doxa in the New Testament is in the sense of brightness, brilliance, splendor; and first of all, in the literal sense, referring to the brightness of the heavenly bodies, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,40);">1Co 15:40</a>f; or to the supernatural brightness which overcame Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',22,11);">Ac 22:11</a>).<P>(3) As Applied to the Saints.<P>But the most common use of the word is to describe the brilliance which is the characteristic of all persons who share in the heavenly glory. Moses, Elijah and Jesus Himself have this glory on the Mountain of Transfiguration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,31);">Lu 9:31</a>f). It was the same glory which gave the angel who came out of heaven power to lighten the earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,1);">Re 18:1</a>), and also which shone about the shepherds when the angel appeared unto them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,9);">Lu 2:9</a>). Paul refers to this glory, when he speaks of the face of Moses as it appeared after God had spoken with him (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,7);">2Co 3:7</a>f). And as in the case of Moses, so here, the source of this glory is God Himself, who is the God of glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,2);">Ac 7:2</a>, and frequently).<P>(4) As Applied to the Messianic Kingdom.<P>It is also used to describe the ideal Messianic kingdom of the future. It is applied to Christ to describe His royal majesty when He comes to set up His kingdom. So James and John ask to sit, one on His right hand and one on His left in His glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,37);">Mr 10:37</a>). Christ is to appear in glory with the angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">Mt 16:27</a> and often), for His condition in the coming age as it was before the incarnation is a condition of glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',24,26);">Lu 24:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,5,22,24);">Joh 17:5, 22, 24</a>). But not merely the Messiah, but also all His followers shall share in the glory of the Messianic kingdom. This use is so common that it is scarcely necessary to illustrate it by reference. This glory is to be revealed to all Christians in the future (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,18,21);">Ro 8:18, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,23);">9:23</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,7);">1Co 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,17);">2Co 4:17</a>).<P>3. Its Ethical Significance:<P>In all these cases it has a distinctly ethical signification, for it is the term which is used to describe the essential nature, the perfection of the Deity, and is shared by others because they are made partakers of the Divine nature. So Paul refers to "the glory of the incorruptible God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,23);">Ro 1:23</a>; compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,17);">Eph 1:17</a>f; and often). And the essential nature of Christ comes to be described in the same way. He has glory as of the only begotten of the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">Joh 1:14</a>); he shows His glory in the performance of miracles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',2,11);">Joh 2:11</a>); and like the Father, He is the Lord of glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',2,8);">1Co 2:8</a>).<P>As a verb in the Old Testament the most common signification of the word "glory" is, to make one\'s boast in or of anything, usually of the pious glorying in Yahweh (Yahweh), but occasionally with some other reference, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,23);">Jer 9:23</a> of man glorying in his riches, might or wisdom. In all these cases it represents the Hebrew hith-hallel. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,9);">Ex 8:9</a> the phrase, "Have thou this glory over me," is the translation of the Hebrew hith-pa\'er, and means take to thyself the honor or distinction as regards me. In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,10);">2Ki 14:10</a> it translates the Hebrew hik-kabhedh, "honor thyself," i.e. be satisfied with the home which you have already attained.<P>In the Apocryphal books it means either "glorify thyself," the middle voice of the verb doxazo, as in Sirach 3:10, where the original Hebrew has hith-kabbedh, or "to exult," "boast over," as in Judith 9:7, where it represents the Greek gauroomai; or "to boast," "take pride in," where it represents, as it does usually in the New Testament, the Greek kauchaomai (Sirach 17:9; 24:1; 38:25; 39:8; 48:4, in the second and fourth of which cases it represents the Hebrew hith-pa\'er).<P>In the New Testament the verb is used 3 times in James, and several times in the Epistles of Paul, and everywhere is used to translate the verb kauchaomai, or, in two cases in James, the same verb is compounded with the preposition kata. In all these cases the meaning is "to take pride in," "to congratulate oneself," upon anything.<P>In this connection attention may be called to the use of the noun "glorying," once or twice rendered "to glory," where the meaning is either the occasion or ground of glorying, or sometimes the act of glorying. The original has kauchema or kauchesis. This usage occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,16);">Jas 4:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',3,6);">Heb 3:6</a>, and several times in the Epistles of Paul.<P>LITERATURE.<P>In addition to the commentaries and works on Biblical theology among which, Briggs, ICC on the Psalms, Scribner, N.Y.,1906,especially the note in I,66,67; and Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, English translation, T. and S. Clark, Edinburgh, 1882-83, may be mentioned especially, the chief works on the subject are von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, Giessen, 1900; and Caspari, Die Bedeutungen der Wortsippe k-b-d im Hebraeischen, Leipzig, 1908. The discussions by G. B. Gray and J. Massie in HDB, II, are valuable, and also the brief but significant article by Zenos in the Standard Bible Dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls, N.Y., 1909.``13';
isbe[3837]='Glowing, Sand`glo\'-ing, (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',35,11);">Isa 35:11</A>).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MIRAGE">MIRAGE</a>`1';
isbe[3838]='Glutton; Gluttonous`glut\'-\'-n, glut\'-\'-n-us (zalal, "to be lavish"; phagos): "Glutton" (from glut, to swallow greedily) is the translation of zolel from zalal, "to shake or pour out," "to be lavish, a squanderer." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,20);">De 21:20</a>, "This our son...is a glutton, and a drunkard," the word may mean a squanderer or prodigal; the English Revised Version has "a riotous liver." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,21);">Pr 23:21</a>, "For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty" (following zole bhasar, "squanderers of flesh," the Revised Version (British and American) "gluttonous eaters of flesh"), "glutton" in the usual sense is intended; "a man gluttonous," "a gluttonous man" (the Revised Version) (phagos, "an eater," "a glutton") was a term applied to Christ in His freedom from asceticism (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,19);">Mt 11:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,34);">Lu 7:34</a>).<P>The Revised Version has "idle gluttons" (margin Greek, "bellies") for "slow bellies" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,12);">Tit 1:12</a>); "gluttonous" "gluttons," for "riotous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,20);">Pr 23:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',28,7);">28:7</a>).``185';
isbe[3839]='Gnash`nash (charaq; brugmos): "Gnash" is used of grinding or striking together the teeth in rage, pain or misery of disappointment. In the Old Testament it is the translation of charak, a mimetic word, and represents for the most part rage, anger, hatred (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,9);">Job 16:9</a>, "He gnasheth upon me with his teeth," the Revised Version (British and American) "hath gnashed upon me"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,16);">Ps 35:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,12);">37:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',112,10);">112:10</a>, grief; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',2,16);">La 2:16</a>, contempt or derision); brucho, "to gnash the teeth in rage," indicates anger, rage, Septuagint for charaq (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,54);">Ac 7:54</a>, of Stephen, "They gnashed on him with their teeth"). The several instances of brugmos, "gnashing," in the Gospels seem to express disappointment rather than anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,12);">Mt 8:12</a>,"there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth," the Revised Version (British and American) "the weeping and the gnashing of teeth"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,42,50);">Mt 13:42, 50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',22,13);">22:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,51);">24:51</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,30);">25:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,28);">Lu 13:28</a>—a vivid representation of the misery of disappointed expectations; compare Ecclesiasticus 30:10, "lest thou shalt gnash thy teeth in the end," gomphiazo, "to have the teeth set on edge"); trizo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,18);">Mr 9:18</a>), which means "to give out a creaking, grating sound," "to screak," is used in the New Testament (in the above instance only) to mean "to grate or gnash with the teeth," indicating the effect of a paroxysm, the Revised Version (British and American) "grindeth his teeth."``185';
isbe[3840]='Gnat`nat (in English Versions of the Bible, only in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,24);">Mt 23:24</a>, konops. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,16);">Ex 8:16</a>, for English Versions of the Bible "lice," one of the plagues of Egypt, kinnim, kinniym, or kinnam, we find in the Revised Version, margin "sand flies" or "fleas" (Gesenius "gnat"; Mandelkern "culex"). For kemo ken (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,6);">Isa 51:6</a>), English Versions of the Bible "in like manner," Septuagint hosper tauta, Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) sicut haec, the Revised Version, margin has "like gnats" since ken, elsewhere "thus," may here be taken to be a singular of the form kinnim, which occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,\'1-\');">Ex 8</a>): In the New Testament passage, the difference between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) should be noted. "Strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" is changed to "strain out the gnat and swallow the camel," the reference being to the inconsistency of the Jewish religious leaders in taking extraordinary pains in some things, as in the preparation of food, while leaving weightier matters unattended to.<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',51,6);">Isa 51:6</a>, the suggestion of the Revised Version, margin, "They that dwell therein shall die like gnats," seems a decided improvement on the "shall die in like manner" of English Versions of the Bible, especially as ken, "thus" (see supra), is a repetition of kemo, whose meaning is practically the same, "in like manner" being the rendering in English Versions of the Bible of kemo ken.<P>As to the creatures, kinnim, of the Egyptian plague, there is little choice between "lice" of English Versions of the Bible and the others suggested, except as we may be influenced by the Septuagint rendering, skniphes, which may mean "gnats" or "mosquitoes."`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FLEA">FLEA</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LICE">LICE</a>`37';
isbe[3841]='Gnosticism`nos\'-ti-siz\'-m:<P><b>I. GENERAL DEFINITION</b><P><b>II. SOURCES OF GNOSTICISM</b><P class="in15">1. Alexandrian Philosophy<P class="in15">2. Zoroastrianism<P><b>III. NATURE OF GNOSTICISM</b><P class="in15">Chief Points<P><b>IV. GNOSTICISM IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH</b><P class="in15">1. Colossians<P class="in15">2. 1 Corinthians: "Knowledge" at Corinth<P class="in15">3. Pastoral Epistles<P class="in15">4. 1 John<P class="in30">(1) Gnostic Claims<P class="in30">(2) Its Loveless Nature<P class="in30">(3) Docetism<P class="in30">(4) The Antichrist<P class="in30">(5) Its Antinomian Side<P class="in15">5. "To Know the Depths," Revelation<P><b>V. THE CHRISTIAN ANTITHESIS</b><P class="in15">1. God and the World<P class="in30">How Did the World Originate?<P class="in15">2. Evil<P class="in30">(1) Christian Doctrine of Sin<P class="in30">(2) Sin and the Moral Law<P class="in15">3. Christ and Redemption<P class="in15">4. Asceticism and Antinomianism<P><b>VI. HARNACK\'S VIEW OF GNOSTICISM</b><P><b>VII. INFLUENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF GNOSTICISM</b><P class="in15">1. Not a Heresy of the Humbler Classes<P class="in15">2. Cerinthus: His Teaching<P class="in15">3. The Gospel of John<P class="in15">4. Various Sects<P class="in30">(1) The Ophites<P class="in30">(2) Valentinus<P class="in30">(3) Basilides<P class="in30">(4) Saturninus<P class="in30">(5) Marcion<P class="in15">5. Relation to the Old Testament<P class="in15">6. The Christian Verities<P class="in15">7. Influence on Theology<P class="in15">8. Truth Underlying Docetism<P><b>VIII. MODERN GNOSTICISM</b><P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>Gnosticism—except perhaps in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,20);">1Ti 6:20</a>, where Paul warns Timothy against "the gnosis, which is falsely so called"—is not directly alluded to in the New Testament. Nevertheless its leaven was actually working, as will immediately be seen, and constituted a most serious peril in the apostolic church. "That strange, obscure movement, partly intellectual, partly fanatical...in the 2nd century spread with the swiftness of an epidemic over the church from Syria to Gaul" (Law, The Tests of Life, 26). It is therefore of high importance to gain a right conception of the nature of this potent anti-Christian influence. This is not easy. The difficulty in dealing with Gnosticism is that it was not a homogeneous system of either religion or philosophy, but embraced many widely diversified sects holding opinions drawn from a great variety of sources. "The infinitely varied shapes assumed by the systems render it almost impossible to classify them, or even to give an account of their leading ideas, which shall not be open to objection. We might as well try to classify the products of a tropical jungle, or the shapes and hues of the sunset clouds, which change under our view as we look at them" (Orr, The Progress of Dogma, 58).<P>I. General Definition.<P>On the general definition of Gnosticism a few authorities may be cited. "Gnosticism," says Dr. Gwatkin, "may be provisionally described as a number of schools of philosophy, oriental in general character, but taking in the idea of a redemption through Christ, and further modified in different sects by a third element, which may be Judaism, Hellenism, or Christianity...the Gnostics took over only the idea of a redemption through Christ, not the full Christian doctrine, for they made it rather a redemption of the philosophers from matter, than a redemption of mankind from sin" (Early Church History to AD 313, II, 20).<P>Dr. Orr writes, "Gnosticism may be described generally as the fantastic product of the blending of certain Christian ideas—particularly that of redemption through Christ—with speculation and imaginings derived from a medley of sources (Greek, Jewish, Parsic; philosophies; religions, theosophies, mysteries) in a period when the human mind was in a kind of ferment, and when opinions of every sort were jumbled together in an unimaginable welter. It involves, as the name denotes, a claim to \'knowledge,\' knowledge of a kind of which the ordinary believer was incapable, and in the possession of which \'salvation\' in the full sense consisted. This knowledge of which the Gnostic boasted, related to the subjects ordinarily treated of in religious philosophy; Gnosticism was a species of religious philosophy" (The Early Church, 71).<P>Neander has described Gnosticism as "the first notable attempt to introduce into Christianity the existing elements of mental culture, and to render it more complete on the hitherto rather neglected side of theoretical knowledge; it was an attempt of the mind of the ancient world in its yearning after knowledge, and in its dissatisfaction with the present, to bring within its grasp and to appropriate the treasures of this kind which christianity presented" (Antignostikus, Intro, 199).<P>Gnosticism accordingly comprehends in itself many previously existing tendencies; it is an amalgam into which quite a number of different elements have been fused. A heretical system of thought, at once subtle, speculative and elaborate, it endeavored to introduce into Christianity a so-called higher knowledge, which was grounded partly on the philosophic creed in which Greeks and Romans had taken refuge consequent on the gradual decay and breaking-up of their own religions, partly, as will be shown, on the philosophies of Plato and of Philo, and still more on the philosophies and theosophies and religions of the East, especially those of Persia and of India.<P>"For a long time the pagan beliefs had ceased to be taken seriously by thoughtful men and had been displaced by various creeds derived from philosophical speculation. These in themselves were abstract and unsatisfying, but had been partly vitalized by union with theosophies of the East. An attempt was made on the part of this philosophical religion to effect an alliance with Christianity. A section of the church was dissatisfied with the simplicity of the gospel, and sought to advance to something higher by adopting the current speculations...The late books of the New Testament are all occupied, more or less, with this movement, which was the more dangerous as it threatened the church from within" (Professor E. Scott, The Apologetic of the New Testament, 14).<P>Gnosticism, though usually regarded as a heresy, was not really such: it was not the perverting of Christian truth; it came, rather, from outside. Having worked its way into the Christian church, it was then heretical. "Although it became a corrupting influence within the church, it was an alien by birth. While the church yet sojourned within the pale of Judaism, it enjoyed immunity from this plague; but as soon as it broke through these narrow bounds, it found itself in a world where the decaying religions and philosophies of the West were in acute fermentation under the influence of a new and powerful leaven from the East; while the infusion of Christianity itself into this fermenting mass only added to the bewildering multiplicity of Gnostic sects and systems it brought forth" (Law, The Tests of Life, 26).<P>II. Sources of Gnosticism.<P>Mansel (in his work on The Gnostic Heresies, 32) sums up the principal sources of Gnosticism in these three, Platonism, the Persian religion, and the Buddhism of India. To Platonism it owed much of its philosophical form and tendencies. From the Dualism of the Per religion it derived its speculations regarding the origin of evil, and much of what it taught about emanations. To Buddhism, he thinks, it owed the doctrine of the antagonism between matter and spirit, and the unreality of derived existence—the germ of Docetism. Mansel also holds that there is the possibility that Gnosticism derived certain of its features from the Kabbala (qabbalah), or secret teaching of the Jews in the two books, the Cepher yetsirah, or Book of Creation, and the Zohar, or Book of Light. An influence of Buddhism on Gnosticism, however, may safely be doubted, as there is no reason to believe that the knowledge of Buddhist doctrine had so early penetrated into the West. The Jewish works named by Mansel are really products of the Middle Ages (Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 144-45). The other sources named were really influential. We notice two—the Alexandrian philosophy and the Parsic dualism.<P>1. Alexandrian Philosophy:<P>Alexandrian philosophy endeavored to unite Greek philosophy and Hebrew religion. Philo, the great Jewish commentator of Alexandria, had tried to interpret the ancient Jewish Scriptures by the aid of the Greek philosophy, to expound the Old Testament in terms of Plato\'s thought and to discover allegorical meanings where none were intended. In Philo\'s teaching there is a sharp line drawn between God and the material world: with him God cannot exert any action upon the world of matter, except through intermediate agency, the Jewish angels and the heathen demons. Philo has much to say in regard to the Logos. His utterances on this subject may be compared with what is said of the attributes of "Wisdom" in chapter <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,\'1-\');">8</a> of the Book of Proverbs, and also with the Logos or "Word" of the Gospel of John. With Philo, the Logos is the power of God, or the Divine reason endowed with energy, and embracing within itself all subordinate powers. The Logos is impersonal in its relations to God; and herein is one huge difference between Philo\'s conception and that in the gospel. Philo teaches that the Logos is the only firstborn of God, the chief of the angels, the viceroy of God, and representative of man.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=LOGOS">LOGOS</a>.<P>According to Philo the creation of the universe was a gradual molding out of matter; hence, arises evil. He also teaches the preexistence of the soul, which is now imprisoned in the flesh. The wise man, therefore, will break the thralldom of the flesh, and will rise by a sort of ecstasy to the immediate vision of God. It will be seen how much of this teaching was assimilated by the various Gnostic sects.<P>2. Zoroastrianism:<P>The Zoroastrian or Persian system was based on the assumption that there existed two original and independent powers of good and evil, of light and darkness, Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda), the wise Lord, and Ahriman (Angra-Mainyu), the wicked spirit. These powers were believed to be equal, and each supreme in his own domain. The earth, which was created by Ormuzd, became the battlefield of the two powers. Ahriman led away the first man and woman from their allegiance to Ormuzd, and so all evils result to mankind.<P>"In oriental (Persian) dualism," says Professor Bousset, "it is within this material world that the good and the evil powers are at war, and this world beneath the stars is by no means conceived as entirely subject to evil. Gnosticism has combined the two, the Greek opposition between spirit and matter, and the sharp Zoroastrian dualism, which, where the Greek mind conceived of a higher and a lower world, saw instead two hostile worlds standing in contrast to each other like light and darkness. And out of the combination of these two dualisms arose the teaching of Gnosticism with its thoroughgoing pessimism and its fundamental asceticism" ("Gnosticism," in Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition, XII, 154).<P>III. Nature of Gnosticism.<P>"Gnosticism," says Dr. Gwatkin, "is Christianity perverted by learning and speculation" (Early Church History 73). The intellectual pride of the Gnostics refined away the gospel into a philosophy. The clue to the understanding of Gnosticism is given in the word from which it is derived—gnosis, "knowledge." Gnosticism puts knowledge in the place which can only rightly be occupied by Christian faith. To the Gnostic the great question was not the intensely practical one, "What must I do to be saved from sin?" but "What is the origin of evil?" "How is the primitive order of the universe to be restored?" In the knowledge of these and of similar questions, and in the answers given to these questions, there was redemption, as the Gnostic understood it.<P>"These little Gnostic sects and groups all lived in the conviction that they possessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessible to those outside, which was not to be proved or propagated, but believed in by the initiated, and anxiously guarded as a secret. This knowledge of theirs was not based on reflection or scientific inquiry and proof, but on revelation. It was derived directly from the times of primitive Christianity, from the Saviour Himself and His disciples and friends, with whom they claimed to be connected by a secret tradition, or else from later prophets, of whom many sects boasted. It was laid down in wonderful mystic writings, which were in the possession of the various circles.<P>"In short, Gnosticism in all its various sections, its form and its character, falls under the category of mystic religions, which were so characteristic of the religious life of decadent antiquity. In Gnosticism, as in the other mystic religions, we find the same contrast of the initiated and the uninitiated, the same loose organization, the same kind of petty sectarianism and mystery-mongering. All alike boast a mystic revelation and a deeply veiled wisdom" (Bousset, op. cit., 153).<P>Chief Points in Gnosticism:<P>The questions, therefore, with which Gnosticism concerned itself were those of the relation of the finite and the infinite, the origin of the world and of evil, the cause, meaning, purpose and destiny of all things, the reason of the difference in the capacities and in the lot in life of individual men, the method of salvation. The following may be regarded as the chief points in the characteristics of the Gnostic systems:<P>(1). A claim on the part of the initiated to a special knowledge of the truth, a tendency to regard knowledge as superior to faith, and as the special possession of the more enlightened, for ordinary Christians did not possess this secret and higher doctrine.<P>(2) The essential separation of matter and spirit, the former of these being essentially evil, and the source from which all evil has arisen.<P>(3) An attempt at the solution of the problems of creation and of the origin of evil by the conception of a Demiurge, i.e. a Creator or Artificer of the world as distinct from the Supreme Deity, and also by means of emanations extending between God and the visible universe. It should be observed that this conception merely concealed the difficulties of the problem, and did not solve them.<P>(4) A denial of the true humanity of Christ, a docetic Christology, (which looked upon the earthly life of Christ and especially on His sufferings on the cross as unreal.<P>(5) The denial of the personality of the Supreme God, and the denial also of the free will of man.<P>(6) The teaching, on the one hand, of asceticism as the means of attaining to spiritual communion with God, and, on the other hand, of an indifference which led directly to licentiousness.<P>(7) A syncretistic tendency which combined certain more or less misunderstood Christian doctrines, various elements from oriental and Jewish and other sources.<P>(8) The Scriptures of the Old Testament were ascribed to the Demiurge or inferior Creator of the world, who was the God of the Jews, but not the true God. Some of these characteristic ideas are more obvious in one, and some of them in others of the Gnostic systems. The relation of these ideas to Christian facts and doctrines is dealt with more particularly below.<P>IV. Gnosticism in the Christian Church.<P>In the New Testament and the Apostolic Age.<P>The germ of Gnosticism in the Christian church made its appearance in the apostolic age, and is referred to by Paul in several of his epistles, notably in that to the Colossians and in the Pastoral Epistles. It is also referred to by the apostles Peter and Jude; references to it are found, besides, in the Apocalypse, the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John.<P>1. Colossians:<P>In col a great deal is said regarding a false teaching, an insidious theosophist doctrine, the teachers of which were alienating the Christians in Colosse from the gospel, and were disseminating their speculations, which led to the worship of angels in contrast to the worship of Christ, to esoteric exclusiveness wholly opposed to the universality of the gospel, and to an asceticism injurious to Christian freedom, and derogatory to the human body as indwelt by the Holy Ghost. These tenets are identical with the more fully developed Gnosticism of the generation succeeding that of the apostles; and at the root of the Colossian false teaching there lay the same error which the Gnostic mind had no way of meeting, namely, that there could be no connection between the highest spiritual agency, that is God, and gross corporeal matter.<P>From this theoretical basis arose another error—that as sin is inherent in the material substance of the body, therefore the only way by which perfection can be reached is to punish the body by asceticism, so that through the infliction of pain and the mortification of the flesh the region of pure spirit may be reached, and thus man may be etherealized and become like God. This ascetic tendency is wonderfully widespread; it reappears century after century, and shows itself in many forms of religion, not merely in distorted forms of Christianity, but in the Hindu religions, in Buddhism and elsewhere. In the Epistle to the Colossians, accordingly, there are definite references to ascetic practices which were inculcated by the false teachers at Colosse. The very terms which they employed have been preserved, "Touch not," "Taste not," "Handle not." It was in this way that these teachers had "at their own hand" invented a worship different from that of the Christian faith, which endeavored to attain the deliverance of the soul by "the neglecting of the body" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,21,23);">Col 2:21, 23</a> the King James Version). These Gnostic teachers showed these tendencies still more boldly when Paul wrote his First Epistle to Timothy (see below), for he describes them as "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,3);">1Ti 4:3</a>). These ascetic practices were afterward taught by various Gnostic sects, the Encratites, the followers of Saturninus, and others.<P>These tendencies in the Colossian church Paul set himself to correct in his epistle. The method which he adopts is not so much to demolish error, as to establish the contrary truth, setting before the Colossians the person and work of Christ, Christ the Creator, Christ in whom there dwells not merely some or even much of the fullness of God, but all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; Christ the God of providence, the Upholder of all things, in whom matter and all creatures and all events "consist" and have their being; Christ the Reconciler who has reconciled us unto God through the blood of the cross. In view of truths like these, Colossian error and all other forms of Gnosticism crumble into decay and vanish.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=COLOSSIANS,+EPISTLE+TO+THE">COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE</a>.<P>2. 1 Corinthians: "Knowledge" at Corinth:<P>The Epistle to the Colossians is the first of the Pauline Epistles in which distinctively Gnostic teaching is found in its attack upon the Christian faith. But from incidental notices in epistles of Paul written at an earlier period, it can be seen how congenial was the soil into which Gnostic teaching was about to fall. For even in Corinth when Paul wrote his First Epistle to the church there, there had been a claim on the part of some that they possessed "knowledge," as if others were destitute of it, a claim which the apostle refuses to admit, and meets with stern resistance. They thought themselves "wise," they were given to disputing, they professed that they "all had knowledge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,1);">1Co 8:1</a>), nay, they could "know all mysteries and all knowledge" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',13,2);">1Co 13:2</a>); but this knowledge did not edify them, did not build them up, it only puffed them up (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,1);">1Co 8:1</a>); it did not make them sympathetic or tender-hearted toward the weak (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,\'7-11\');">1Co 8:7-11</a>).<P>3. Pastoral Epistles:<P>In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,20,21);">1Ti 6:20-21</a> Paul speaks of the "knowledge (the gnosis) which is falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith." In other places in that epistle reference is made to tenets which are exactly those of Gnosticism. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,4);">1:4</A> the apostle speaks of "fables and endless genealogies, which minister questionings, rather than a dispensation of God which is in faith." Philo had given a great impetus to an allegorizing interpretation of the Old Testament. His writings were well known and were popular in many of the Jewish schools. These fanciful interpretations would hinder the growth of the Christian church; and this allegorizing of Scripture, joined to the teaching of the genealogies of the eons, would leave no place for a Redeemer. In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',4,3);">4:3</a>, as already noted, Paul describes ascetic practices which were regarded by their votaries as most meritorious. To abstain from marriage and from various kinds of food was the teaching of the Essenes and also of the Gnostics. This ascetic teaching was unnatural, as contrary to the constitution of the world, as that has been arranged by a holy and wise Creator, and it is also subversive of Christian liberty. Nothing can be esteemed common or unclean without throwing a reproach upon the Creator.<P>Antinomian Development.<P>But another and contrary result also followed from the principles of the sinfulness of matter and of redemption as deliverance from the flesh, namely, that there was an easier way of relief, by treating the soul and the body as separate entities which have nothing in common. Let the soul go its way on the wings of spiritual thought, while the body may indulge its fleshly desires. For, so it was held, as body and soul are entirely distinct in their nature, the spiritual cannot be defiled by anything, however carnal and gross, that the body can do. This was the antinomian development of Gnosticism. Many traces of this are apparent in the Pastoral Epistles and in 2 Peter and Jude. The Gnostics, against whom Paul warns Timothy, were "lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, rollers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed-up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,2,3,4);">2Ti 3:2-4</a>). Such, too, is the testimony borne regarding them by Ignatius (Law, The Tests of Life, 30):("they give no heed to love, caring not for the widow, the orphan or the afflicted, neither for those who are in bonds, nor for those who are released from bonds, neither for the hungry nor the thirsty." Such persons professed that they knew God, but by their works they denied Him; they were "abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,16);">Tit 1:16</a>). They enticed others into sins of impurity (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,5,6);">2Ti 3:5-6</a>). They allured others through the lusts of the flesh; and the means by which they succeeded in doing this was that they spoke great swelling words of vanity, and the end was that in their destroying of others they themselves also were surely destroyed (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,12,18);">2Pe 2:12, 18</a>). They were ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ; they gave themselves up to the sins of the flesh, and ran riotously after error in hope of a gain in money; they were sensual men, not having the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4,8,11,19);">Jude 1:4, 8, 11, 19</a>) The entire Epistle of Jude is directed against this antinomian and licentious development of Gnosticism, and against its terrible permission of an unholy life (see below on the Book of Revelation).<P>4. 1 John:<P>In the First Epistle of John there is a distinct polemical purpose. There is no book of the New Testament which is more purposeful in its attack of error. There is "the spirit of error" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,6);">1Joh 4:6</a>), opposing the Spirit of truth. "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,1);">1Joh 4:1</a>), and this from the church itself, "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,19);">1Joh 2:19</a>); and these false prophets are distinctly named "the antichrist" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,22);">1Joh 2:22</a>) and "the liar" (same place), and "the deceiver and the antichrist" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,7);">2Joh 1:7</a>). This peril, against which the apostle writes, and from which he seeks to defend the church, was Gnosticism, as is proved by what is said again and again in the epistle of the characteristics of this insidious and deadly teaching.<P>(1) Gnostic Claims.<P>The Gnostic claim to knowledge throws light upon many passages in this epistle. John refers to his opponents\' using such phrases as "I know God," "I abide in Christ," "I am in the light." These lofty claims were made by persons who did not love their brethren on earth, who did not walk in Christ\'s footsteps, and who were destitute of love. The apostle therefore describes these lofty claims as false, because those who made them possessed neither love nor obedience.<P>In contrast to these Gnostic claims—for those who made them were no other than the early Gnostics—John shows how the Christ of history is the Christ of experience: for those to whom he is writing know Christ, who is from the beginning, and they know the Father. "We know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,20);">1Joh 5:20</a>). This knowledge of God and communion with Him are attained, not by Gnostic speculation, but by the obedience of faith, the outcome of which is brotherly love and a life in which the Christian walks even as Christ did (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,6);">1Joh 2:6</a>). And thus also obedience and brotherly love are the test of the profession which any man may make that he knows God. "Every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him," (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,29);">1Joh 2:29</a>); "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Joh 3:10</a>).<P>(2) Its Loveless Nature.<P>Gnosticism was distinguished by an unethical, loveless intellectualism. This seems to be the explanation of the false teaching against which this epistle is directed. The apostle describes the dry head-knowledge which left the heart and life untouched by love, and which led men, while they professed to love God, nevertheless to remain destitute of love to their fellow-men. They did not fold their human brethren to their hearts, they were dead to the fact that where pity dwells, the love of God dwells also. In Gnosticism knowledge was in itself the supreme end and purpose of life, the sum of highest good to which a man could attain, the crown of life. The system was loveless to the core.<P>(3) Docetism.<P>Now, when the attempt was made to amalgamate these Gnostic ideas with the Christian faith, the inevitable result was Docetism. Just because God cannot have any immediate contact with matter, therefore the incarnation of Almighty God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ is inconceivable. From this position it is, of course, only a step to deny that the incarnation and the true human life of Christ ever took place at all.<P>(4) The Antichrist.<P>The Antichrist of the First Epistle of John is docetic Gnosticism. The soul of the apostle rushes onward, with glowing zeal for the honor of his Master whom Gnosticism dishonored, to identify personally the historical Jesus with the Divine Being, "the Son of God," "the Word of Life," "the Christ." "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,22,22);">1Joh 2:22-23</a>). It should be noted that the last clause in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,23);">1Joh 2:23</a>, which is printed in italics in the King James Version, is restored in the Revised Version (British and American) to its rightful position in the original text. "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,2,3);">1Joh 4:2-3</a>).<P>(5) Its Antinomian Side.<P>The antinomian side of Gnosticism is not so directly referred to in the First Epistle of John as Docetism is; but evidences are manifest that the apostle had it clearly before him. "Little children," he writes, "let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: he that doeth sin is of the devil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,7,8);">1Joh 3:7-8</a>). And these were the methods by which those deceivers endeavored to lead the members of the church astray. They alleged that sin was a thing indifferent in itself. It made no difference to the spiritual man whether he sinned with his body or not. It is for this reason that the apostle, in opposing those teachers, insists that "sin is lawlessness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,4);">1Joh 3:4</a>); "All unrighteousness is sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,17);">1Joh 5:17</a>); "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,9);">1Joh 3:9</a>); "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,10);">1Joh 3:10</a>). The whole passage presupposes, as familiar to its readers, a doctrine of moral indifferentism, according to which the status of the \'spiritual\' man is not to be tested by the commonplace facts of moral conduct" (The Tests of Life, 34).<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JOHN,+THE+EPISTLES+OF">JOHN, THE EPISTLES OF</a>.<P>5. "To Know the Depths": Revelation:<P>As time advanced, and the later books of the New Testament were written, Gnosticism assumed more of its distinctive peculiarities. "Those who had knowledge" regarded themselves as a superior order of believers. One of their phrases was "to know the depths" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,24);">Re 2:24</a> the King James Version), and this was valued far more highly than love and obedience. "From this language, we may, I think, infer the existence of an Ophite sect, boasting of its peculiar gnosis, before the date of the Apocalypse" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 105). The claim of the Ophites was that they alone knew "the depths." "Yes," is the apostle\'s reply to claims of this kind, "yes, the depths, but not of God, the depths of Satan"; for such is a just description of a teaching which ascribed the origin and the working of evil to God. It is in the light of Gnostic teaching of this sort that the meaning can be seen of the same apostle\'s language in his First Epistle, "And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>).<P>The Nicolaitans.<P>In the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse there are other references to Gnosticism. Who the Nicolaitans were (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,6,15);">Re 2:6, 15</a>) is not absolutely certain; but it is not unlikely that they were so called because of their having assumed the name of "Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,5);">Ac 6:5</a>). The first step to the reception of Gentile believers into the Christian church on an equal footing with the Jews may have been the appointment of Nicolaus as one of the first deacons, for the facts that he was a native of Antioch and a proselyte, show that he had been a heathen by birth. And it is noteworthy to find such a person appointed to office in the church at so very early a period, even before the conversion of the apostle Paul. The Nicolaitans therefore may have distorted in an antinomian sense the doctrine taught by Nicolaus, who in all probability proclaimed the liberty of the gospel, as his fellow-deacon, Stephen, did (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,\'1-\');">Ac 7</a> throughout). But the liberty claimed by the Nicolaitans was liberty to sin. They are mentioned in the Epistle to Ephesus, and their deeds are characterized as deeds which Christ hates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,6);">Re 2:6</a>). Their name occurs again in the Epistle to Pergamum, and there also their doctrine is described as a doctrine which the Lord hates (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,15);">Re 2:15</a>). Their teaching was one of licentiousness—eating things sacrifical to idols, and committing fornication (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,14);">Re 2:14</a>). Again in the Epistle to Thyatira, the Gnostics are spoken of as practicing the same evil courses, and as holding a doctrine of "the depths of Satan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',2,20,21,24);">Re 2:20-21, 24</a> the King James Version)—see above. The persons mentioned in the Epistle to Philadelphia were also evidently Gnostics. They are described as being "of the synagogue of Satan" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,9);">Re 3:9</a>).<P>"In the language of Jude, as in that of Peter, which it closely imitates, we may clearly discern a reference to the Gnostic sect of the Nicolaitans mentioned by name in Revelation. The comparison in all these passages, of the error condemned with that of Balaam, is decisive as to the identity of the persons intended. The other characteristics noted by Peter are also repeated by Jude—their denial of the Lord, their profligate lives, their contempt of government, and evil speaking of dignities and of things that they know not, their pollution of the feasts of charity, their great swelling words. The antinomian, no less than the ascetic side of Gnosticism, seems by this time to have fully manifested itself" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 71).<P>V. The Christian Antithesis.<P>The principal points of contrast between Gnosticism and Christian teaching in regard to leading doctrines will now be apparent, and can be briefly summarized.<P>1. God and the World:<P>According to the Gnostics, God is thought of as the ultimate, nameless, unknowable Being, of whom they speak as the "Abyss." He is perfect, but the material world is alien to the Divine nature. How then does it come to exist at all? What is the source of its imperfections and evils?<P>How Did the World Originate?<P>The Gnostic answer is that the pleroma or fullness of the Deity (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=FULLNESS">FULLNESS</a>) could flow out in no other way than in emanations or eons or angels, all of which are necessarily imperfect, the highest of these emanations or eons or angels being more spiritual than the grade immediately below it. Of these eons there is a gradation so numerous, that at length the lowest of them is almost wholly corporeal, the spiritual element having been gradually diminished or eliminated, until at last the world of man and of matter is reached, the abode of evil. In this way the gulf is bridged between God and the world of mankind. The highest eons approximate closely to the Divine nature, so spiritual are they and so nearly free from matter. These form the highest hierarchy of angels, and these as well as many other grades of the angelic host are to be worshipped.<P>In opposition to this view, Christian faith worships God as the free self-sufficient Creator, infinitely good and wise and powerful and holy, the Author of all things, and affirms creation as an incomprehensible fact revealed to faith, and which rises above the grasp of the understanding. "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,3);">Heb 11:3</a> the King James Version).<P>2. Evil:<P>The doctrine of evil follows directly from the above account of the relation of God to the world. According to Gnosticism the manifestation of God is possible only through self-limitation on His part, for in His essence God is the unfathomable Abyss. Through this Divine self-limitation are evolved, first, the Divine powers or attributes, which previously were hidden in the Abyss of His being. These Divine powers (the pleroma) become the principles of all further developments of life. Life continues to be unfolded in such a way that its successive grades sink farther and farther from the purity of God, the life is feebler the nearer they come to matter, with which, at length, they blend. Such, according to Gnosticism, is the origin of evil.<P>Whenever men are not content with acknowledging evil to be the act of their own free will, which has chosen to forsake its absolute dependence upon God; whenever they go beyond this and seek for another origin of evil, then one of two results follows. They either limit the holiness of God, and find the cause of evil in God Himself, thus annihilating all distinction between good and evil—which is Pantheism; or they limit the power of God by granting the existence of an eternal evil power beyond the control of God—which is Dualism. In avoiding Pantheism, Gnosticism accepted the dualistic solution, ascribing to evil an eternal self-subsistent nature, which is to make it absolute as God Himself is. As absolute self-subsistence can be affirmed of none but God, the eternally self-subsistent evil of Dualism must be God, which it cannot possibly be, because it is not good. Here is the self-contradiction on which Gnosticism was wrecked.<P>(1) The Christian Doctrine of Sin.<P>Directly contrary to this is the Christian doctrine, according to which evil is the refusal of the creature-will to lean absolutely and utterly on God, upon His care and love and upholding grace. Sin is that which ought not to be; it has no right to exist at all; it is defiance of God; it is moral transgression; its magnitude cannot be exaggerated. If it could, it would dethrone God. It has defied His righteousness and wisdom and holiness and even His grace. Sin therefore is dealt with by God in two ways, either by direct punishment or by redemption, in which provision is made for its removal by its being borne by the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.<P>The Gnostic idea of the origin of evil follows at once from, and is inseparably involved in, their dualistic interpretation of nature. The question "What is sin?" is no mere academic or philosophical discussion, in which one opinion may be as good as another. "Everything in Christianity is connected more or less directly with the great facts of Sin and Redemption; and the plan of Redemption, which is the essence of Christianity, cannot be rightly understood until the doctrine of Sin be adequately recognized and established. Here, certainly, if anywhere, Christian theology must fight pro aris et focis" (Julius Muller, quoted in Dr. Orr\'s Sin as a Problem of Today, 6).<P>(2) Sin and the Moral Law.<P>The universality of sin, its persistence, its gravity, its power to destroy and to deprave—these are facts which can hardly be exaggerated. To view sin aright, it is impossible to leave out of sight its relation to moral law, to God, and to His kingdom. Sin is the transgression of moral law; it is transgression also against a holy God, of whose character and will moral law is a transcript or reflection. "Sin is transgression against God, the substitution of the creature-will for the will of the Creator; revolt of the creature-will from God" (Sin as a Problem of Today, 7). It is the resolve of the will to make itself independent of God and to renounce His authority. Sin is self-will, false independence, freedom which ends in bondage and misery.<P>But in Gnosticism sin is something quite different; it is not the act and the disposition of the human will in rebellion against God; it is only a physical fact or quality inherent in the body and in matter everywhere. Redemption therefore does not consist in the work of Christ for us on the cross, and the applying of the benefits of that work by the Holy Spirit of God in the renewal of the moral nature of man. Redemption is simply each man\'s efforts to secure emancipation from the flesh—from physical evil.<P>3. Christ and Redemption:<P>It is easily seen that a system of this kind had no need of Christ and leaves no place for redemption in the Christian sense of that term. Redemption in this scheme of thought is not deliverance from sin, it is not removal of guilt and renewing of the mind. It is something quite different, and consists in the restoration of the cosmic order and illumination of the mind of the select few through knowledge. Christ is not the Saviour who saves His people from their sins, and who gives them unceasingly, through union with Himself, deliverance from the power of sin. He is only one of the eons, the highest of them. He is an originated being, and not God. There is thus no place in Gnosticism either for the creation of the universe by God, or for the incarnation and work of Christ. Once grant that matter is essentially evil, and there is excluded the possibility of Christ\'s having assumed a true human nature, simply for the one reason that the world and human nature are originally and necessarily evil. Thus, as already seen, we are landed in Docetism.<P>The Christology of the Gnostics accordingly assumed one of two types. "One class of early Gnostics separated the spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ entered Jesus at the time of His baptism, and left Him at the moment of His crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered as a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connection between the highest spiritual agency and gross corporeal matter, which was involved in the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of another type more effectually set aside by the doctrine of Docetism, i.e. by assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body, and not real flesh and blood. Irenaeus represents the former class as teaching that \'Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ,\' and that the Christ \'descended upon Him from heaven in the form of a dove, and after He had declared to mankind the nameless Father, entered again into the pleroma imperceptibly and invisibly.\' Here no names are given. But in another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however naming the pleroma, to Cerinthus" (Lightfoot, Col, 264). How strenuously this doctrine was combated in apostolic circles has already been shown in speaking of John\'s First Epistle.<P>4. Asecticism and Antinomianism:<P>The necessary consequence of the Gnostic theory in an ascetic morality which passed over by sure steps into antinomian license has likewise been fully illustrated in the foregoing, and need not be further enlarged on. The whole has its root in a false intellectualism, to which the gospel in its inculcation of humility, faith and dependence upon God\'s Spirit for guidance into truth is, in its inmost principle, opposed.<P>VI. Harnack\'s View of Gnosticism.<P>Harnack\'s view of Gnosticism differs from that now given in laying the chief emphasis on its Judeo-Hellenistic side. He describes well how, when Christianity appeared, an extensive spiritualizing or allegorizing of the Old Testament had already taken place. "This spiritualizing was the result of a philosophic view of religion, and this philosophic view was the outcome of a lasting influence of Greek philosophy, and of the Greek spirit generally, upon Judaism. In consequence of this view, all facts and sayings of the Old Testament in which one could not find his way, were allegorized. Nothing was what it seemed, but was only the symbol of something invisible. The history of the Old Testament was here sublimated to a history of the emancipation of reason from passion" (History of Dogma, I, 223). This allegorical interpretation disclosed to the mature mind a wealth of relations, of hints and of intuitions from the Old Testament, which to the uninitiated was only a dry record of fact. This view of the Old Testament gave its readers a strange interest, which proceeded to transfer their ancient Jewish hopes into the world of Greek philosophy, and transformed the result into a metaphysic. When these thinkers entered the Christian church, Christian hopes and terms were added to the already existing Judaic-Greek-Alexandrian compound, and such was Gnosticism. It represented the acute secularizing or Hellenizing of Christianity. The Gnostics "are therefore those Christians, who, in a swift advance, attempted to capture Christianity for Hellenic culture, and Hellenic culture for Christianity, and who gave up the Old Testament in order to facilitate the conclusion of the covenant between the two powers and make it possible to assert the absoluteness of Christianity" (p. 227).<P>Harnack indeed grants that there were other elements in Gnosticism, but he strongly asserts that the Greek element was the predominating one. In this he seems to us to be in error. Laying the chief emphasis on Hellenism, he fails to give the due and preponderating place to eastern dualism. As already seen, an eastern dualistic theosophy is the chief element in Gnosticism. This eastern source is also acknowledged by Harnack, but only as if it were subsidiary to Hellenism. As he regards it, "Gnosticism was an acute Hellenizing of Christianity" (p. 230).<P>In regard to the fundamental philosophic doctrines of Gnosticism, the indefinable nature of the Divine primeval Being, the sinfulness of matter, the fullness of God in eons, the Demiurge, etc., Harnack agrees generally with other writers, and adds, "All these are ideas for which we find the way prepared in the philosophy of the time, anticipated by Philo, and represented in neo-Platonism as the great final result of Greek philosophy" (p. 233).<P>VII. Influence and Development of Gnosticism.<P>Gnosticism is peculiarly the heresy of the 2nd century, and in itself a proof of the extent to which a knowledge of the Christian faith had, at that early period, penetrated in literary and philosophical circles. Though it is true that Christianity at first influenced chiefly the humbler classes, yet it was not among these persons that the various Gnostic heresies arose.<P>1. Not a Heresy of the Humbler Classes:<P>Gnosticism "was a product which did not spring up spontaneously in the minds of the mechanics and slaves and women and children, whom most, like Celsus, suppose to have formed the bulk of the Christian communities, but could only have taken its rise in minds of a more cultured and speculative cast. This, indeed, was its claim—to be a religion of gnosis (knowledge), for the more highly trained or elite. It could only exist at all, therefore, as the result of a Christian ferment which had entered these speculative circles, and was there powerfully at work. Baur rightly appreciates the situation, when he says: \'Gnosticism gives the clearest proof that Christianity had now come to be one of the most important factors in the history of the time, and it shows especially what a mighty power of attraction the new Christian principles possessed for the highest intellectual life then to be found either in the pagan or in the Jewish world.\' Above all, these systems are a striking witness to the impression produced on the heathen mind by the great Christian idea of redemption. \'When the Gnostic systems,\' says Neander, \'describe the movement which was produced in the kingdom of the Demiurge by the appearance of Christ as the manifestation of a new and mighty principle which had entered the precincts of this lower world, they give us to understand how powerful was the impression which the contemplation of the life of Christ and His influence on humanity, had left on the minds of the founders of these systems, making all earlier institutions seem to them as nothing in comparison with Christianity.\' We must beware, therefore, of underestimating either the extent or the intensity of this great intellectual ferment set up by the gospel in the heart of heathenism" (Orr, Neglected Factors, etc., 196).<P>2. Cerinthus: His Teaching:<P>The earliest of the Gnostics known to us by name is Cerinthus, the antagonist of the apostle John. It seems to be beyond reasonable doubt that these two encountered each other at Ephesus. Irenaeus relates on the authority of those who heard the story from Polycarp how the apostle and Cerinthus met in the public baths in that city. When John discovered that Cerinthus was in the same building with him, he instantly left, exclaiming that he could not remain while Cerinthus, the enemy of God and of man, was there. From the accounts which have been preserved of Cerinthus and of his teaching, it can be gathered that he taught that the world was created not by the Supreme God, but by an inferior power, and that he also taught a docetic theory of the Incarnation. Caius of Rome, a disciple of Irenaeus, records that Cerinthus held that there would be a millennium of unrestrained sensuality. Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 260 AD) more than confirms this. "Thus so far as they go, the historical data harmonize with the internal evidence of the Epistle (of John) itself, in giving the impression that the different tendencies it combats are such as were naturally combined in one consistently developed Gnostic system, and that the object of its polemic is, throughout, one and the same" (The Tests of Life, 37).<P>As regards the Gospel of John there is the testimony of Irenaeus, that it was written to oppose that form of Gnosticism which was taught by Cerinthus, and, before him, by the Nicolaitans. The nature of that heresy may be stated in the words of Irenaeus himself:<P>"A certain Cerinthus," he says, "in Asia, taught that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by some power altogether separate and distinct from that Sovereign Power which is over the universe, and one ignorant of the God who is over all things. He taught, moreover, that Jesus was not born of a virgin (for this seemed to him to be impossible), but was the son of Joseph and Mary, born after the manner of other men; though preeminent above other men in justice and prudence and wisdom; and that after His baptism the Christ, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him from that Sovereign Power which is over all things; and that He then announced the unknown Father and wrought miracles; but that, at the end, the Christ departed again from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and was raised from the dead, while the Christ continued impassible, as a spiritual being" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 74).<P>3. The Gospel of John:<P>Such a passage as <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,34,35);">Joh 19:34-35</a> seems to refer to docetic Gnosticism, and to be a personal protest against it. After describing the piercing of Christ\'s side by the soldier\'s spear, and how "straightway there came out blood and water," the apostle adds, "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." There are many other passages which seem to be directed against Docetism, e.g. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory)" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,14);">1:14</A>); "Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus by the well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,6);">4:6</A>); "Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,27);">20:27</a>).<P>Cerinthus seems to have taught that the religion of Christ was identical with undiluted Mosaism, including even circumcision and the earthly kingdom of the future. The Cerinthian theory, however, was held under various forms by its adherents, some teachers holding that the God of the Old Testament was, at the best, a subordinate angel of limited power, wisdom and goodness, and that the creation of the world was very imperfect. Others went so far as to identify the God of the Old Testament with Satan. The ethic of systems such as these was antinomian, sometimes even going the length of libertinism.<P>Generally, the forms under which Gnosticism appeared varied greatly in different periods. Some went farther than others from the Christian faith.<P>4. Various Sects:<P>Some communities, such as the Encratites, laid the greatest stress on the necessity for asceticism; other communities were wholly docetic; the Carpocratians taught the philosophy and communism of Plato. One of these teachers, Epiphanes, was honored as a god, and this sect crowned the image of Jesus along with those of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. Further, there were impostors of all varieties: magicians, soothsayers, jugglers, deceivers and hypocrites, "who appeared using mighty words with a host of unintelligible formulas and taking up with scandalous ceremonies in order to rob men of their money" (Harnack, op. cit., 239), and even for viler purposes.<P>(1) The Ophites.<P>Gnosticism, before reaching its full development, is chiefly represented by the Ophite sects or systems. These were so named from the word ophis, "serpent," to which they paid honor as the symbol of intelligence. They held that the Creator of the world was an ignorant and imperfect being, Ialdaboth, the Son of Chaos; and that it was a meritorious act when the serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to disobey him, There were several of the Ophite sects, such as the Cainites, who reversed all the standards of moral judgment, choosing as their heroes the persons whom the Bible condemned, such as Cain, the men of Sodom, Esau and Korah.<P>(2) Valentinus.<P>By the time of Justin Martyr (circa 150 AD), Gnosticism had become divided into a variety of sects and schools, Valentinians, Basilideans, Saturninians and Marcionites. In the Valentinian system, Christ and the Holy Spirit were two eons. The Valentinians granted that ordinary Christians were better than the heathen, and that they might look forward to a kind of salvation; even now ordinary Christians occupied a middle position, better than the "hylic" or "psychic," but inferior to the "pneumatic" or "spiritual," as the Gnostics termed themselves.<P>(3) Basilides.<P>The Basilideans take their name from Basilides of Alexandria, a man of powerful intellect. He and his son Isidore taught this system, which was afterward considerably modified for the purpose of popular apprehension. The world is continuously evolved from a pansperma or "seed of the world," in which all things were originally potentially contained. It is ruled by two great Archons, who yet subserve the designs of the Supreme. There are no eons, but the highest "light" descends through the successive spheres till it rests on Jesus of Nazareth. The process is complete when the Divine element ("sonship") is all drawn out and restored to God; oblivion then falls on lower intelligences. Many fine sayings are attributed to Basilides, e.g. "I will say anything rather than doubt the goodness of Providence" (Orr, The Early Church, 75).<P>(4) Saturninus.<P>The Saturninians were so called from Saturninus, said to be a disciple of Menander, who in turn is said to have been a disciple of Simon Magus. The system of Saturninus is marked both by a strong dualism and by a gloomy asceticism. He is also reported to have been one of the founders of the Encratite heresy, which condemned marriage. Tatian, Justin Martyr\'s disciple, became a member of this Gnostic sect, holding, it is alleged, the usual theory of eons, and that there was a Demiurge, who was not the Supreme God.<P>(5) Marcion.<P>Marcion, a native of Pontus, taught in Rome circa 140-55 AD. His system differs much from ordinary Gnostic theories, except that he absolutely distinguished between the God of the Old Testament, who is regarded as merely great, harsh, rigorous, and the good God of the New Testament, who is wholly love. He also held to the usual Gnostic dualism and docetism. Marcion\'s system has been described as an overstrained Paulinism, as he lays the stress on faith, not on knowledge. Marcion was the author of a book called the Anthitheses, which contrasted the Old Testament with the New Testament. He also drew up a canon of Scripture, which contained only one gospel, namely, Luke in a mutilated state, and ten Epistles of Paul. Marcion was a rigorous ascetic. In the Lord\'s Supper he allowed only water to be used instead of wine. The Marcionites refused baptism to married persons. This sect or "church" endured for several centuries.<P>5. Relation to the Old Testament:<P>"All the Gnostic systems had one feature in common, namely, that they regarded the Old Testament and the New Testament as revelations of two different Gods, and considered the mission of Christ to proceed from a higher power than the God of the Jewish religion, who was identified with the Demiurge, or Maker of the world. But under this common assumption there was room for two very opposite estimates of the older revelation and of the God whom it reveals. Some of the Gnostic sects regarded the Demiurge as being altogether alien from and opposed to the Supreme God; others considered him merely as a subordinate power, inferior but not hostile to the Supreme God, and acting before the coming of a more perfect revelation, as his unconscious organ" (Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, 45). "There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously hindered by the inability to organize and discipline churches, which is characteristic of all philosophic systems of religion" (Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 252). "From about 210 they ceased to be a factor of the historical development, though the church of Constantine and Theodosius was alone really able to suppress them" (ibid., 251).<P>6. The Christian Verities:<P>In contrast to Gnosticism the Christian church held fast to these great facts, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, preexistent before the Incarnation, and manifest in the flesh and crucified for us men and for our salvation; that He rose from the dead; that the Old Testament is a true revelation of the one supreme and holy God, the Creator of all things. Dualism, the eternity of matter and its inherent evil, as well as Docetism and oriental mythologies were accordingly rejected as contrary to the Christian faith.<P>7. Influence on Theology:<P>During the period of the prevalence of Gnosticism there took place the earlier developments of Christian theology. Gnosticism gave a powerful impetus to the formation of a New Testament canon of Scripture; and to the shaping of the earliest creed.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=APOSTLES\'+CREED.">APOSTLES\' CREED</a>.<P>8. Truth Underlying Docetism:<P>In the revulsion from Gnosticism and Docetism it should not be forgotten that there is truth to be found even amid the errors of these systems. Docetism was an over-statement of a great truth, an over-statement so large as to destroy the true humanity of our Lord. But the truth in Docetism is that the eternal Christ touches and appeals to and has a definite relationship to and actually influences every human heart; and also, that, to the Christian believer, Christ is more and does more than this; Christ dwells in the believer\'s heart by faith, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,27);">Col 1:27</a>). "Docetism was not all folly. Rather we may regard it as one primitive form of the assertion of that mystical element which has never been wanting to Christianity from the first days until now, and we may be sure, never will be wanting to it" (Sanday, Christologies Ancient and Modern, 9).<P>VIII. Modern Gnosticism.<P>Gnosticism in its ancient form has passed away, but it is interesting to observe how its spirit reappears from time to time in modern days. Gnosticism, as already seen, is not one aspect of thought alone, but many. And in one form or another it is seen again and again. For example, the modern denial of the virgin birth of our Lord is that form of Gnosticism which taught that the man Jesus became Christ only at His baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him from heaven.<P>Phases of Gnostic teaching are reproduced in modern pantheistic philosophies and other forms of religious doctrine, which hold that there has been no objective atonement and no resurrection of Christ from the dead. "Basilides with his powerful speculative grasp and all-embracing evolutionary process might be termed the Hegel of the movement; Valentinus with his robe of fantasy and triple fall and redemption was its Schelling; Marcion with his severe practical bent, his doctrine of faith, and his antitheses of the just God and the good, might without straining be termed its Ritschl" (Orr, The Progress of Dogma, 59).<P>"Fichte said, \'There were no external realities at all, they were the mere objectivity of the subject or creations of the inward eye\'; after Fichte came Schelling, and Schelling said, \'Then this creating eye is God\'s own eye\'; and after Schelling came Hegel, and Hegel said that \'God and man are one, and God all men, and all men God, and the whole universe God eternally thinking in the process of development,\' and that or something like it is Hegelianism. I feel in studying this philosophy, as Baron Humboldt says he felt, when he experienced the first shock of an earthquake. I feel a dreadful sense of restlessness and insecurity. The ground seems to give way beneath, and the earth and the heaven to dissolve, the universe becomes a dream, a myth" (W.B. Robertson, D.D., Martin Luther, German Student Life, etc., 138).<P>"Philosophy," says Mansel, "striving after a first principle which shall be one and simple and unconditioned and incapable of all further analysis in thought, is naturally tempted to soar above that complex combination of attributes which is implied in our conception of personality, and in endeavoring to simplify and purify our representation of the Divine nature, ends by depriving it of every attribute which can make God the object of any religious feeling or the source of any moral obligation" (The Gnostic Heresies, 11). God is no longer the author and source of goodness and truth and moral law, but the mind is occupied with the metaphysical relation between God and the world, as absolute and relative, cause and effect, principle and consequence, and God becomes identical with the world.<P>It is easily seen how teaching of this sort strikes at the root of all religion and morality. The personality of God, the personality and free will of man, the existence of moral evil, the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the redemption which He accomplished for the world, His resurrection, the whole significance of His person and His work—all is denied. This is the spirit and the meaning of Gnosticism.<P>Dr. Gwatkin sums up the matter thus: "Gnosticism undermined Christian monotheism by its distinction of the Creator from the Supreme, Christian morals by its opposition of the philosopher to the unlearned, Christian practice by its separation of knowledge from action; and it cut away the very basis of the gospel whenever it explained away its history. In every case it had got hold of truth on one side—the reality of evil in the world, the function of knowledge in religion, the difference between the letter and the spirit; but fragments of truth are not enough for a gospel, which is false if all truth is not summed up in Christ. Therefore, there could be no peace between the Gnostic illuminati and the Christian churches" (Early Church History, II, 68). LITERATURE.<P>Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism; Neander, Church History, Antignostikus; Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age; Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of Paul, Colossians, Philippians; Gwatkin, Early Church History to 313 AD, II; W. Bousset, article "Gnosticism," Encyclopedia Brit, 11th edition; Harnack, History of Dogma, I (English translation); Orr, Neglected Factors in the Study of the Early Progress of Christianity, Sin as a Problem of Today, The Progress of Dogma, The Early Church; Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies; Robert Law, B.D., The Tests of Life.``155';
isbe[3842]='Go`(halakh, yalakh, bo\', yatsa\'; ago, hupago, anabaino, erchomi, aperchomai, poreuomai): "Go" ("went," etc.) occurs very frequently in the English Bible, and is the translation of a great many different Hebrew and Greek terms. As the word implies movement of all kinds, physical and mental, it has naturally many applications.<P>1. In the Old Testament:<P>In the Old Testament halakh and yalakh are among the commonest words, meaning "to go" in its original sense of "to walk," but also in the most varied senses, according to the verbal conjugations, etc., the preposition attached, and the words in connection with which the terms stand; halakh and yalakh are often used figuratively (translated "to walk," etc.) for to live, to pursue a way of life, e.g. "to walk ever in his ways" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,9);">De 19:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',15,2);">Ps 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,30);">89:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,3);">1Ki 2:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,3);">3:3</a>, etc.); to die, "He departed (Hebrew "went") without being desired" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',21,20);">2Ch 21:20</a>); bo\', properly "to go in," "to enter" (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,9);">Ge 7:9</a>), is very common, and yatsa\', "to go or come out," also occurs frequently; yatsa\', has frequently the meaning "to go forth," e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',8,7);">Ge 8:7</a>, "He sent forth a raven, and it went forth." Other frequent words are yaradh, "to go down" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,7);">Ge 11:7</a>, etc.); \'alah, "to go or come up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,6);">Ge 2:6</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',15,5);">Isa 15:5</a>, "go it up," the King James Version); used also figuratively, e.g. "to rise up or excel" "Thou excellest them all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',31,29);">Pr 31:29</a>), "to come up on the nears," to be remembered, "The former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',65,17);">Isa 65:17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,16);">Jer 3:16</a>); \'abhar, "to go or pass over," "to cross" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,46);">Ge 41:46</a>, etc.), also used figuratively "to pass away," e.g. "as chaff that passeth away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',29,5);">Isa 29:5</a>), \'passeth by transgression\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,18);">Mic 7:18</a>); shubh, "to go again" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',43,2);">Ge 43:2</a>, etc.); satah and cur, "to go aside," occur several times with the meaning of wrongdoing (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,12);">Nu 5:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,14);">De 28:14</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "turn aside"); nasa\', "to remove" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,15);">Ex 14:15</a>), "Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,19);">Ex 14:19</a> "removed"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,24);">Nu 2:24</a> etc.); \'azal (Aramaic), "to go away or about" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',4,23);">Ezr 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,17);">Da 2:17</a>, etc.). Many other words occur only once or twice, e.g. \'arach, "to travel" Job (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,8);">34:8</a>); \'ashar, "to go straight or right" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',4,14);">Pr 4:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',9,6);">9:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "walk"); darakh, "to tread" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',59,8);">Isa 59:8</a>); dadhah, "to go softly" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,4);">Ps 42:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',38,15);">Isa 38:15</a>, the Revised Version, margin "as in solemn procession"); raghal, "to stir" "to move" "I taught Enhraim to go" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,3);">Ho 11:3</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "to walk").<P>The obsolete expression "go to" (derived from Tyndale) is the translation of yahabh in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,3,4,7);">Ge 11:3-4, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,16);">38:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',1,10);">Ex 1:10</a>, "come on," the Revised Version (British and American) "come"; of bo\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,5);">2Ki 5:5</a> the Revised Version (British and American)), "go now"; na\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',7,3);">Jud 7:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,5);">Isa 5:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,11);">Jer 18:11</a>, omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)).<P>2. In the New Testament:<P>In the New Testament anabaino is "to go up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,16);">Mt 3:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,1);">5:1</a>, etc.); erchomai, "to go on" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,9);">Mt 12:9</a>, etc.); aperchomai, "to go off or away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,22);">Mt 2:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,24);">4:24</a>, etc.); poreuomai, "to go or pass on" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',2,8,20);">Mt 2:8, 20</a>, etc.); hupago, "to go away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,41);">Mt 5:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,32);">8:32</a>, etc.). We have also other combinations with different shades of meaning, e.g. huperbaino, "to go over or beyond" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,6);">1Th 4:6</a>); eiserchomai, "to go into" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,13);">Mt 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,11);">15:11</a>, etc.); proporeuomai, "to go before" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,76);">Lu 1:76</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',7,40);">Ac 7:40</a>), and other forms; ago (agomen), "Let us go" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,46);">Mt 26:46</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,31);">Joh 14:31</a>, etc.); age is rendered "go to" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,13);">Jas 4:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,1);">5:1</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) "come."<P>"Go about (to)" the King James Version is the translation of zeteo, "to seek," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',7,19);">Joh 7:19</a>, "Why go ye about to kill me?" the Revised Version (British and American) "Why seek ye?" and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,3);">Ro 10:3</a>; of peirazo, "to try," "attempt" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',24,6);">Ac 24:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "assayed"), and of peiraomai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,21);">26:21</A>, the Revised Version (British and American) "assayed"), of epicheireo "to lay hands on" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,29);">Ac 9:29</a>), which remains in the English Revised Version unchanged, the American Standard Revised Version "seeking"; "to let go" is the translation of apoluo "to loose off" or "away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',14,4);">Lu 14:4</a>, etc.), "to go astray," of planao (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,12);">Mt 18:12</a>, etc.).<P>Various other words occurring singly are translated by forms of "go," e.g. phero, "to bear on," the King James Version "Let us go on unto perfection" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,1);">Heb 6:1</a>, see below); epiduo, "to go in upon," "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,26);">Eph 4:26</a>).<P>Among the many changes in the Revised Version (British and American) are the following: For "go," <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,26);">Ex 4:26</a>, "alone"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,7);">Le 9:7</a>, "draw near"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',2,31);">Nu 2:31</a>, "set forth"; 16:46, "carry it"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',11,15);">Isa 11:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',27,4);">27:4</a>, "march"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,4);">Mt 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,11);">Joh 8:11</a>, "Go your way"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,7);">Lu 17:7</a>, "Come straightway"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,25);">18:25</A>, "enter in"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',21,3);">Joh 21:3b</a>, "come." "Go" is substituted for "pass" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">Ex 12:12</a>), "came" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,4);">Ex 13:4</a>), "away" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,24);">Ex 19:24</a>), "be put" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,12);">Le 6:12</a>), "enter" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,23);">Job 34:23</a>), "return" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',1,7);">Ec 1:7</a>), "come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,2);">Mic 4:2</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,18,19);">Zec 14:18-19</a>), "should be cast" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,30);">Mt 5:30</a>); "if I go up" for "I will come up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,5);">Ex 33:5</a>); "make to go forth" for "bring forth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,6);">Ps 37:6</a>); "let them go" for "gave them up" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,12);">Ps 81:12</a>). For the phrase, "go a whoring," the American Standard Revised Version has "play the harlot" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,15);">Ex 34:15</a>f; etc., "commit fornication"); for "go about even now" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,21);">De 31:21</a>, the American Standard Revised Version), "frame this day"; for "go well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,29);">Pr 30:29</a>), "are stately in their march"; for "suffer us to go" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,31);">Mt 8:31</a>), "send us" (a different text); for "not to think of men above that which is written" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',4,6);">1Co 4:6</a>), "not (to go) beyond the things which are written"; for "that no man go beyond" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',4,6);">1Th 4:6</a>), "transgress," margin "overreach"; for "Let us go on unto perfection" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,1);">Heb 6:1</a>), the English Revised Version "and press," the American Standard Revised Version "Let us press on unto perfection."``185';
isbe[3843]='Goad`god (dorebhan, malmadh; kentron): The goad used by the Syrian farmer is usually a straight branch of oak or other strong wood from which the bark has been stripped, and which has at one end a pointed spike and at the other a flat chisel-shaped iron. The pointed end is to prod the oxen while plowing. The flattened iron at the other end is to scrape off the earth which clogs the plowshare. The ancient goad was probably similar to this instrument. It could do villainous work in the hands of an experienced fighter (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,31);">Jud 3:31</a>). If <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',13,21);">1Sa 13:21</a> is correctly translated, the goads were kept sharpened by files.<P>Figurative: "The words of the wise are as goads" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,11);">Ec 12:11</a>). The only reference to goads in the New Testament is the familiar passage, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',26,14);">Ac 26:14</a>). It was as useless for Saul to keep on in the wrong way as for a fractious ox to attempt to leave the furrow. He would surely be brought back with a prick of the goad.``133';
isbe[3844]='Goah; Goath`go\'-a, go\'-ath (go\'ah; the King James Version; Septuagint reads ex eklekton lithon): A place named in describing the boundaries of Jerusalem as restored in the "days to come" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,39);">Jer 31:39</a>). If Gareb is the northeast hill, then probably Goah is to be identified with the northwest hill, which is called by Josephus "the camp of the Assyrians" (BJ, V, vii, 3; xii, 2).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM,+1">JERUSALEM</a>`1';
isbe[3845]='Goat`got:<P>1. Names:<P>The common generic word for "goat" is \'ez (compare Arabic \'anz, "she-goat"; aix), used often for "she-goat" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,9);">Ge 15:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,27);">Nu 15:27</a>), also with gedhi, "kid," as gedhi \'izzim, "kid of the goats" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',38,17);">Ge 38:17</a>), also with sa\'ir, "he-goat," as se\'ir \'izzim, "kid of the goats" or "he-goat," or translated simply "kids," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',20,27);">1Ki 20:27</a>, "The children of Israel encamped before them like two little flocks of kids." Next, frequently used is sa\'ir, literally, "hairy" (compare Arabic sha\'r, "hair"; cher, "hedgehog"; Latin hircus, "goat"; hirtus, "hairy"; also German Haar; English "hair"), like \'ez and \'attudh used of goats for offerings. The goat which is sent into the wilderness bearing the sins of the people is sa\'ir (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,\'7-22\');">Le 16:7-22</a>). The same name is used of devils (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',17,7);">Le 17:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',11,15);">2Ch 11:15</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "he-goats") and of satyrs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,21);">Isa 13:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',34,14);">34:14</a>, the Revised Version, margin "he-goats," the American Standard Revised Version "wild goats"). Compare also se\'irath \'izzim, "a female from the flock" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,28);">Le 4:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,6);">5:6</a>). The male or leader of the flock is \'attudh; Arabic \'atud, "yearling he-goat"; figuratively "chief ones" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,9);">Isa 14:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,8);">Jer 50:8</a>). A later word for "he-goat," used also figuratively, is tsaphir (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',29,21);">2Ch 29:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,35);">Ezr 8:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,5,8,21);">Da 8:5, 8, 21</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,31);">Pr 30:31</a>, one of the four things "which are stately in going" is the he-goat, tayish (Arabic tais, "he-goat"), also mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,35);">Ge 30:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,14);">32:14</a> among the possessions of Laban and Jacob, and in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',17,11);">2Ch 17:11</a> among the animals given as tribute by the Arabians to Jehoshaphat. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,12,13,19);">Heb 9:12-13, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',10,4);">10:4</a>, we have tragos, the ordinary Greek word for "goat"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,32,33);">Mt 25:32-33</a>, eriphos, and its diminutive eriphion; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,37);">Heb 11:37</a> derma aigeion, "goatskin," from aix (see supra). "Kid" is gedhi (compare En-gedi (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,29);">1Sa 23:29</a>), etc.), feminine gedhiyah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,8);">So 1:8</a>), but also \'ez, gedhi \'izzim, se\'-ir \'izzim, se\'ir \'izzim, se\'irath \'izzim, bene \'izzim, and eriphos. There remain ya\'el (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',24,2);">1Sa 24:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,1);">Job 39:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,18);">Ps 104:18</a>), English Versions of the Bible "wild goat"; ya\'alah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',5,19);">Pr 5:19</a>), the King James Version "roe," the Revised Version (British and American) "doe"; \'aqqo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a>), English Versions of the Bible "wild goat"; and zemer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a>), English Versions of the Bible "chamois."<P>2. Wild Goats:<P>The original of our domestic goats is believed to be the Persian wild goat or pasang, Capra aegagrus, which inhabits some of the Greek islands, Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, and Northwestern India. It is called wa\'l (compare Hebrew ya\'el) by the Arabs, who in the north apply the same name to its near relative, the Sinaitic ibex, Capra beden. The last, doubtless the "wild goat" (ya\'el) of the Bible, inhabits Southern Palestine, Arabia, Sinai, and Eastern Egypt, and within its range is uniformly called beden by the Arabs. It is thought by the writer that the "chamois" (zemer) of <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,5);">De 14:5</a> may be the Persian wild goat. The word occurs only in this passage in the list of clean animals. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CHAMOIS">CHAMOIS</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DEER">DEER</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOOLOGY">ZOOLOGY</a>. Wild goats are found only in Southern Europe, southwestern Asia, and northeastern Africa. They include the well-known, but now nearly extinct, Alpine ibex, steinbok, or bouquetin, the markhor, and the Himalayan ibex, which has enormous horns. The so-called Rocky Mountain goat is not properly a goat, but is an animal intermediate between goats and antelopes.<P>3. Domestic Goats:<P>Domestic goats differ greatly among themselves in the color and length of their hair, in the size and shape of their ears, and in the size and shape of their horns, which are usually larger in the males, but in some breeds may be absent in both sexes. A very constant feature in both wild and domestic goats is the bearded chin of the male. The goats of Palestine and Syria are usually black (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',4,1);">So 4:1</a>), though sometimes partly or entirely white or brown. Their hair is usually long, hanging down from their bodies. The horns are commonly curved outward and backward, but in one very handsome breed they extend nearly outward with slight but graceful curves, sometimes attaining a span of 2 ft. or more in the old males. The profile of the face is distinctly convex. They are herded in the largest numbers in the mountainous or hilly districts, and vie with their wild congeners in climbing into apparently impossible places. They feed not only on herbs, but also on shrubs and small trees, to which they are most destructive. They are largely responsible for the deforested condition of Judea and Lebanon. They reach up the trees to the height of a man, holding themselves nearly or quite erect, and even walk out on low branches.<P>4. Economy:<P>Apart from the ancient use in sacrifice, which still survives among Moslems, goats are most valuable animals. Their flesh is eaten, and may be had when neither mutton nor beef can be found. Their milk is drunk and made into cheese and semn, a sort of clarified butter much used in cooking. Their hair is woven into tents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,5);">So 1:5</a>), carpets, cloaks, sacks, slings, and various camel, horse and mule trappings. Their skins are made into bottles (no\'dh; Greek askos; Arabic qirbeh) for water, oil, semn, and other liquids (compare also <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,37);">Heb 11:37</a>).<P>5. Religious and Figurative:<P>Just as the kid was often slaughtered for an honored guest (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,19);">Jud 6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,19);">13:19</a>), so the kid or goat was frequently taken for sacrifice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',4,23);">Le 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',9,15);">9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,7);">16:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',15,24);">Nu 15:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',8,35);">Ezr 8:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',45,23);">Eze 45:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',9,12);">Heb 9:12</a>). A goat was one of the clean animals (seh \'izzim, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',14,4);">De 14:4</a>). In Daniel, the powerful king out of the West is typified as a goat with a single horn (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,5);">8:5</a>). One of the older goats is the leader of the flock. In some parts of the country the goatherd makes different ones leaders by turns, the leader being trained to keep near the goat-herd and not to eat so long as he wears the bell. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,9);">Isa 14:9</a>, ".... stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth," the word translated "chief ones" is \'attudh, "he-goat." Again, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',50,8);">Jer 50:8</a>, we have "Go forth out of the land of the Chaldeans, and be as the he-goats before the flocks." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,32);">Mt 25:32</a>, in the scene of the last judgment, we find "He shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats." It is not infrequent to find a flock including both goats and sheep grazing over the mountains, but they are usually folded separately.``37';
isbe[3846]='Goats\' Hair` (\'ez): The word for she-goat is used elliptically to mean goats\' hair, which was used in the tabernacle furnishings in the form of curtains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',26,7);">Ex 26:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,14);">36:14</a>). Goats\' hair was probably used in the Midianite and Israelite camps in much the same way as in the Bedouin camps today (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,20);">Nu 31:20</a>). The tents, tent ropes and rugs are made of spun goats\' hair. The provision sacks which hold wheat, rice, etc., and the saddlebags are made of the same material. A strip of the cloth rolled up furnishes a bolster for the head while sleeping (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,13,16);">1Sa 19:13, 16</a>). Goats\' hair cloth is admirably suited to stand the hard usage of a frequently shifting encampment. The children of Israel appreciated its utility, even for the tabernacle, where to the modern critical eye it would have looked out of place, matched against scarlet and fine linen (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,4);">Ex 25:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',35,6,26);">35:6, 26</a>). The fact that goats\' hair was used is good indication of the comparative crudeness of the tabernacle, when contrasted with present-day furnishings.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HAIR">HAIR</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=WEAVING">WEAVING</a>`133';
isbe[3847]='Goatskins`got\'-skinz (en aigeiois dermasin): Such skins are mentioned only once (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,37);">Heb 11:37</a>), where the wearing of goatskins, indicating extreme poverty, is referred to, by implication, as the possible lot of the faithful Christian, even as it had been of others. Ascetics of different religions, especially of the Moslem sects, are frequently seen going about Syria and Palestine today, clad in sheepskins or goatskins, a sign of their renunciation of all things worldly.``1';
isbe[3848]='Gob`gob (gobh): A place mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,18);">2Sa 21:18</a>f as the scene of two of David\'s battles with the Philistines. The name appears here only. In the parallel passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,4);">1Ch 20:4</a>, it is called Gezer (compare Ant, VII, xii, 2). Certain texts read "Nob" for "Gob," while Syriac and Septuagint read "Gath." The latter is probably correct.``1';
isbe[3849]='Goblet`gob\'-let (\'aggan): A bowl or basin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',7,2);">So 7:2</a>), the only place where the word is used. \'Aggan is used in the plural in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,6);">Ex 24:6</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',22,24);">Isa 22:24</a>, and is translated "basins" and "cups." These "basins" were used to hold the blood of the sacrifices and must have been of moderate size. The "cups" were bowl-shaped vessels and belonged evidently to the smaller class of vessels used in a house.``1';
isbe[3850]='God, 1`god (\'Elohim, \'El, [\'Elyon], Shadday, Yahweh; Theos):<P><b>I. INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL IDEA</b><P>1. The Idea in Experience and in Thought<P>2. Definition of the Idea<P>3. The Knowledge of God<P>4. Ethnic Ideas of God<P class="in15">(1) Animism<P class="in15">(2) Fetishism<P class="in15">(3) Idolatry<P class="in15">(4) Polytheism<P class="in15">(5) Henotheism<P class="in15">(6) Pantheism<P class="in15">(7) Deism<P class="in15">(8) Semitic Monolatry<P class="in15">(9) Monotheism<P><b>II. THE IDEA OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P>1. The Course of Its Development<P>2. Forms of Its Manifestation<P class="in15">(1) The Face or Countenance of God<P class="in15">(2) The Voice and Word of God<P class="in15">(3) The Glory of God<P class="in15">(4) The Angel of God<P class="in15">(5) The Spirit of God<P class="in15">(6) The Name of God<P class="in15">(7) Occasional Forms<P>3. The Names of God<P class="in15">(1) Generic<P class="in15">(2) Attributive<P class="in15">(3) Yahweh<P>4. Pre-prophetic Conceptions of God<P class="in15">(1) Yahweh Alone Is the God of Israel<p class="in30">(a) His Early Worship<p class="in30">(b) Popular Religion<p class="in30">(c) Polytheistic Tendencies<p class="in60">(i) Coordination<p class="in60">(ii) Assimilation<p class="in60">(iii) Disintegration<p class="in30">(d) No Hebrew Goddesses<p class="in30">(e) Human Sacrifices<P class="in15">(2) Nature and Character of Yahweh<p class="in30">(a) A God of War<p class="in30">(b) His Relation to Nature<P class="in15">(3) Most Distinctive Characteristics of Yahweh<p class="in30">(a) Personality<p class="in30">(b) Law and Judgment<P>5. The Idea of God in the Prophetic Period<P class="in15">(1) Righteousness<P class="in15">(2) Holiness<P class="in15">(3) Universality<P class="in15">(4) Unity<P class="in15">(5) Creator and Lord<P class="in15">(6) Compassion and Love<P>6. The Idea of God in Post-exilic Judaism<P class="in15">(1) New Conditions<P class="in15">(2) Divine Attributes<P class="in15">(3) Surviving Limitations<p class="in30">(a) Disappearing Anthropomorphism<p class="in30">(b) Localization<p class="in30">(c) Favoritism<p class="in30">(d) Ceremonial Legalism<P class="in15">(4) Tendencies to Abstractness<p class="in30">(a) Transcendence<p class="in30">(b) Skepticism<p class="in30">(c) Immanence<P class="in15">(5) Logos, Memra\', and Angels<P><b>III. THE IDEA OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><P>1. Dependence on the Old Testament<P>2. Gentile Influence<P>3. Absence of Theistic Proofs<P>4. Fatherhood of God<P class="in15">(1) In the Teaching of Jesus Christ<p class="in30">(a) Its Relation to Himself<p class="in30">(b) To Believers<p class="in30">(c) To All Men<P class="in15">(2) In Apostolic Teaching<p class="in30">(a) Father of Jesus Christ<p class="in30">(b) Our Father<p class="in30">(c) Universal Father<P>5. God Is King<P class="in15">(1) The Kingdom of God<P class="in15">(2) Its King<p class="in30">(a) God<P class="in30">(b) Christ<p class="in30">(c) Their Relation<P class="in15">(3) Apostolic Teaching<P>6. Moral Attributes<P class="in15">(1) Personality<P class="in15">(2) Love<P class="in15">(3) Righteousness and Holiness<P>7. Metaphysical Attributes<P>8. The Unity of God<P class="in15">(1) The Divinity of Christ<P class="in15">(2) The Holy Spirit<P class="in15">(3) The Church\'s Problem<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introduction to the General Idea.<P>1. The Idea in Experience and in Thought:<P>Religion gives the idea of God, theology construes and organizes its content, and philosophy establishes its relation to the whole of man\'s experience. The logical order of treating it might appear to be, first, to establish its truth by philosophical proofs; secondly, to develop its content into theological propositions; and finally, to observe its development and action in religion. Such has been the more usual order of treatment. But the actual history of the idea has been quite the reverse. Men had the idea of God, and it had proved a creative factor in history, long before reflection upon it issued in its systematic expression as a doctrine. Moreover, men had enunciated the doctrine before they attempted or even felt any need to define its relation to reality. And the logic of history is the truer philosophy. To arrive at the truth of any idea, man must begin with some portion of experience, define its content, relate it to the whole of experience, and so determine its degree of reality.<P>Religion is as universal as man, and every religion involves some idea of God. Of the various philosophical ideas of God, each has its counterpart and antecedent in some actual religion. Pantheism is the philosophy of the religious consciousness of India. Deism had prevailed for centuries as an actual attitude of men to God, in China, in Judaism and in Islam, before it found expression as a rational theory in the philosophy of the 18th century Theism is but the attempt to define in general terms the Christian conception of God, and of His relation to the world. If pluralism claims a place among the systems of philosophy, it can appeal to the religious consciousness of that large portion of mankind that has hitherto adhered to polytheism.<P>But all religions do not issue in speculative reconstructions of their content. It is true in a sense that all religion is an unconscious philosophy, because it is the reaction of the whole mind, including the intellect, upon the world of its experience, and, therefore, every idea of God involves some kind of an explanation of the world. But conscious reflection upon their own content emerges only in a few of the more highly developed religions. Brahmanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the only religions that have produced great systems of thought, exhibiting their content in a speculative and rational form. The religions of Greece and Rome were unable to survive the reflective period. They produced no theology which could ally itself to a philosophy, and Greek philosophy was from the beginning to a great extent the denial and supersession of Greek religion.<P>Biblical literature nearly all represents the spontaneous experience of religion, and contains comparatively little reflection upon that experience. In the Old Testament it is only in Second Isaiah, in the Wisdom literature and in a few Psalms that the human mind may be seen turning back upon itself to ask the meaning of its practical feelings and beliefs. Even here nothing appears of the nature of a philosophy of Theism or of religion, no theology, no organic definition and no ideal reconstruction of the idea of God. It never occurred to any Old Testament writer to offer a proof of the existence of God, or that anyone should need it. Their concern was to bring men to a right relation with God, and they propounded right views of God only in so far as it was necessary for their practical purpose. Even the fool who "hath said in his heart, There is no God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',14,1);">Ps 14:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',53,1);">53:1</a>), and the wicked nations "that forget God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',9,17);">Ps 9:17</a>) are no theoretical atheists, but wicked and corrupt men, who, in conduct and life, neglect or reject the presence of God.<P>The New Testament contains more theology, more reflection upon the inward content of the idea of God, and upon its cosmic significance; but here also, no system appears, no coherent and rounded-off doctrine, still less any philosophical construction of the idea on the basis of experience as a whole. The task of exhibiting the Biblical idea of God is, therefore, not that of setting together a number of texts, or of writing the history of a theology, but rather of interpreting the central factor in the life of the Hebrew and Christian communities.<P>2. Definition of the Idea:<P>Logically and historically the Biblical idea stands related to a number of other ideas. Attempts have been made to find a definition of so general a nature as to comprehend them all. The older theologians assumed the Christian standpoint, and put into their definitions the conclusions of Christian doctrine and philosophy. Thus, Melanchthon: "God is a spiritual essence, intelligent, eternal, true, good, pure, just, merciful, most free and of infinite power and wisdom." Thomasius more briefly defines God as "the absolute personality." These definitions take no account of the existence of lower religions and ideas of God, nor do they convey much of the concreteness and nearness of God revealed in Christ. A similar recent definition, put forward, however, avowedly of the Christian conception, is that of Professor W. N. Clarke: "God is the personal Spirit, perfectly good, who in holy love creates, sustains and orders all" (Outline of Christian Theology, 66). The rise of comparative religion has shown that "while all religions involve a conscious relation to a being called God, the Divine Being is in different religions conceived in the most different ways; as one and as many, as natural and as spiritual, as like to and manifested in almost every object in the heavens above or earth beneath, in mountains and trees, in animals and men; or, on the contrary, as being incapable of being represented by any finite image whatsoever; and, again, as the God of a family, of a nation, or of humanity" (E. Caird, Evolution of Religion, I, 62). Attempts have therefore been made to find a new kind of definition, such as would include under one category all the ideas of God possessed by the human race. A typical instance of this kind of definition is that of Professor W. Adams Brown: "A god in the religious sense is an unseen being, real or supposed, to whom an individual or a social group is united by voluntary ties of reverence and service" (Christian Theology in Outline, 30). Many similar definitions are given: "A supersensible being or beings" (Lotze, Asia Minor Fairbairn); "a higher power" (Allan Menzies); "spiritual beings" (E.B. Tylor); "a power not ourselves making for righteousness" (Matthew Arnold). This class of definition suffers from a twofold defect. It says too much to include the ideas of the lower religions, and too little to suggest those of the higher. It is not all gods that are "unseen" or "supersensible," or "making for righteousness," but all these qualities may be shared by other beings than gods, and they do not connote that which is essential in the higher ideas of God. Dr. E. Caird, looking for a definition in a germinative principle of the genesis of religion, defines God "as the unity which is presupposed in the difference of the self and not-self, and within which they act and re-act on each other" (op. cit., I,40,64). This principle admittedly finds its full realization only in the highest religion, and it may be doubted whether it does justice to the transcendent personality and the love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. In the lower religions it appears only in fragmentary forms, and it can only be detected in them at all after it has been revealed in the absolute religion. Although this definition may be neither adequate nor true, its method recognizes that there can be only one true idea and definition of God, and yet that all other ideas are more or less true elements of it and approximations to it. The Biblical idea does not stand alone like an island in mid-ocean, but is rather the center of light which radiates out in other religions with varying degrees of purity.<P>It is not the purpose of this article to deal with the problem of the philosophy of religion, but to give an account of the idea of God at certain stages of its development, and within a limited area of thought. The absence of a final definition will present no practical difficulty, because the denotation of the term God is clear enough; it includes everything that is or has been an object of worship; it is its connotation that remains a problem for speculation.<P>3. The Knowledge of God:<P>A third class of definition demands some attention, because it raises a new question, that of the knowledge or truth of any idea whatsoever. Herbert Spencer\'s definition may be taken as representative: God is the unknown and unknowable cause of the universe, "an inscrutable power manifested to us through all phenomena" (First Principles, V, 31). This means that there can be no definition of the idea of God, because we can have no idea of Him, no knowledge "in the strict sense of knowing." For the present purpose it might suffice for an answer that ideas of God actually exist; that they can be defined and are more definable, because fuller and more complex, the higher they rise in the scale of religions; that they can be gathered from the folklore and traditions of the lower races, and from the sacred books and creeds of the higher religions. But Spencer\'s view means that, in so far as the ideas are definable, they are not true. The more we define, the more fictitious becomes our subject-matter. While nothing is more certain than that God exists, His being is to human thought utterly mysterious and inscrutable. The variety of ideas might seem to support this view. But variety of ideas has been held of every subject that is known, as witness the progress of science. The variety proves nothing.<P>And the complete abstraction of thought from existence cannot be maintained. Spencer himself does not succeed in doing it. He says a great many things about the "unknowable" which implies an extensive knowledge of Him. The traditional proofs of the "existence" of God have misled the Agnostics. But existence is meaningless except for thought, and a noumenon or first cause that lies hidden in impenetrable mystery behind phenomena cannot be conceived even as a fiction. Spencer\'s idea of the Infinite and Absolute are contradictory and unthinkable. An Infinite that stood outside all that is known would not be infinite, and an Absolute out of all relation could not even be imagined. If there is any truth at all in the idea of the Absolute, it must be true to human experience and thought; and the true Infinite must include within itself every possible and actual perfection. In truth, every idea of God that has lived in religion refutes Agnosticism, because they all qualify and interpret experience, and the only question is as to the degree of their adequacy and truth.<P>A brief enumeration of the leading ideas of God that have lived in religion will serve to place the Biblical idea in its true perspective.<P>4. Ethnic Ideas of God:<P>(1) Animism:<P>Animism is the name of a theory which explains the lowest (and perhaps the earliest) forms of religion, and also the principle of all religion, as the belief in the universal presence of spiritual beings which "are held to affect or control the events of the material world, and man\'s life here and hereafter; and, it being considered that they hold intercourse with men, and receive pleasure or displeasure from human actions, the belief in their existence leads naturally, and, it might almost be said, inevitably, sooner or later, to active reverence and propitiation" (E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, I, 426-27). According to this view, the world is full of disembodied spirits, regarded as similar to man\'s soul, and any or all of these may be treated as gods.<P>(2) Fetishism:<P>Fetishism is sometimes used in a general sense for "the view that the fruits of the earth and things in general are divine, or animated by powerful spirits" (J.G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 234); or it may be used in a more particular sense of the belief that spirits "take up their abode, either temporarily or permanently, in some object,...and this object, as endowed with higher power, is then worshipped" (Tiele, Outlines of the History of Religion, 9).<P>(3) Idolatry:<P>Idolatry is a term of still more definite significance. It means that the object is at least selected, as being the permanent habitation or symbol of the deity; and, generally, it is marked by some degree of human workmanship, designed to enable it the more adequately to represent the deity. It is not to be supposed that men ever worship mere "stocks and stones," but they address their worship to objects, whether fetishes or idols, as being the abodes or images of their god. It is a natural and common idea that the spirit has a form similar to the visible object in which it dwells. Paul reflected the heathen idea accurately when he said, "We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,29);">Ac 17:29</a>).<P>(4) Polytheism:<P>The belief in many gods, and the worship of them, is an attitude of soul compatible with Animism, Fetishism, and Idolatry, or it may be independent of them all. The term Polytheism is more usually employed to designate the worship of a limited number of well-defined deities, whether regarded as pure disembodied spirits, or as residing in the greater objects of Nature, such as planets or mountains, or as symbolized by images "graven by art and device of man." In ancient Greece or modern India the great gods are well defined, named and numerable, and it is clearly understood that, though they may be symbolized by images, they dwell apart in a spiritual realm above the rest of the world.<P>(5) Henotheism:<P>There is, however, a tendency, both in individuals and in communities, even where many gods are believed to exist, to set one god above the others, and consequently to confine worship to that god alone. "The monotheistic tendency exists among all peoples, after they have reached a certain level of culture. There is a difference in the degree in which this tendency is emphasized, but whether we turn to Babylonia, Egypt, India, China, or Greece, there are distinct traces of a trend toward concentrating the varied manifestations of Divine powers in a single source" (Jastrow, The Study of Religion, 76). This attitude of mind has been called Henotheism or Monolatry—the worship of one God combined with the belief in the existence of many. This tendency may be governed by metaphysical, or by ethical and personal motives, either by the monistic demands of reason, or by personal attachment to one political or moral rule.<P>(6) Pantheism:<P>Where the former principle predominates, Polytheism merges into Pantheism, as is the case in India, where Brahma is not only the supreme, but the sole, being, and all other gods are but forms of his manifestation. But, in India, the vanquished gods have had a very complete revenge upon their vanquisher, for Brahma has become so abstract and remote that worship is mainly given to the other gods, who are forms of his manifestation. Monolatry has been reversed, and modern Hinduism were better described as the belief in one God accompanied by the worship of many.<P>(7) Deism:<P>The monistic tendency, by a less thorough application of it, may take the opposite turn toward Deism, and yet produce similar religious conditions. The Supreme Being, who is the ultimate reality and power of the universe, may be conceived in so vague and abstract a manner, may be so remote from the world, that it becomes a practical necessity to interpose between Him and men a number of subordinate and nearer beings as objects of worship. In ancient Greece, Necessity, in China, Tien or Heaven, were the Supreme Beings; but a multiplicity of lower gods were the actual objects of worship. The angels of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Islam and the saints of Romanism illustrate the same tendency. Pantheism and Deism, though they have had considerable vogue as philosophical theories, have proved unstable and impossible as religions, for they have invariably reverted to some kind of polytheism and idolatry, which seems to indicate that they are false processes of the monistic tendency.<P>(8) Semitic Monolatry:<P>The monistic tendency of reason may enlist in its aid many minor causes, such as tribal isolation or national aggrandizement. It is held that many Sere tribes were monolatrists for either or both of these reasons; but the exigencies of intertribal relations in war and commerce soon neutralized their effects, and merged the tribal gods into a territorial pantheon.<P>(9) Monotheism:<P>Monotheism, ethical and personal: One further principle may combine with Monism so as to bring about a stable Monotheism, that is the conception of God as standing in moral relations with man. Whenever man reflects upon conduct as moral, he recognizes that there can be only one moral standard and authority, and when God is identified with that moral authority, He inevitably comes to be recognized as supreme and unique. The belief in the existence of other beings called gods may survive for a while; but they are divested of all the attributes of deity when they are seen to be inferior or opposed to the God who rules in conscience. Not only are they not worshipped, but their worship by others comes to be regarded as immoral and wicked. The ethical factor in the monistic conception of God safeguards it from diverging into Pantheism or Deism and thus reverting into Polytheism. For the ethical idea of God necessarily involves His personality, His transcendence as distinct from the world and above it, and also His intimate and permanent relation with man. If He rules in conscience, He can neither be merged in dead nature or abstract being, nor be removed beyond the heavens and the angel host. A thoroughly moralized conception of God emerges first in the Old Testament where it is the prevailing type of thought.``145';
isbe[3851]='God, 2`II. The Idea of God in the Old Testament.<P>1. Course of Its Development:<P>Any attempt to write the whole history of the idea of God in the Old Testament would require a preliminary study of the literary and historical character of the documents, which lies beyond the scope of this article and the province of the writer. Yet the Old Testament contains no systematic statement of the doctrine of God, or even a series of statements that need only to be collected into a consistent conception. The Old Testament is the record of a rich and varied life, extending over more than a thousand years, and the ideas that ruled and inspired that life must be largely inferred from the deeds and institutions in which it was realized; nor was it stationary or all at one level. Nothing is more obvious than that revelation in the Old Testament has been progressive, and that the idea of God it conveys has undergone a development. Certain well-marked stages of the development can be easily recognized, without entering upon any detailed criticism. There can be no serious question that the age of the Exodus, as centering around the personality of Moses, witnessed an important new departure in Hebrew religion. The most ancient traditions declare (perhaps not unanimously) that God was then first known to Israel under the personal name Yahweh (Yahweh (YHWH) is the correct form of the word, Yahweh being a composite of the consonants of Yahweh and the vowels of \'adhonay, or lord. Yahweh is retained here as the more familiar form). The Hebrew people came to regard Him as their Deliverer from Egypt, as their war god who assured them the conquest of Canaan, and He, therefore, became their king, who ruled over their destinies in their new heritage. But the settlement of Yahweh in Canaan, like that of His people, was challenged by the native gods and their peoples. In the 9th century we see the war against Yahweh carried into His own camp, and Baal-worship attempting to set itself up within Israel. His prophets therefore assert the sole right of Yahweh to the worship of His people, and the great prophets of the 8th century base that right upon His moral transcendence. Thus they at once reveal new depths of His moral nature, and set His uniqueness and supremacy on higher grounds. During the exile and afterward, Israel\'s outlook broadens by contact with the greater world, and it draws out the logical implications of ethical monotheism into a theology at once more universalistic and abstract. Three fairly well-defined periods thus emerge, corresponding to three stages in the development of the Old Testament idea of God: the pre-prophetic period governed by the Mosaic conception, the prophetic period during which ethical monotheism is firmly established, and the post-exilic period with the rise of abstract monotheism. But even in taking these large and obvious divisions, it is necessary to bear in mind the philosopher\'s maxim, that "things are not cut off with a hatchet." The most characteristic ideas of each period may be described within their period; but it should not be assumed that they are altogether absent from other periods; and, in particular, it should not be supposed that ideas, and the life they represent, did not exist before they emerged in the clear witness of history. Mosaism had undoubtedly its antecedents in the life of Israel; but any attempt to define them leads straight into a very morass of conjectures and hypotheses, archaeological, critical and philosophical; and any results that are thus obtained are contributions to comparative religion rather than to theology.<P>2. Forms of the Manifestation of God:<P>Religious experience must always have had an inward and subjective aspect, but it is a long and difficult process to translate the objective language of ordinary life for the uses of subjective experience. "Men look outward before they look inward." Hence, we find that men express their consciousness of God in the earliest periods in language borrowed from the visible and objective world. It does not follow that they thought of God in a sensuous way, because they speak of Him in the language of the senses, which alone was available for them. On the other hand, thought is never entirely independent of language, and the degree in which men using sensuous language may think of spiritual facts varies with different persons.<P>(1) The Face or Countenance of God:<P>The face or countenance (panim) of God is a natural expression for His presence. The place where God is seen is called Peniel, the face of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,30);">Ge 32:30</a>). The face of Yahweh is His people\'s blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',6,25);">Nu 6:25</a>). With His face (the Revised Version (British and American) "presence") He brought Israel out of Egypt, and His face (the Revised Version (British and American) "presence") goes with them to Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,14);">Ex 33:14</a>). To be alienated from God is to be hid from His face (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',4,14);">Ge 4:14</a>), or God hides His face (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,17,18);">De 31:17-18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,20);">32:20</a>). In contrast with this idea it is said elsewhere that man cannot see the face of God and live (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,20);">Ex 33:20</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,24);">De 5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,22);">Jud 6:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,22);">13:22</a>). In these later passages, "face" stands for the entire being of God, as distinguished from what man may know of Him. This phrase and its cognates enshrine also that fear of God, which shrinks from His majesty even while approaching Him, which enters into all worship.<P>(2) The Voice and Word of God:<P>The voice (qol) and word (dabhar) of God are forms under which His communion with man is conceived from the earliest days to the latest. The idea ranges from that of inarticulate utterance (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,12);">1Ki 19:12</a>) to the declaration of the entire law of conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,\'22-24\');">De 5:22-24</a>), to the message of the prophet (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,1);">Isa 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,2);">Jer 1:2</a>), and the personification of the whole counsel and action of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',105,19);">Ps 105:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',147,18,19);">147:18-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',6,5);">Ho 6:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,8);">Isa 40:8</a>).<P>(3) The Glory of God:<P>The glory (kabhodh) of God is both a peculiar physical phenomenon and the manifestation of God in His works and providence. In certain passages in Exodus, ascribed to the Priestly Code, the glory is a bright light, "like devouring fire" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,17);">24:17</A>); it fills and consecrates the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',29,43);">29:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34,35);">40:34,35</a>); and it is reflected as beams of light in the face of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,29);">34:29</a>). In Ezekiel, it is a frequent term for the prophet\'s vision, a brightness like the appearance of a rainbow (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',1,28);">1:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',10,4);">10:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',43,2);">43:2</a>). In another place, it is identified with all the manifested goodness of God and is accompanied with the proclamation of His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,\'17-23\');">Ex 33:17-23</a>). Two passages in Isaiah seem to combine under this term the idea of a physical manifestation with that of God\'s effectual presence in the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,8);">3:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,3);">6:3</a>). God\'s presence in creation and history is often expressed in the Psalms as His glory (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,1);">Ps 19:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',57,5,11);">57:5, 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',63,2);">63:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,6);">97:6</a>). Many scholars hold that the idea is found in Isaiah in its earliest form, and that the physical meaning is quite late. It would, however, be contrary to all analogy, if such phenomena as rainbow and lightning had not first impressed-the primitive mind as manifestations of God.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GLORY">GLORY</a>.<P>(4) The Angel of God:<P>The angel (mal\'akh) of God or of Yahweh is a frequent mode of God\'s manifestation of Himself in human form, and for occasional purposes. It is a primitive conception, and its exact relation to God, or its likeness to man, is nowhere fixed. In many passages, it is assumed that God and His angel are the same being, and the names are used synonymously (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,7);">Ge 16:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,15,16);">22:15,16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,2,4);">Ex 3:2, 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,4,5);">Jud 2:4-5</a>); in other passages the idea blurs into varying degrees of differentiation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,\'1-\');">Ge 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,40);">24:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,21);">Ex 23:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,2,3);">33:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,8,9);">Jud 13:8-9</a>). But everywhere, it fully represents God as speaking or acting for the time being; and it is to be distinguished from the subordinate and intermediate beings of later angelology. Its identification with the Messiah and the Logos is only true in the sense that these later terms are more definite expressions of the idea of revelation, which the angel represented for primitive thought.<P>(5) The Spirit of God:<P>The spirit (ruach) of God in the earlier period is a form of His activity, as it moves warrior and prophet to act and to speak (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,34);">Jud 6:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,25);">13:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',10,10);">1Sa 10:10</a>), and it is in the prophetic period that it becomes the organ of the communication of God\'s thoughts to men.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT,+1">HOLY SPIRIT</a>.<P>(6) The Name of God:<P>The name (shem) of God is the most comprehensive and frequent expression in the Old Testament for His self-manifestation, for His person as it may be known to men. The name is something visible or audible which represents God to men, and which, therefore, may be said to do His deeds, and to stand in His place, in relation to men. God reveals Himself by making known or proclaiming His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">Ex 6:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,19);">33:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,5,6);">34:5-6</a>). His servants derive their authority from His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,13,15);">Ex 3:13, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,45);">1Sa 17:45</a>). To worship God is to call upon His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,8);">Ge 12:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,4);">13:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',21,33);">21:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,25);">26:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,\'24-26\');">1Ki 18:24-26</a>), to fear it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,58);">De 28:58</a>), to praise it (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',22,50);">2Sa 22:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,17);">Ps 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',54,6);">54:6</a>), to glorify it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,9);">Ps 86:9</a>). It is wickedness to take God\'s name in vain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,7);">Ex 20:7</a>), or to profane and blaspheme it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',8,21);">Le 8:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',24,16);">24:16</a>). God\'s dwelling-place is the place where He chooses "to cause his name to dwell" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,13);">2Sa 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,2);">1Ki 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',5,3);">5:3, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,\'16-19\');">8:16-19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,32);">18:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,11,21);">De 12:11, 21</a>). God\'s name defends His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',20,1);">Ps 20:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,27);">Isa 30:27</a>). For His name\'s sake He will not forsake them (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,22);">1Sa 12:22</a>), and if they perish, His name cannot remain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,9);">Jos 7:9</a>). God is known by different names, as expressing various forms of His self-manifestation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,13);">Ge 16:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',17,1);">17:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6);">Ex 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">34:6</a>). The name even confers its revelation-value upon the angel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'20-23\');">Ex 23:20-23</a>). All God\'s names are, therefore, significant for the revelation of His being.<P>(7) Occasional Forms:<P>In addition to these more or less fixed forms, God also appears in a variety of exceptional or occasional forms. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,\'6-8\');">Nu 12:6-8</a>, it is said that Moses, unlike others, used to see the form (temunah) of Yahweh. Fire smoke and cloud are frequent forms or symbols of God\'s presence (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,17);">Ge 15:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'2-4\');">Ex 3:2-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,18);">19:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,17);">24:17</a>), and notably "the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',13,21);">Ex 13:21</a>f). According to later ideas, the cloud rested upon the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',40,34);">Ex 40:34</a>), and in it God appeared upon the ark (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',16,2);">Le 16:2</a>). Extraordinary occurrences or miracles are, in the early period, frequent signs of the power of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,\'1-\');">Ex 7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,\'1-\');">1Ki 17</a>).<P>The questions of the objectivity of any or all of these forms, and of their relation to the whole Divine essence raise large problems. Old Testament thought had advanced beyond the naive identification of God with natural phenomena, but we should not read into its figurative language the metaphysical distinctions of a Greek-Christian theology.<P>3. The Names of God:<P>All the names of God were originally significant of His character, but the derivations, and therefore the original meanings, of several have been lost, and new meanings have been sought for them.<P>(1) Generic:<P>One of the oldest and most widely distributed terms for Deity known to the human race is \'El, with its derivations \'Elim, \'Elohim, and \'Eloah. Like theos, Dens and God, it is a generic term, including every member of the class deity. It may even denote a position of honor and authority among men. Moses was \'Elohim to Pharaoh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',7,1);">Ex 7:1</a>) and to Aaron (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',4,16);">Ex 4:16</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,8);">Jud 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,25);">1Sa 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,5,6);">Ex 21:5-6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,7);">22:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',58,11);">Ps 58:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,1);">82:1</a>). It is, therefore, a general term expressing majesty and authority, and it only came to be used as a proper name for Israel\'s God in the later period of abstract monotheism when the old proper name Yahweh was held to be too sacred to be uttered. The meaning of the root \'El, and the exact relation to it, and to one another, of \'Elohim and \'Eloah, lie in complete obscurity. By far the most frequent form used by Old Testament writers is the plural \'Elohiym, but they use it regularly with singular verbs and adjectives to denote a singular idea. Several explanations have been offered of this usage of a plural term to denote a singular idea—that it expresses the fullness and manifoldness of the Divine nature, or that it is a plural of majesty used in the manner of royal persons, or even that it is an early intimation of the Trinity; other cognate expressions are found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">Ge 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,19);">1Ki 22:19</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,8);">Isa 6:8</a>. These theories are, perhaps, too ingenious to have occurred to the early Hebrew mind, and a more likely explanation is, that they are survivals in language of a polytheistic stage of thought. In the Old Testament they signify only the general notion of Deity.<P>(2) Attributive:<P>To distinguish the God of Israel as supreme from others of the class \'Elohim, certain qualifying appellations are often added. \'El \'Elyon designates the God of Israel as the highest, the most high, among the \'Elohim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,\'18-20\');">Ge 14:18-20</a>); so do Yahweh \'Elyon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,17);">Ps 7:17</a>) and \'Elyon alone, often in Psalms and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,14);">Isa 14:14</a>.<p>\'El Shadday, or Shadday alone, is a similar term which on the strength of some tradition is translated "God Almighty"; but its derivation and meaning are quite unknown. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,3);">Ex 6:3</a> it was the usual name for God in patriarchal times, but other traditions in the Pentateuch seem to have no knowledge of this.<P>Another way of designating God was by His relation to His worshippers, as God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,12);">Ge 24:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,6);">Ex 3:6</a>), of Shem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,26);">Ge 9:26</a>), of the Hebrews (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,18);">Ex 3:18</a>), and of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,20);">Ge 33:20</a>).<P>Other names used to express the power and majesty of God are tsur, "Rock" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,18);">De 32:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,29);">Isa 30:29</a>), \'ªbhir (construct from \'abhir), "the Strong One" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,24);">Ge 49:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,24);">Isa 1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,2);">Ps 132:2</a>); melekh, "King"; \'adhon, "lord," and \'adhonay, "my lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,17);">Ex 23:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,16,33);">Isa 10:16, 33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,27);">Ge 18:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,1);">Isa 6:1</a>). Also ba\'al, "proprietor" or "master," may be inferred as a designation once in use, from its appearance in such Hebrew proper names as Jerubbaal and Ishbaal. The last three names describe God as a Master to whom man stands in the relation of a servant, and they tended to fall into disuse as the necessity arose to differentiate the worship of Yahweh from that of the gods of surrounding nations.<P>A term of uncertain meaning is Yahweh or \'Elohim tsebha\'oth, "Yahweh" or "God of hosts." In Hebrew usage "host" might mean an army of men, or the stars and the angels—which, apart or in conjunction, made up the host of heaven. God of Hosts in early times meant the war god who led the armies of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,4);">1Sa 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,8);">2Sa 7:8</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,45);">1Sa 17:45</a> this title stands in parallelism with "the God of the armies of Israel." So all Israel is called the host of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,41);">Ex 12:41</a>). In the Prophets, where the term has become a regular appellation, it stands in relation to every form of the power and majesty, physical and moral, of God (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,12);">Isa 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,3,5);">6:3, 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,23,33);">10:23, 33</a>). It stands in parallelism with Isaiah\'s peculiar title, the Holy One of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,16,24);">Isa 5:16, 24</a>). It has, therefore, been thought that it refers to the host of heaven. In the Prophets it is practically a proper name. Its original meaning may well have been forgotten or dropped, but it does not follow that a new special significance was attached to the word "hosts." The general meaning of the whole term is well expressed by the Septuagint translation, kurios pantokrator, "Lord Omnipotent."<P>(3) Yahweh (Yahweh).<P>This is the personal proper name par excellence of Israel\'s God, even as Chemosh was that of the god of Moab, and Dagon that of the god of the Philistines. The original meaning and derivation of the word are unknown. The variety of modern theories shows that, etymologically, several derivations are possible, but that the meanings attached to any one of them have to be imported and imposed upon the word. They add nothing to our knowledge. The Hebrews themselves connected the word with hayah, "to be." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,14);">Ex 3:14</a> Yahweh is explained as equivalent to \'ehyeh, which is a short form of \'ehyeh \'asher \'ehyeh, translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "I am that I am." This has been supposed to mean "self-existence," and to represent God as the Absolute. Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Hebrew mind at any time. And the imperfect \'ehyeh is more accurately translated "I will be what I will be," a Semitic idiom meaning, "I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise," a familiar Old Testament idea (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,4,9);">Isa 7:4, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,\'1-\');">Ps 23</a>). This name was in use from the earliest historical times till after the exile. It is found in the most ancient literature. According to <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,13);">Ex 3:13</a>f; and especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,2,3);">6:2,3</a>, it was first introduced by Moses, and was the medium of a new revelation of the God of their fathers to the children of Israel. But in parts of Genesis it is represented as being in use from the earliest times. Theories that derive it from Egypt or Assyria, or that would connect it etymologically with Jove or Zeus, are supported by no evidence. We have to be content either to say that Yahweh was the tribal God of Israel from time immemorial, or to accept a theory that is practically identical with that of Exodus—that it was adopted through Moses from the Midianite tribe into which he married. The Kenites, the tribe of Midianites related to Moses, dwelt in the neighborhood of Sinai, and attached themselves to Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,16);">Jud 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,11);">4:11</a>). A few passages suggest that Sinai was the original home of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,4,5);">Jud 5:4-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,2);">De 33:2</a>). But there is no direct evidence bearing upon the origin of the worship of Yahweh: to us He is known only as the God of Israel.<P>4. Pre-prophetic Conceptions of Yahweh:<P>(1) Yahweh alone the God of Israel.<P>Hebrew theology consists essentially of the doctrine of Yahweh and its implications. The teachers and leaders of the people at all times worship and enjoin the worship of Yahweh alone. "It stands out as a prominent and incontrovertible fact, that down to the reign of Ahab...no prominent man in Israel, with the doubtful exception of Solomon, known by name and held up for condemnation, worshipped any other god but Yahweh. In every national and tribal crisis, in all times of danger and of war, it is Yahweh and Yahweh alone who is invoked to give victory and deliverance" (Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures (3), 21). This is more evident in what is, without doubt, very early literature, even than in later writings (e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,\'1-\');">De 33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,\'1-\');">1Sa 4-6</a>). The isolation of the desert was more favorable to the integrity of Yahweh\'s sole worship than the neighborhood of powerful peoples who worshipped many other gods. Yet that early religion of Yahweh can be called monotheistic only in the light of the end it realized, for in the course of its development it had to overcome many limitations.<P>(a) His Early Worship:<P>The early worship of Yahweh did not exclude belief in the existence of other gods. As other nations believed in the existence of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',4,8);">1Sa 4:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,27);">2Ki 17:27</a>), so Israel did not doubt the reality of other gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,24);">Jud 11:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,29);">Nu 21:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,5);">Mic 4:5</a>). This limitation involved two others: Yahweh is the God of Israel only; with them alone He makes a <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=COVENANT">COVENANT</a> (which see) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,18);">Ge 15:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,4,5);">Ex 6:4-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,34,35);">2Ki 17:34-35</a>), and their worship only He seeks (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,\'32-37\');">De 4:32-37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,9);">32:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',3,2);">Am 3:2</a>). Therefore, He works, and can be worshipped only within a certain geographical area. He may have been associated with His original home in Sinai long after the settlement in Canaan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,4);">Jud 5:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,2);">De 33:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',19,8,9);">1Ki 19:8-9</a>), but gradually His home and that of His people became identical (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',26,19);">1Sa 26:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',9,3);">Ho 9:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,2,25);">Isa 14:2, 25</a>). Even after the deportation of the ten tribes, Canaan remains Yahweh\'s land (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,\'24-28\');">2Ki 17:24-28</a>). Early Israelites are, therefore, more properly described as Monolatrists or Henotheists than as Monotheists. It is characteristic of the religion of Israel (in contrast with, e.g. Greek thought) that it arrived at absolute Monotheism along the line of moral and religious experience, rather than that of rational inference. Even while they shared the common Semitic belief in the reality of other gods, Yahweh alone had for them "the value of God."<P>(b) Popular Religion:<P>It is necessary to distinguish between the teaching of the religious leaders and the belief and practice of the people generally. The presence of a higher religion never wholly excludes superstitious practices. The use of Teraphim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,30);">Ge 31:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',19,13,16);">1Sa 19:13, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,4);">Ho 3:4</a>), Ephod (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,\'17-20\');">Jud 18:17-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',23,6,9);">1Sa 23:6, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',30,7);">30:7</a>), Urim and Thummim (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,6);">1Sa 28:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',14,40);">14:40</a>, Septuagint), for the purposes of magic and divination, to obtain oracles from Yahweh, was quite common in Israel. Necromancy was practiced early and late (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,7);">1Sa 28:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,19);">Isa 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,10,11);">De 18:10-11</a>). Sorcery and witchcraft were not unknown, but were condemned by the religious leaders (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,3);">1Sa 28:3</a>). The burial places of ancestors were held in great veneration (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,20);">Ge 35:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,13);">50:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,30);">Jos 24:30</a>). But these facts do not prove that Hebrew religion was animistic and polytheistic, any more than similar phenomena in Christian lands would justify such an inference about Christianity.<P>(c) Polytheistic Tendencies:<P>Yet the worship of Yahweh maintained and developed its monotheistic principle only by overcoming several hostile tendencies. The Baal-worship of the Canaanites and the cults of other neighboring tribes proved a strong attraction to the mass of Israelites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,13);">Jud 2:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,7);">3:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,33);">8:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,10);">10:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,8);">1Sa 8:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,10);">12:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,5,33);">1Ki 11:5, 33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,5,17);">Ho 2:5, 17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',20,\'1-\');">Eze 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,5);">Ex 20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,20);">22:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,16,17);">34:16-17</a>). Under the conditions of life in Canaan, the sole worship of Yahweh was in danger of modification by three tendencies, coordination, assimilation, and disintegration.<P>(i) Coordination:<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 <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,18);">2Ki 5:18</a>). When Solomon had contracted many foreign alliances by marriage, he was also bound to admit foreign worship into Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,5);">1Ki 11:5</a>). 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 (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,19);">1Ki 18:19</a>). Elijah\'s stand and Jehu\'s revolution gave its death blow to Baal-worship and vindicated the sole right of Yahweh to Israel\'s allegiance. The prophet was defending the old religion and Ahab was the innovator; but the conflict and its issue brought the monotheistic principle to a new and higher level. The supreme temptation and the choice transformed what had been a natural monolatry into a conscious and moral adherence to Yahweh alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',18,21,39);">1Ki 18:21, 39</a>).<P>(ii) Assimilation:<P>But to repudiate the name of Baal was not necessarily to be rid of the influence of Baal-worship. The ideas of the heathen religions survived in a more subtle way in the worship of Yahweh Himself. The change from the nomad life of the desert to the agricultural conditions of Canaan involved some change in religion. Yahweh, the God of flocks and wars, had to be recognized as the God of the vintage and the harvest. That this development occurred is manifest in the character of the great religious festivals. "Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep...and the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labors, which thou sowest in the field: and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when thou gatherest in thy labors out of the field" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,\'14-16\');">Ex 23:14-16</a>). The second and the third obviously, and the first probably, were agricultural feasts, which could have no meaning in the desert. Israel and Yahweh together took possession of Canaan. To doubt that would be to admit the claims of the Baal-worship; but to assert it also involved some danger, because it was to assert certain similarities between Yahweh and the Baalim. When those similarities were embodied in the national festivals, they loomed very large in the eyes and minds of the mass of the people (W.R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, 49-57). The danger was that Israel should regard Yahweh, like the Baals of the country, as a Nature-god, and, by local necessity, a national god, who gave His people the produce of the land and, protected them from their enemies, and in return received frown them such gifts and sacrifices as corresponded to His nature. From the appearance in Israel, and among Yahweh worshippers, of such names as Jerub-baal, Esh-baal (son of Saul) and Beeliada (son of David, <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',14,7);">1Ch 14:7</a>), it has been inferred that Yahweh was called Baal, and there is ample evidence that His worship was assimilated to that of the Canaanite Baalim. The bulls raised by Jeroboam (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,26);">1Ki 12:26</a>) were symbols of Yahweh, and in Judah the Canaanite worship was imitated down to the time of Asa (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,\'22-24\');">1Ki 14:22-24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,12,13);">15:12-13</a>). Against this tendency above all, the great prophets of the 8th century contended. Israel worshipped Yahweh as if He were one of the Baalim, and Hosea calls it Baal-worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,8,12,13);">Ho 2:8, 12-13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,8);">Am 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'10-15\');">Isa 1:10-15</a>).<P>(iii) Disintegration:<P>And where Yahweh was conceived as one of the Baalim or Masters of the land, He became, like them, subject to disintegration into a number of local deities. This was probably the gravamen of Jeroboam\'s sin in the eyes of the "Deuteronomic" historian. In setting up separate sanctuaries, he divided the worship, and, in effect, the godhead of Yahweh. The localization and naturalization of Yahweh, as well as His assimilation to the Baals, all went together, so that we read that even in Judah the number of gods was according to its cities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,28);">Jer 2:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,13);">11:13</a>). The vindication of Yahweh\'s moral supremacy and spiritual unity demanded, among other things, the unification of His worship in Jerusalem (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'1-\');">2Ki 23</a>).<P>(d) No Hebrew Goddesses:<P>In one respect the religion of Yahweh successfully resisted the influence of the heathen cults. At no time was Yahweh associated with a goddess. Although the corrupt sensual practices that formed a large part of heathen worship also entered into Israel\'s worship (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHERAH">ASHERAH</a>), it never penetrated so far as to modify in this respect the idea of Yahweh.<P>(e) Human Sacrifices:<P>It is a difficult question how far human sacrifices at any time found place in the worship of Yahweh. The outstanding instance is that of Jephthah\'s daughter, which, though not condemned, is certainly regarded as exceptional (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',11,\'30-40\');">Jud 11:30-40</a>). Perhaps it is rightly regarded as a unique survival. Then the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, while reminiscent of an older practice, represents a more advanced view. Human sacrifice though not demanded, is not abhorrent to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',22,\'1-\');">Ge 22</a>). A further stage is represented where Ahaz\' sacrifice of his son is condemned as an "abomination of the nations" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,3);">2Ki 16:3</a>). The sacrifice of children is emphatically condemned by the prophets as a late and foreign innovation which Yahweh had not commanded (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,31);">Jer 7:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,20);">Eze 16:20</a>). Other cases, such as the execution of the chiefs of Shittim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,4);">Nu 25:4</a>), and of Saul\'s sons "before Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,9);">2Sa 21:9</a>), and the cherem or ban, by which whole communities were devoted to destruction (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',21,10);">Jud 21:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',15,\'1-\');">1Sa 15</a>), while they show a very inadequate idea of the sacredness of human life, are not sacrifices, nor were they demanded by Yahweh\'s worship. They were survivals of savage customs connected with tribal unity, which the higher morality of Yahweh\'s religion had not yet abolished.<P>(2) The Nature and Character of Yahweh:<P>The nature and character of Yahweh are manifested in His activities. The Old Testament makes no statements about the essence of God; we are left to infer it from His action in Nature and history and from His dealing with man.<P>(a) A God of War:<P>In this period, His activity is predominantly martial. As Israel\'s Deliverer from Egypt, "Yahweh is a man of war" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,3);">Ex 15:3</a>). An ancient account of Israel\'s journey to Canaan is called "the book of the Wars of Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',21,14);">Nu 21:14</a>). By conquest in war He gave His people their land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,\'1-\');">Jud 5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',5,24);">2Sa 5:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,27);">De 33:27</a>). He is, therefore, more concerned with men and nations, with the moral, than with the physical world.<P>(b) His Relation to Nature:<P>Even His activity in Nature is first connected with His martial character. Earth, stars and rivers come to His battle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,4,20,21);">Jud 5:4, 20-21</a>). The forces of Nature do the bidding of Israel\'s Deliverer from Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,\'1-\');">Ex 8-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',14,21);">14:21</a>). He causes sun and moon to stand while He delivers up the Amorites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,12);">Jos 10:12</a>). Later, He employs the forces of Nature to chastise His people for infidelity and sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,15);">2Sa 24:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',17,1);">1Ki 17:1</a>). Amos declares that His moral rule extends to other nations and that it determines their destinies. In harmony with this idea, great catastrophes like the Deluge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',7,\'1-\');">Ge 7</a>) and the overthrow of the Cities of the Plain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'1-\');">Ge 19</a>) are ascribed to His moral will. In the same pragmatic manner the oldest creation narrative describes Him creating man, and as much of the world as He needed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,\'1-\');">Ge 2</a>), but as yet the idea of a universal cause had not emerged, because the idea of a universe had not been formed. He acts as one of great, but limited, power and knowledge (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,\'5-8\');">Ge 11:5-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,20);">18:20</a>). The more universal conception of <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a> belongs to the same stratum of thought as Second Isaiah. At every stage of the Old Testament the metaphysical perfections of Yahweh follow as an inference from His ethical preeminence.<P>(3) The Most Distinctive Characteristic of Yahweh:<P>The most distinctive characteristic of Yahweh, which finally rendered Him and His religion absolutely unique, was the moral factor. In saying that Yahweh was a moral God, it is meant that He acted by free choice, in conformity with ends which He set to Himself, and which He also imposed upon His worshippers as their law of conduct.<P>(a) Personality:<P>The most essential condition of a moral nature is found in His vivid personality, which at every stage of His self-revelation shines forth with an intensity that might be called aggressive. Divine personality and spirituality are never expressly asserted or defined in the Old Testament; but nowhere in the history of religion are they more clearly asserted. The modes of their expression are, however, qualified by anthropomorphisms, by limitations, moral and physical. Yahweh\'s jealousy (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,5);">Ex 20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,9);">De 5:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,15);">6:15</a>), His wrath and anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,\'10-12\');">Ex 32:10-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,4);">De 7:4</a>) and His inviolable holiness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',19,21,22);">Ex 19:21-22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,19);">1Sa 6:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',6,7);">2Sa 6:7</a>) appear sometimes to be irrational and immoral; but they are the assertion of His individual nature, of His self-consciousness as He distinguishes Himself from all else, in the moral language of the time, and are the conditions of His having any moral nature whatsoever. Likewise, He dwells in a place and moves from it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,5);">Jud 5:5</a>); men may see Him in visible form (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',24,10);">Ex 24:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',12,8);">Nu 12:8</a>); He is always represented as having organs like those of the human body, arms, hands, feet, mouth, eyes and ears. By such sensuous and figurative language alone was it possible for a personal God to make Himself known to men.<P>(b) Law and Judgment:<P>The content of Yahweh\'s moral nature as revealed in the Old Testament developed with the growth of moral ideas. Though His activity is most prominently martial, it is most permanently judicial, and is exercised through judges, priests and prophets. Torah and mishpaT, "law" and "judgment," from the time of Moses onward, stand, the one for a body of customs that should determine men\'s relations to one another, and the other for the decision of individual cases in accordance with those customs, and both were regarded as issuing from Yahweh. The people came to Moses "to inquire of God" when they had a matter in dispute, and he "judged between a man and his neighbor, and made them know the statutes of God, and his laws" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,15,16);">Ex 18:15-16</a>). The judges appear mostly as leaders in war; but it is clear, as their name indicates, that they also gave judgments as between the people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',3,10);">Jud 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',4,4);">4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,2,3);">10:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,16);">1Sa 7:16</a>). The earliest literary prophets assume the existence of a law which priest and prophet had neglected to administer rightly (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,6);">Ho 4:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',8,1,12);">8:1, 12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,4);">Am 2:4</a>). This implied that Yahweh was thought of as actuated and acting by a consistent moral principle, which He also imposed on His people. Their morality may have varied much at different periods, but there is no reason to doubt that the Decalogue, and the moral teaching it involved, emanated substantially from Moses. "He taught them that Yahveh, if a stern, and often wrathful, Deity, was also a God of justice and purity. Linking the moral life to the religious idea, he may have taught them too that murder and theft, adultery and false witness, were abhorred and forbidden by their God" (Montefiore, Hibbert Lectures3, 49). The moral teaching of the Old Testament effected the transition from the national and collective to the individual and personal relation with Yahweh. The most fundamental defect of Hebrew morality was that its application was confined within Israel itself and did little to determine the relation of the Israelites to people of other nations; and this limitation was bound up with henotheism, the idea that Yahweh was God of Israel alone. "The consequence of this national conception of Yahweh was that there was no religious and moral bond regulating the conduct of the Hebrews with men of other nations. Conduct which between fellow-Hebrews was offensive in Yahweh\'s eyes was inoffensive when practiced by a Hebrew toward one who was not a Hebrew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,19);">De 23:19</a>f)...In the latter case they were governed purely by considerations of expediency. This ethical limitation is the real explanation of the \'spoiling of the Egyptians\' "(<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,2,3);">Ex 11:2-3</a>) (G. Buchanan Gray, The Divine Discipline of Israel, 46, 48).<P>The first line of advance in the teaching of the prophets was to expand and deepen the moral demands of Yahweh. So they removed at once the ethical and theological limitations of the earlier view. But they were conscious that they were only developing elements already latent in the character and law of Yahweh.<P>5. The Idea of God in the Prophetic Period:<P>Two conditions called forth and determined the message of the 8th-century prophets—the degradation of morality and religion at home and the growing danger to Israel and Judah from the all-victorious Assyrian. With one voice the prophets declare and condemn the moral and social iniquity of Israel and Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',4,1);">Ho 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,1);">Am 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,\'21-23\');">Isa 1:21-23</a>). The worship of Yahweh had been assimilated to the heathen religions around (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,8);">Am 2:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,1);">Ho 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,22);">Isa 30:22</a>). A time of prosperity had produced luxury, license and an easy security, depending upon the external bonds and ceremonies of religion. In the threatening attitude of Assyria, the prophets see the complement of Israel\'s unfaithfulness and sin, this the cause and that the instruments of Yahweh\'s anger (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,5);">Isa 10:5-6</a>).<P>(1) Righteousness:<P>These circumstances forced into first prominence the righteousness of Yahweh. It was an original attribute that had appeared even in His most martial acts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,4);">Jud 5:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,7);">1Sa 12:7</a>). But the prophet\'s interpretation of Israel\'s history revealed its content on a larger scale. Yahweh was not like the gods of the heathen, bound to the purposes and fortunes of His people. Their relation was not a natural bond, but a covenant of grace which He freely bestowed upon them, and He demanded as its condition, loyalty to Himself and obedience to His law. Impending calamities were not, as the naturalistic conception implied, due to the impotence of Yahweh against the Assyrian gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',31,1);">Isa 31:1</a>), but the judgment of God, whereby He applied impartially to the conduct of His people a standard of righteousness, which He both had in Himself and declared in judgment upon them. The prophets did not at first so much transform the idea of righteousness, as assert its application as between the people and Yahweh. But in doing that they also rejected the external views of its realization. It consists not in unlimited gifts or in the costliest oblations. "What doth Yahweh require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>). And it tends to become of universal application. Yahweh will deal as a righteous judge with all nations, including Israel, and Israel as the covenant people bears the greater responsibility (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,\'1-\');">Am 1-3</a>). And a righteous judge that metes out even justice to all nations will deal similarly with individuals. The ministry of the prophets produced a vivid consciousness of the personal and individual relation of men to God. The prophets themselves were not members of a class, no order or school or profession, but men impelled by an inner and individual call of God, often against their inclination, to proclaim an unpopular message (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',7,14,15);">Am 7:14-15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">Isa 6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,\'6-9\');">Jer 1:6-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',3,14);">Eze 3:14</a>). Jeremiah and Ezekiel in terms denounced the old idea of collective responsibility (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,29);">Jer 31:29</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',18,\'1-\');">Eze 18</a>). Thus in the prophets\' application of the idea of righteousness to their time, two of the limitations adhering to the idea of God, at least in popular religion hitherto, were transcended. Yahweh\'s rule is no longer limited to Israel, nor concerned only with the nation as a collective whole, but He deals impartially with every individual and nation alike. Other limitations also disappear. His anger and wrath, that once appeared irrational and unjust, now become the intensity of His righteousness. Nor is it merely forensic and retributive righteousness. It is rather a moral end, a chief good, which He may realize by loving-kindness and mercy and forgiveness as much as by punishment. Hebrew thought knows no opposition between God\'s righteousness and His goodness, between justice and mercy. The covenant of righteousness is like the relation of husband to wife, of father to child, one of loving-kindness and everlasting love (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,1);">Ho 3:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,4);">11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,18);">Isa 1:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,18);">30:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',7,18);">Mic 7:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,4);">Isa 43:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,8);">54:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,3);">Jer 31:3</a>ff, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,34);">34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',9,24);">9:24</A>). The stirring events which showed Yahweh\'s independence of Israel revealed the fullness of grace that was always latent in His relation to His people (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,11);">Ge 33:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',24,14);">2Sa 24:14</a>). It was enshrined in the Decalogue (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,6);">Ex 20:6</a>), and proclaimed with incomparable grandeur in what may be the most ancient Mosaic tradition: "Yah, Yahweh, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth; keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6,7);">Ex 34:6-7</a>).<P>(2) Holiness:<P>The holiness of Yahweh in the Prophets came to have a meaning closely akin to His righteousness. As an idea more distinctly religious and more exclusively applied to God, it was subject to greater changes of meaning with the development or degradation of religion. It was applied to anything withdrawn from common use to the service of religion—utensils, places, seasons, animals and men. Originally it was so far from the moral meaning it now has that it was used of the "sacred" prostitutes who ministered to the licentiousness of Canaanitish worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',23,18);">De 23:18</a>). Whether or not the root-idea of the word was "separateness," there is no doubt that it is applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament to express his separateness from men and his sublimity above them. It was not always a moral quality in Yahweh; for He might be unapproachable because of His mere power and terror (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,20);">1Sa 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',8,13);">Isa 8:13</a>). But in the Prophets, and especially in Isaiah, it acquires a distinctly moral meaning. In his vision Isaiah hears Yahweh proclaimed as "holy, holy, holy," and he is filled with the sense of his own sin and of that of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,\'1-\');">Isa 6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,4);">Isa 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',2,7);">Am 2:7</a>). But even here the term conveys more than moral perfection. Yahweh is already "the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>). It expresses the full Divinity of Yahweh in His uniqueness and self-existence (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,2);">1Sa 2:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',4,2);">Am 4:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,9);">Ho 11:9</a>). It would therefore seem to stand in antithesis to righteousness, as expressing those qualities of God, metaphysical and moral, by which He is distinguished and separated from men, while righteousness involves those moral activities and relations which man may share with God. But in the Prophets, God\'s entire being is moral and His whole activity is righteous. The meanings of the terms, though not identical, coincide; God\'s holiness is realized in righteousness. "God the Holy One is sanctified in righteousness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,16);">Isa 5:16</a>). So Isaiah\'s peculiar phrase, "the Holy One of Israel," brings God in His most exalted being into a relation of knowledge and moral reciprocity with Israel.<P>(3) Universality:<P>The moralizing of righteousness and holiness universalized Deity.—From Amos downward Yahweh\'s moral rule, and therefore His absolute power, were recognized as extending over all the nations surrounding Israel, and the great world-power of Assyria is but the rod of His anger and the instrument of His righteousness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Amo\',1,\'1-\');">Am 1-2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,5);">Isa 10:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,5);">13:5</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,1);">19:1</a>). Idolatrous and polytheistic worship of all kinds are condemned. The full inference of Monotheism was only a gradual process, even with the prophets. It is not clear that the 8th-century prophets all denied the existence of other gods, though Isaiah\'s term for them, \'elilim ("things of nought," "no-gods"), points in that direction. At least the monotheistic process had set in. And Yahweh\'s control over other nations was not exercised merely from Israel\'s point of view. The issue of the judgment upon the two great powers of Egypt and Assyria was to be their conversion to the religion of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',19,24,25);">Isa 19:24-25</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,\'2-4\');">Isa 2:2-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',4,\'1-3\');">Mic 4:1-3</a>). Yet Hebrew universalism never went beyond the idea that all nations should find their share in Yahweh through Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,23);">Zec 8:23</a>). The nations from the ends of the earth shall come to Yahweh and declare that their fathers\' gods were "lies, even vanity and things wherein there is no profit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,19);">Jer 16:19</a>). It is stated categorically that "Yahweh he is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,39);">De 4:39</a>).<P>(4) Unity:<P>The unity of God was the leading idea of Josiah\'s reformation. Jerusalem was cleansed of every accretion of Baal-worship and of other heathen religions that had established themselves by the side of the worship of Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'4-8\',\'10-14\');">2Ki 23:4-8, 10-14</a>). The semi-heathen worship of Yahweh in many local shrines, which tended to disintegrate His unity, was swept away (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,8,9);">2Ki 23:8-9</a>). The reform was extended to the Northern Kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,\'15-20\');">2Ki 23:15-20</a>), so that Jerusalem should be the sole habitation of Yahweh on earth, and His worship there alone should be the symbol of unity to the whole Hebrew race.<P>But the monotheistic doctrine is first fully and consciously stated in Second Isaiah. There is no God but Yahweh: other gods are merely graven images, and their worshippers commit the absurdity of worshipping the work of their own hands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,8);">Isa 42:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,\'8-20\');">44:8-20</a>). Yahweh manifests His deity in His absolute sovereignty of the world, both of Nature and history. The prophet had seen the rise and fall of Assyria, the coming of Cyrus, the deportation and return of Judah\'s exiles, as incidents in the training of Israel for her world-mission to be "a light of the Gentiles" and Yahweh\'s "salvation unto the end of the earth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,\'1-7\');">Isa 42:1-7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,\'1-6\');">49:1-6</a>). Israel\'s world-mission, and the ordering of historical movements to the grand final purpose of universal salvation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,23);">Isa 45:23</a>), is the philosophy of history complementary to the doctrine of God\'s unity and universal sovereignty.<P>(5) Creator and Lord:<P>A further inference is that He is Creator and Lord of the physical universe. Israel\'s call and mission is from Yahweh who "created the heavens, and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,5);">Isa 42:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,12,26);">Isa 40:12, 26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,24);">44:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',45,18);">45:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,\'1-\');">Ge 1</a>). All the essential factors of Monotheism are here at last exhibited, not in abstract metaphysical terms, but as practical motives of religious life. His counsel and action are His own (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,13);">Isa 40:13</a>) Nothing is hid from Him; and the future like the past is known to Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,27);">Isa 40:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,9);">42:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,8);">44:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,6);">48:6</a>). Notwithstanding His special association with the temple in Jerusalem, He is "the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity"; the heaven is His throne, and no house or place can contain Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,15);">Isa 57:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,1);">66:1</a>). No force of history or Nature can withstand His purpose (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,\'17-20\');">Isa 41:17-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,13);">42:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,13);">43:13</a>). He is "the First and the Last," an "Everlasting God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,28);">Isa 40:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,4);">41:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,12);">48:12</a>). Nothing can be likened to Him or compared with Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,5);">Isa 46:5</a>). As the heavens are higher than the earth, so His thoughts and ways transcend those of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',55,8,9);">Isa 55:8-9</a>). But anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions still abound. Eyes, mouth, ears, nostrils, hands, arms and face are His; He is a man of war (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,13);">Isa 42:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,1);">63:1</a>); He cries like a travailing woman (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,14);">Isa 42:14</a>), and feeds His flock like a shepherd (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,11);">Isa 40:11</a>). Thus, alone could the prophet express His full concrete Divinity.<P>(6) His compassion and love are expressed in a variety of ways that lead up directly to the New Testament doctrine of Divine Fatherhood. He folds Israel in His arms as a shepherd his lambs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,11);">Isa 40:11</a>). Her scattered children are His sons and daughters whom He redeems and restores (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,\'5-7\');">Isa 43:5-7</a>). In wrath for a moment He hides His face, but His mercy and kindness are everlasting (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',54,8);">Isa 54:8</a>). Greater than a mother\'s tenderness is Yahweh\'s love for Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,15);">Isa 49:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,13);">66:13</a>). "It would be easy to find in the prophet proof-texts for everything which theology asserts regarding God, with the exception perhaps that He is a spirit, by which is meant that He is a particular kind of substance" (A.B. Davidson in Skinner, Isaiah, II, xxix). But in truth the spirituality and personality of God are more adequately expressed in the living human language of the prophet than in the dead abstractions of metaphysics.<P>6. Idea of God in Post-exilic Judaism:<P>Monotheism appears in this period as established beyond question, and in the double sense that Yahweh the God of Israel is one Being, and that beside Him there is no other God. He alone is God of all the earth, and all other beings stand at an infinite distance from Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,31);">Ps 18:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',24,1);">24:1</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,3);">115:3</A>). The generic name God is frequently applied to Him, and the tendency appears to avoid the particular and proper name Yahweh (see especially <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'1-\');">Psalms 73-89</a>; Job; Ecclesiastes).<P>(1) New Conditions.<P>Nothing essentially new appears, but the teaching of the prophets is developed under new influences. And what then was enforced by the few has now become the creed of the many. The teaching of the prophets had been enforced by the experiences of the exile. Israel had been punished for her sins of idolatry, and the faithful among the exiles had learned that Yahweh\'s rule extended over many lands and nations. The foreign influences had been more favorable to Monotheism. The gods of Canaan and even of Assyria and Babylonia had been overthrown, and their peoples had given place to the Persians, who, in the religion of Zarathushtra, had advanced nearer to a pure Monotheism than any Gentile race had done; for although they posited two principles of being, the Good and the Evil, they worshipped only Ahura-Mazda, the Good. When Persia gave way to Greece, the more cultured Greek, the Greek who had ideas to disseminate, and who established schools at Antioch or Alexandria, was a pure Monotheist.<P>(2) Divine Attributes.<P>Although we do not yet find anything like a dogmatic account of God\'s attributes, the larger outlook upon the universe and the deeper reflection upon man\'s individual experience have produced more comprehensive and far-reaching ideas of God\'s being and activity. (a) Faith rests upon His eternity and unchangeablehess (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',90,1);">Ps 90:1-2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',102,27);">102:27</a>). His omniscience and omnipresence are expressed with every possible fullness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',139,\'1-\');">Ps 139</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',26,6);">Job 26:6</a>). His almighty power is at once the confidence of piety, and the rebuke of blasphemy or frowardness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',74,\'12-17\');">Ps 74:12-17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,\'1-\');">104</a> et passim; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,\'1-\');">Job 36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',37,\'1-\');">37</a> et passim; Ecclesiasticus 16:17ff). (b) His most exalted and comprehensive attribute is His holiness; by it He swears as by Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',89,35);">Ps 89:35</a>); it expresses His majesty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',99,3,5,9);">Ps 99:3, 5, 9</A>) and His supreme power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',60,6);">Ps 60:6</a>).(c) His righteousness marks all His acts in relation to Israel and the nations around her (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,\'137-144\');">Ps 119:137-144</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',129,4);">129:4</a>). (d) That both holiness and righteousness were conceived as moral qualities is reflected in the profound sense of sin which the pious knew (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',51,\'1-\');">Ps 51</a>) and revealed in the moral demands associated with them; truth, honesty and fidelity are the qualities of those who shall dwell in God\'s holy hill (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',15,\'1-\');">Ps 15</a>); purity, diligence, kindliness, honesty, humility and wisdom are the marks of the righteous man (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',10,\'1-\');">Pr 10</a>-<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,\'1-\');">11</a>). (e) In Job and Proverbs wisdom stands forth as the preeminent quality of the ideal man, combining in itself all moral and intellectual excellences, and wisdom comes from God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',2,6);">Pr 2:6</a>); it is a quality of His nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,22);">Pr 8:22</a>) and a mode of His activity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,19);">Pr 3:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,24);">Ps 104:24</a>). In the Hellenistic circles of Alexandria, wisdom was transformed into a philosophical conception, which is at once the principle of God\'s sell-revelation and of His creative activity. Philo identifies it with His master-conception, the Logos. "Both Logos and Wisdom mean for Him the reason and mind of God, His image impressed upon the universe, His agent of creation and providence, the mediator through which He communicates Himself to man and the world, and His law imposed upon both the moral and physical universe" (Mansfield Essays, 296). In the Book of Wisdom it is represented as proceeding from God, "a breath of the power of God, and a clear effulgence of the glory of the Almighty...an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness" (7:25,26). In man, it is the author of knowledge, virtue and piety, and in the world it has been the guide and arbiter of its destiny from the beginning (chapters 10-12). (f) But in the more purely Hebrew literature of this period, the moral attribute of God that comes into greatest prominence is His beneficence. Goodness and mercy, faithfulness and loving-kindness, forgiveness and redemption are His willing gifts to Israel. "Like as a father pitieth his children, so Yahweh pitieth them that fear him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,13);">Ps 103:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,8);">145:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,8);">103:8</a>; Ecclesiasticus 2:11). To say that God is loving and like a father goes far on the way to the doctrine that He is Love and Father, but not the whole way; for as yet His mercy and grace are manifested only in individual acts, and they are not the natural and necessary outflow of His nature. All these ideas of God meant less for the Jewish than for the Christian mind, because they were yet held subject to several limitations.<P>(3) Surviving Limitations.<P>(a) Disappearing Anthropomorphism:<P>We have evidence of a changed attitude toward anthropomorphisms. God no longer walks on earth, or works under human limitation. Where His eyes or ears or face or hands are spoken of, they are clearly figurative expressions. His activities are universal and invisible, and He dwells on high forevermore. Yet anthropomorphic limitations are not wholly overcome. The idea that He sleeps, though not to be taken literally, implies a defect of His power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,23);">Ps 44:23</a>).<P>(b) Localization:<P>In the metaphysical attributes, the chief limitation was the idea that God\'s dwelling-place on earth was on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. He was no longer confined within Palestine; His throne is in heaven (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',11,4);">Ps 11:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,19);">103:19</a>), and His glory above the heavens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',113,4);">Ps 113:4</a>); but<P class="in15">"In Judah is God known:<P class="in15">His name is great in Israel.<P class="in15">In Salem also is his tabernacle,<P class="in15">And his dwelling-place in Zion"<P class="in15">(<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',76,1,2);">Ps 76:1-2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',110,2);">110:2</a>; compare Ecclesiasticus 24:8ff).<P>That these are no figures of speech is manifested in the yearning of the pious for the temple, and their despair in separation from it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',42,\'1-\');">Pss 42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',43,\'1-\');">43</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',122,\'1-\');">122</A>).<P>(c) Favoritism:<P>This involved a moral limitation, the sense of God\'s favoritism toward Israel, which sometimes developed into an easy self-righteousness that had no moral basis. God\'s action in the world was determined by His favor toward Israel, and His loving acts were confined within the bounds of a narrow nationalism. Other nations are wicked and sinners, adversaries and oppressors, upon whom God is called to execute savage vengeance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',109,\'1-\');">Ps 109</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',137,\'7-9\');">137:7-9</a>). Yet Israel did not wholly forget that it was the servant of Yahweh to proclaim His name among the nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,2,3);">Ps 96:2-3</a>). Yahweh is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,9);">Ps 145:9</a>; Ecclesiasticus 18:13; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,14);">Ps 104:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',14,16);">Zec 14:16</a>, and the Book of Jonah, which is a rebuke to Jewish particularism).<P>(d) Ceremonial Legalism:<P>God\'s holiness in the hands of the priests tended to become a material and formal quality, which fulfilled itself in established ceremonial, and His righteousness in the hands of the scribes tended to become an external law whose demands were satisfied by a mechanical obedience of works. This external conception of righteousness reacted upon the conception of God\'s government of the world. From the earliest times the Hebrew mind had associated suffering with the punishment of sin, and blessedness with the reward of virtue. In the post-exilic age the relation came to be thought of as one of strict correspondence between righteousness and reward and between sin and punishment. Righteousness, both in man and God, was not so much a moral state as a measurable sum of acts, in the one case, of obedience, and in the other, of reward or retribution. Conversely, every calamity and evil that befell men came to be regarded as the direct and equivalent penalty of a sin they had committed. The Book of Job is a somewhat inconclusive protest against this prevalent view.<P>These were the tendencies that ultimately matured into the narrow externalism of the scribes and Pharisees of our Lord\'s time, which had substituted for the personal knowledge and service of God a system of mechanical acts of worship and conduct.<P>(4) Tendencies to Abstractness:<P>Behind these defective ideas of God\'s attributes stood a more radical defect of the whole religious conception. The purification of the religion of Israel from Polytheism and idolatry, the affirmation of the unity of God and of His spirituality, required His complete separation from the manifoldness of visible existence. It was the only way, until the more adequate idea of a personal or spiritual unity, that embraced the manifold in itself, was developed. But it was an unstable conception, which tended on the one hand to empty the unity of all reality, and on the other to replace it by a new multiplicity which was not a unity. Both tendencies appear in post-exilic Judaism.<P>(a) Transcendence:<P>The first effect of distinguishing too sharply between God and all created being was to set Him above and apart from all the world. This tendency had already appeared in Ezekiel, whose visions were rather symbols of God\'s presence than actual experiences of God. In Daniel even the visions appear only in dreams. The growth of the Canon of sacred literature as the final record of the law of God, and the rise of the scribes as its professional interpreters, signified that God need not, and would not, speak face to face with man again; and the stricter organization of the priesthood and its sacrificial acts in Jerusalem tended to shut men generally out from access to God, and to reduce worship into a mechanical performance. A symptom of this fact was the disuse of the personal name Yahweh and the substitution for it of more general and abstract terms like God and Lord.<P>(b) Skepticism:<P>Not only an exaggerated awe, but also an element of skepticism, entered into the disuse of the proper name, a sense of the inadequacy of any name. In the Wisdom literature, God\'s incomprehensibility and remoteness appear for the first time as a conscious search after Him and a difficulty to find Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',16,\'18-21\');">Job 16:18-21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',23,3,8,9);">23:3, 8-9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',30,\'2-4\');">Pr 30:2-4</a>). Even the doctrine of immortality developed with the sense of God\'s present remoteness and the hope of His future nearness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,15);">Ps 17:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,25);">Job 19:25</a>). But Jewish theology was no cold Epicureanism or rationalistic Deism. Men\'s religious experiences apprehended God more intimately than their theology professed.<P>(c) Immanence:<P>By a "happy inconsistency" (Montefiore) they affirmed His immanence both in Nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',104,\'1-\');">Ps 104</a>; The <span class="noTag">Wisdom of Solomon 8:1; 12:1,2</span>) and in man\'s inner experience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,3,11);">Pr 15:3, 11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,9);">1Ch 28:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,17,18);">29:17-18</a>). Yet that transcendence was the dominating thought is manifest, most of all, in the formulation of a number of mediating conceptions, which, while they connected God and the world, also revealed the gulf that separated them.<P>(5) Logos, Memra\' and Angels:<P>This process of abstraction had gone farthest in Alexandria, where Jewish thought had so far assimilated Platonic philosophy, that Philo and Wisdom conceive God as pure being who could not Himself come into any contact with the material and created world. His action and revelation are therefore mediated by His Powers, His Logos and His Wisdom, which, as personified or hypostatized attributes, become His vicegerents on earth. But in Palestine, too many mediating agencies grew up between God and man. The memra\', or word of God, was not unlike Philo\'s Logos. The deified law partly corresponded to Alexandrian Wisdom. The Messiah had already appeared in the Prophets, and now in some circles He was expected as the mediator of God\'s special favor to Israel. The most important and significant innovation in this connection was the doctrine of angels. It was not entirely new, and Babylonian and Persian influences may have contributed to its development; but its chief cause lay in the general scheme of thought. Angels became intermediaries of revelation (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,9,12,19);">Zec 1:9, 12, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',3,1);">3:1</a>), the instruments of God\'s help (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',3,28);">Da 3:28</a>; 2Macc 11:6), and of His punishment (Baruch 21:23). The ancient gods of the nations became their patron angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,\'13-20\');">Dan 10:13-20</a>); but Israel\'s hatred of their Gentile enemies often led to their transforming the latter\'s deities into demons. Incidentally a temporary solution of the problem of evil was thus found, by shifting all responsibility for evil from Yahweh to the demons. The unity and supremacy of God were maintained by the doubtful method of delegating His manifold, and especially His contradictory, activities to subordinate and partially to hostile spirits, which involved a new Polytheism. The problem of the One and the Many in ultimate reality cannot be solved by merely separating them. Hebrew Monotheism was unstable; it maintained its own truth even partially by affirming contradictories, and it contained in itself the demand for a further development. The few pluralistic phrases in the Old Testament (as <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">Ge 1:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',11,7);">11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',6,8);">Isa 6:8</a>, and \'Elohim) are not adumbrations of the Trinity, but only philological survivals. But the Messianic hope was an open confession of the incompleteness of the Old Testament revelation of God.``145';
isbe[3852]='God, 3`III. The Idea of God in the New Testament.<P>1. Dependence on the Old Testament:<P>The whole of the New Testament presupposes and rests upon the Old Testament. Jesus Christ and His disciples inherited the idea of God revealed in the Old Testament, as it survived in the purer strata of Jewish religion. So much was it to them and their contemporaries a matter of course, that it never occurred to them to proclaim or enforce the idea of God. Nor did they consciously feel the need of amending or changing it. They sought to correct some fallacious deductions made by later Judaism, and, unconsciously, they dropped the cruder anthropomorphisms and limitations of the Old Testament idea. But their point of departure was always the higher teaching of the prophets and Psalms, and their conscious endeavor in presenting God to men was to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,17);">Mt 5:17</a>). All the worthier ideas concerning God evolved in the Old Testament reappear in the New Testament. He is One, supreme, living, personal and spiritual, holy, righteous and merciful. His power and knowledge are all-sufficient, and He is not limited in time or place. Nor can it be said that any distinctly new attributes are ascribed to God in the New Testament. Yet there is a difference. The conception and all its factors are placed in a new relation to man and the universe, whereby their meaning is transformed, enhanced and enriched. The last trace of particularism, with its tendency to Polytheism, disappears. God can no longer bear a proper name to associate Him with Israel, or to distinguish Him from other gods, for He is the God of all the earth, who is no respecter of persons or nations. Two new elements entered men\'s religious thought and gradually lifted its whole content to a new plane—Jesus Christ\'s experience and manifestation of the Divine Fatherhood, and the growing conviction of the church that Christ Himself was God and the full and final revelation of God.<P>2. Gentile Influence:<P>Greek thought may also have influenced New Testament thought, but in a comparatively insignificant and subordinate way. Its content was not taken over bodily as was that of Hebrew thought, and it did not influence the fountain head of New Testament ideas. It did not color the mind and teaching of Jesus Christ. It affected the form rather than matter of New Testament teaching. It appears in the clear-cut distinction between flesh and spirit, mind and body, which emerges in Paul\'s Epistles, and so it helped to define more accurately the spirituality of God. The idea of the Logos in John, and the kindred idea of Christ as the image of God in Paul and He, owe something to the influence of the Platonic and Stoic schools. As this is the constructive concept employed in the New Testament to define the religious significance of Christ and His essential relation to God, it modifies the idea of God itself, by introducing a distinction within the unity into its innermost meaning.<P>3. Absence of Theistic Proofs:<P>Philosophy never appears in the New Testament on its own account, but only as subservient to Christian experience. In the New Testament as in the Old Testament, the existence of God is taken for granted as the universal basis of all life and thought. Only in three passages of Paul\'s, addressed to heathen audiences, do we find anything approaching a natural theology, and these are concerned rather with defining the nature of God, than with proving His existence. When the people of Lystra would have worshipped Paul and Barnabas as heathen gods, the apostle protests that God is not like men, and bases His majesty upon His creatorship of all things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,15);">Ac 14:15</a>). He urges the same argument at Athens, and appeals for its confirmation to the evidences of man\'s need of God which he had found in Athens itself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,\'23-31\');">Ac 17:23-31</a>). The same natural witness of the soul, face to face with the universe, is again in Romans made the ground of universal responsibility to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,\'18-21\');">Ac 1:18-21</a>). No formal proof of God\'s existence is offered in the New Testament. Nor are the metaphysical attributes of God, His infinity, omnipotence and omniscience, as defined in systematic theology, at all set forth in the New Testament. The ground for these deductions is provided in the religious experience that finds God in Christ all-sufficient.<P>4. Fatherhood of God:<P>The fundamental and central idea about God in New Testament teaching is His Fatherhood, and it determines all that follows. In some sense the idea was not unknown to heathen religions. Greeks and Romans acknowledged Father Zeus or Jupiter as the creator and preserver of Nature, and as standing in some special relation to men. In the Old Testament the idea appears frequently, and has a richer content. Not only is God the creator and preserver of Israel, but He deals with her as a father with his child. "Like as a father pitieth his children, so Yahweh pitieth them that fear Him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,13);">Ps 103:13</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',1,31);">De 1:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,4,19);">Jer 3:4, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,20);">31:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,16);">Isa 63:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,1);">Ho 11:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,17);">Mal 3:17</a>). Even His chastisements are "as a man chasteneth his son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,5);">De 8:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',64,8);">Isa 64:8</a>). The same idea is expressed under the figure of a mother\'s tender care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,15);">Isa 49:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',66,13);">66:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',27,10);">Ps 27:10</a>), and it is embedded in the covenant relation. But in the Old Testament the idea does not occupy the central and determinative position it has in New Testament, and it is always limited to Israel.<P>(1) In the Teaching of Jesus Christ:<P>God is preeminently the Father. It is his customary term for the Supreme Being, and it is noteworthy that Jesus\' usage has never been quite naturalized. We still say "God" where Jesus would have said "the Father." He meant that the essential nature of God, and His relation to men, is best expressed by the attitude and relation of a father to his children; but God is Father in an infinitely higher and more perfect degree than any man. He is "good" and "perfect," the heavenly Father, in contrast with men, who, even as fathers, are evil (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">7:11</a>). What in them is an ideal imperfectly and intermittently realized, is in Him completely fulfilled. Christ thought not of the physical relation of origin and derivation, but of the personal relation of love and care which a father bestows upon his children. The former relation is indeed implied, for the Father is ever working in the world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,17);">Joh 5:17</a>), and all things lie in His power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,42);">Lu 22:42</a>). By His preserving power, the least as well as the greatest creature lives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,26);">Mt 6:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,29);">10:29</a>). But it is not the fact of God\'s creative, preserving and governing power, so much as the manner of it, that Christ emphasizes. He is absolutely good in all His actions and relations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,18);">Mr 10:18</a>). To Him men and beasts turn for all they need, and in Him they find safety, rest and peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,26,32);">Mt 6:26, 32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">7:11</a>). His goodness goes forth spontaneously and alights upon all living things, even upon the unjust and His enemies (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,45);">Mt 5:45</a>). He rewards the obedient (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1);">Mt 6:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,21);">7:21</a>), forgives the disobedient (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,14);">Mt 6:14</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,35);">Mt 18:35</a>) and restores the prodigal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,11);">Lu 15:11</a>)." Fatherhood is love, original and underived, anticipating and undeserved, forgiving and educating, communicating and drawing to his heart" (Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, I, 82). To the Father, therefore, should men pray for all good things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,9);">Mt 6:9</a>), and He is the ideal of all perfection, to which they should seek to attain (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>). Such is the general character of God as expressed in His Fatherhood, but it is realized in different ways by those who stand to Him in different relations.<P>(a) Its Relation to Himself:<P>Jesus Christ knows the Father as no one else does, and is related to Him in a unique manner. The idea is central in His teaching, because the fact is fundamental in His experience. On His first personal appearance in history He declares that He must be about His Father\'s business (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,49);">Lu 2:49</a>), and at the last He commends His spirit into His Father\'s hands. Throughout His life, His filial consciousness is perfect and unbroken. "I and the Father are one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,30);">Joh 10:30</a>). As He knows the Father, so the Father knows and acknowledges Him. At the opening of His ministry, and again at its climax in the transfiguration, the Father bears witness to His perfect sonship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,11);">Mr 1:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,7);">9:7</a>). It was a relation of mutual love and confidence, unalloyed and infinite. "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,35);">Joh 3:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,20);">5:20</a>). The Father sent the Son into the world, and entrusted Him with his message and power (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>). He gave Him those who believed in Him, to receive His word (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',6,37,44,45);">Joh 6:37, 44-45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,6,8);">17:6, 8</a>). He does the works and speaks the words of the Father who sent Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,36);">Joh 5:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,18,29);">8:18, 29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,24);">14:24</a>). His dependence upon the Father, and His trust in Him are equally complete (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',11,41);">Joh 11:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',12,27);">12:27</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,\'1-\');">17</A>). In this perfect union of Christ. with God, unclouded by sin, unbroken by infidelity, God first became for a human life on earth all that He could and would become. Christ\'s filial consciousness was in fact and experience the full and final revelation of God. "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,27);">Mt 11:27</a>). Not only can we see in Christ what perfect sonship is, but in His filial consciousness the Father Himself is so completely reflected that we may know the perfect Father also. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,9);">Joh 14:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,19);">Joh 8:19</a>). Nay, it is more than a reflection: so completely is the mind and will of Christ identified with that of the Father, that they interpenetrate, and the words and works of the Father shine out through Christ. "The words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,10,11);">Joh 14:10-11</a>). As the Father, so is the Son, for men to honor or to hate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,23);">Joh 5:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',15,23);">15:23</a>). In the last day, when He comes to execute the judgment which the Father has entrusted to Him, He shall come in the glory of the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,27);">Mt 16:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',8,38);">Mr 8:38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',9,26);">Lu 9:26</a>). In all this Jesus is aware that His relation to the Father is unique. What in Him is original and realized, in others can only be an ideal to be gradually realized by His communication. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,6);">Joh 14:6</a>). He is, therefore, rightly called the "only begotten son" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>), and His contemporaries believed that He made Himself equal to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,18);">Joh 5:18</a>).<P>(b) To Believers:<P>Through Christ, His disciples and hearers, too, may know God as their Father. He speaks of "your Father," "your heavenly Father." To them as individuals, it means a personal relation; He is "thy Father" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,4,18);">Mt 6:4, 18</a>). Their whole conduct should be determined by the consciousness of the Father\'s intimate presence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,1,4);">Mt 6:1, 4</a>). To do His will is the ideal of life (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,21);">Mt 7:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,50);">12:50</a>). More explicitly, it is to act as He does, to love and forgive as He loves and forgives (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,45);">Mt 5:45</a>); and, finally, to be perfect as He is perfect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>). Thus do men become sons of their Father who is in heaven. Their peace and safety lay in their knowledge of His constant and all-sufficient care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,26,32);">Mt 6:26, 32</a>). The ultimate goal of men\'s relation to Christ is that through Him they should come to a relation with the Father like His relation both to the Father and to them, wherein Father, Son, and believers form a social unity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,21);">Joh 14:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,23);">17:23</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,21);">Joh 17:21</a>).<P>(c) To All Men:<P>While God\'s fatherhood is thus realized and revealed, originally and fully in Christ, derivatively and partially in believers, it also has significance for all men. Every man is born a child of God and heir of His kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,16);">Lu 18:16</a>). During childhood, aIl men are objects of His fatherly love and care (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,10);">Mt 18:10</a>), and it is not His will that one of them should perish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,14);">Mt 18:14</a>). Even if they become His enemies, He still bestows His beneficence upon the evil and the unjust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,44,45);">Mt 5:44-45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,35);">Lu 6:35</a>). The prodigal son may become unworthy to be called a son, but the father always remains a father. Men may become so far unfaithful that in them the fatherhood is no longer manifest and that their inner spirits own not God, but the devil, as their father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',8,\'42-44\');">Joh 8:42-44</a>). So their filial relation to God may be broken, but His nature and attitude are not changed. He is the Father absolutely, and as Father is He perfect (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,48);">Mt 5:48</a>). The essential and universal Divine Fatherhood finds its eternal and continual object in the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. As a relation with men, it is qualified by their attitude to God; while some by faithlessness make it of no avail, others by obedience become in the reality of their experience sons of their Father in heaven.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN+OF+GOD">CHILDREN OF GOD</a>.<P>(2) In Apostolic Teaching:<P>In the apostolic teaching, although the Fatherhood of God is not so prominently or so abundantly exhibited as it was by Jesus Christ, it lies at the root of the whole system of salvation there presented. Paul\'s central doctrine of justification by faith is but the scholastic form of the parable of the Prodigal Son. John\'s one idea, that God is love, is but an abstract statement of His fatherhood. In complete accord with Christ\'s teaching, that only through Himself men know the Father and come to Him, the whole apostolic system of grace is mediated through Christ the Son of God, sent because "God so loved the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>), that through His death men might be reconciled to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,10);">Ro 5:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,3);">8:3</a>). He speaks to men through the Son who is the effulgence of His glory, and the very image of His substance (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,2,3);">Heb 1:2-3</a>). The central position assigned to Christ involves the central position of the Fatherhood.<P>As in the teaching of Jesus, so in that of the apostles, we distinguish three different relationships in which the fatherhood is realized in varying degrees:<P>(a) Father of Jesus Christ:<P>Primarily He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,6);">Ro 15:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',1,3);">2Co 1:3</a>). As such He is the source of every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,3);">Eph 1:3</a>). Through Christ we have access unto the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,18);">Eph 2:18</a>).<P>(b) Our Father:<P>He is, therefore, God our Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,7);">Ro 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',1,3);">1Co 1:3</a>). Believers are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',3,26);">Ga 3:26</a>). "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,14);">Ro 8:14</a>). These receive the spirit of adoption whereby they cry, Abba, Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,15);">Ro 8:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,6);">Ga 4:6</a>). The figure of adoption has sometimes been understood as implying the denial of man\'s natural sonship and God\'s essential Fatherhood, but that would be pressing the figure beyond Paul\'s purpose.<P>(c) Universal Father:<P>The apostles\' teaching, like Christ\'s, is that man in sin cannot possess the filial consciousness or know God as Father; but God, in His attitude to man, is always and essentially Father. In the sense of creaturehood and dependence, man in any condition is a son of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,28);">Ac 17:28</a>). And to speak of any other natural sonship which is not also morally realized is meaningless. From God\'s standpoint, man even in his sin is a possible son, in the personal and moral sense; and the whole process and power of his awakening to the realization of his sonship issues from the fatherly love of God, who sent His Son and gave the Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,5);">Ro 5:5, 8</a>). He is "the Father" absolutely, "one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all. But unto each one of us was the grace given according to the measure of the gift of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,6,7);">Eph 4:6-7</a>).<P>5. God is King:<P>After the Divine Fatherhood, the kingdom of God (Mark and Luke) or of heaven (Matthew) is the next ruling conception in the teaching of Jesus. As the doctrine of the Fatherhood sets forth the individual relation of men to God, that of the kingdom defines their collective and social condition, as determined by the rule of the Father.<P>(1) The Kingdom of God:<P>Christ adopted and transformed the Old Testament idea of Yahweh\'s rule into an inner and spiritual principle of His gospel, without, however, quite detaching it from the external and apocalyptic thought of His time. He adopts the Jewish idea in so far as it involves the enforcing of God\'s rule; and in the immediate future He anticipates such a reorganization of social conditions in the manifestation of God\'s reign over men and Nature, as will ultimately amount to a regeneration of all things in accordance with the will of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,1);">Mr 9:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,30);">13:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,28);">Mt 16:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,28);">19:28</a>). But He eliminated the particularism and favoritism toward the Jews, as well as the non-moral, easy optimism as to their destiny in the kingdom, which obtained in contemporary thought. The blessings of the kingdom are moral and spiritual in their nature, and the conditions of entrance into it are moral too (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',8,11);">Mt 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',21,31,43);">21:31, 43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,37);">23:37-38</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',13,29);">Lu 13:29</a>). They are humility, hunger and thirst after righteousness, and the love of mercy, purity and peace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'3-10\');">Mt 5:3-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,1,3);">18:1, 3</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,\'26-28\');">Mt 20:26-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,34);">25:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,21);">7:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,3);">Joh 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,20,21);">Lu 17:20-21</a>). The king of such a kingdom is, therefore, righteous, loving and gracious toward all men; He governs by the inner communion of spirit with spirit and by the loving coordination of the will of His subjects with his own will.<P>(2) Its King:<P>But who is the king?<P>(a) God:<P>Generally in Mark and Luke, and sometimes in Matthew, it is called the kingdom of God. In several parables, the Father takes the place of king, and it is the Father that gives the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,32);">Lu 12:32</a>). God the Father is therefore the King, and we are entitled to argue from Jesus\' teaching concerning the kingdom to His idea of God. The will of God is the law of the kingdom, and the ideal of the kingdom is, therefore, the character of God.<P>(b) Christ:<P>But in some passages Christ reveals the consciousness of his own Kingship. He approves Peter\'s confession of his Messiahship, which involves Kingship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,16);">Mt 16:16</a>). He speaks of a time in the immediate future when men shall see "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',16,28);">Mt 16:28</a>). As judge of all men, He designates Himself king (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,34);">Mt 25:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,38);">Lu 19:38</a>). He accepts the title king from Pilate (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,11,12);">Mt 27:11-12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,2);">Mr 15:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,3);">Lu 23:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,37);">Joh 18:37</a>), and claims a kingdom which is not of this world (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',18,36);">Joh 18:36</a>). His disciples look to Him for the restoration of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',1,6);">Ac 1:6</a>). His kingdom, like that of God, is inner, moral and spiritual.<P>(c) Their Relation:<P>But there can be only one moral kingdom, and only one supreme authority in the spiritual realm. The coordination of the two kingships must be found in their relation to the Fatherhood. The two ideas are not antithetical or even independent. They may have been separate and even opposed as Christ found them, but He used them as two points of apperception in the minds of His hearers, by which He communicated to them His one idea of God, as the Father who ruled a spiritual kingdom by love and righteousness, and ordered Nature and history to fulfill His purpose of grace. Men\'s prayer should be that the Father\'s kingdom may come (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,9,10);">Mt 6:9-10</a>). They enter the kingdom by doing the Father\'s will (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,21);">Mt 7:21</a>). It is their Father\'s good pleasure to give them the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,32);">Lu 12:32</a>). The Fatherhood is primary, but it carries with it authority, government, law and order, care and provision, to set up and organize a kingdom reflecting a Father\'s love and expressing His will.<P>And as Christ is the revealer and mediator of the Fatherhood, He also is the messenger and bearer of the kingdom. In his person, preaching and works, the kingdom is present to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,17,23);">Mt 4:17, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,28);">12:28</a>), and as its king He claims men\'s allegiance and obedience (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,28,29);">Mt 11:28-29</a>). His sonship constitutes His relation to the kingdom. As son He obeys the Father, depends upon Him, represents Him to men, and is one with Him. And in virtue of this relation, He is the messenger of the kingdom and its principle, and at the same time He shares with the Father its authority and Kingship.<P>(3) Apostolic Teaching:<P>In the apostolic writings, the emphasis upon the elements of kingship, authority, law and righteousness is greater than in the gospels. The kingdom is related to God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',4,11);">Col 4:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,12);">1Th 2:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,5);">2Th 1:5</a>), and to Christ (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,13);">Col 1:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,1,18);">2Ti 4:1, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',1,11);">2Pe 1:11</a>), and to both together (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,5);">Eph 5:5</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,24);">1Co 15:24</a>). The phrase "the kingdom of the Son of his love" sums up the idea of the joint kingship, based upon the relation of Father and Son.<P>6. Moral Attributes:<P>The nature and character of God are summed up in the twofold relation of Father and King in which He stands to men, and any abstract statements that may be made about Him, any attributes that may be ascribed to Him, are deductions from His royal Fatherhood.<P>(1) Personality:<P>That a father and king is a person needs not to be argued, and it is almost tautology to say that a person is a spirit. Christ relates directly the spirituality of God to His Fatherhood. "The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',4,23,24);">Joh 4:23-24</a> margin). Figurative expressions denoting the same truth are the Johannine phrases, \'God is life\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,20);">1Joh 5:20</a>), and "God is light" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',1,5);">1Joh 1:5</a>).<P>(2) Love:<P>Love is the most characteristic attribute of Fatherhood. It is the abstract term that most fully expresses the concrete character of God as Father. In John\'s theology, it is used to sum up all God\'s perfections in one general formula. God is love, and where no love is, there can be no knowledge of God and no realization of Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,8),16;">1Joh 4:8, 16</a>). With one exception (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',11,42);">Lu 11:42</a>), the phrase "the love of God" appears in the teaching of Jesus only as it is represented in the Fourth Gospel. There it expresses the bond of union and communion, issuing from God, that holds together the whole spiritual society, God, Christ and believers (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,\'1-\');">Joh 10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,21);">14:21</a>). Christ\'s mission was that of revelation, rather than of interpretation, and what in person and act He represents before men as the living Father, the apostles describe as almighty and universal love. They saw and realized this love first in the Son, and especially in His sacrificial death. It is "the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,39);">Ro 8:39</a>). "God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,8);">Ro 5:8</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',2,4);">Eph 2:4</a>). Love was fully made known in Christ\'s death (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,16);">1Joh 3:16</a>). The whole process of the incarnation and death of Christ was also a sacrifice of God\'s and the one supreme manifestation of His nature as love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,9,10);">1Joh 4:9-10</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',3,16);">Joh 3:16</a>). The love of God is His fatherly relation to Christ extended to men through Christ. By the Father\'s love bestowed upon us, we are called children of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,1);">1Joh 3:1</a>). Love is not only an emotion of tenderness and beneficence which bestows on men the greatest gifts, but a relation to God which constitutes their entire law of life. It imposes upon men the highest moral demands, and communicates to them the moral energy by which alone they can be met. It is law and grace combined. The love of God is perfected only in those who keep the word of Jesus Christ the Righteous (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,5);">1Joh 2:5</a>). "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',5,3);">1Joh 5:3</a>). It is manifested especially in brotherly love (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,12,20);">1Joh 4:12, 20</a>). It cannot dwell with worldliness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',2,15);">1Joh 2:15</a>) or callous selfishness (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,17);">1Joh 3:17</a>). Man derives it from God as he is made the son of God, begotten of Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,7);">1Joh 4:7</a>).<P>(3) Righteousness and Holiness:<P>Righteousness and holiness were familiar ideas to Jesus and His disciples, as elements in the Divine character. They were current in the thought of their time, and they stood foremost in the Old Testament conception. They were therefore adopted in their entirety in the New Testament, but they stand in a different context. They are coordinated with and even subordinated to, the idea of love. As kingship stands to fatherhood, so righteousness and holiness stand to love.<P>(a) Once we find the phrase "Holy Father" spoken by Jesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,11);">Joh 17:11</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,15,16);">1Pe 1:15-16</a>). But generally the idea of holiness is associated with God in His activity through the Holy Spirit, which renews, enlightens, purifies and cleanses the lives of men. Every vestige of artificial, ceremonial, non-moral meaning disappears from the idea of holiness in the New Testament. The sense of separation remains only as separation from sin. So Christ as high priest is "holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',7,26);">Heb 7:26</a>). Where it dwells, no uncleanness must be (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',6,19);">1Co 6:19</a>). Holiness is not a legal or abstract morality, but a life made pure and noble by the love of God shed abroad in men\'s hearts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,5);">Ro 5:5</a>). "The kingdom of God is...righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',14,17);">Ro 14:17</a>).<P>(b) Righteousness as a quality of character is practically identical with holiness in the New Testament. It is opposed to sin (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',6,13,20);">Ro 6:13, 20</a>) and iniquity (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,14);">2Co 6:14</a>). It is coupled with goodness and truth as the fruit of the light (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,9);">Eph 5:9</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,11);">1Ti 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,22);">2Ti 2:22</a>). It implies a rule or standard of conduct, which in effect is one with the life of love and holiness. It is brought home to men by the conviction of the Holy Spirit (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,8);">Joh 16:8</a>). In its origin it is the righteousness of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,33);">Mt 6:33</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,25);">Joh 17:25</a>). In Paul\'s theology, "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,22);">Ro 3:22</a>) is the act of God, out of free grace, declaring and treating the sinner as righteous, that he thereby may become righteous, even as "we love, because he first loved us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',4,19);">1Joh 4:19</a>). The whole character of God, then, whether we call it love, holiness or righteousness, is revealed in His work of salvation, wherein He goes forth to men in love and mercy, that they may be made citizens of His kingdom, heirs of His righteousness, and participators in His love.<P>7. Metaphysical Attributes:<P>The abstract being of God and His metaphysical attributes are implied, but not defined, in the New Testament. His infinity, omnipotence and omniscience are not enunciated in terms, but they are postulated in the whole scheme of salvation which He is carrying to completion. He is Lord of heaven and earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,25);">Mt 11:25</a>). The forces of Nature are at His command (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,45);">Mt 5:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,30);">6:30</a>). He can answer every prayer and satisfy every need (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,\'7-12\');">Mt 7:7-12</a>). All things are possible to Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,27);">Mr 10:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,36);">14:36</a>). He created all things (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,9);">Eph 3:9</a>). All earthly powers are derived from Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',13,1);">Ro 13:1</a>). By His power, He raised Christ from the dead and subjected to Him "all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion" in heaven and on earth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,20,21);">Eph 1:20-21</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,18);">Mt 28:18</a>). Every power and condition of existence are subordinated to the might of His love unto His saints (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,38,39);">Ro 8:38-39</a>). Neither time nor place can limit Him: He is the eternal God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,26);">Ro 16:26</a>). His knowledge is as infinite as His power; He knows what the Son and the angels know not (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',13,32);">Mr 13:32</a>). He knows the hearts of men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',16,15);">Lu 16:15</a>) and all their needs (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,8,32);">Mt 6:8, 32</a>). His knowledge is especially manifested in His wisdom by which He works out His purpose of salvation, "the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',3,10,11);">Eph 3:10-11</a>). The teaching of the New Testament implies that all perfections of power, condition and being cohere in God, and are revealed in His love. They are not developed or established on metaphysical grounds, but they flow out of His perfect fatherhood. Earthly fathers do what good they can for their children, but the Heavenly Father does all things for the best for His children—"to them that love God all things work together for good"—because He is restricted by no limits of power, will or wisdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,28);">Ro 8:28</a>).<P>8. The Unity of God:<P>It is both assumed through the New Testament and stated categorically that God is one (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',12,29);">Mr 12:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',3,30);">Ro 3:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,6);">Eph 4:6</a>). No truth had sunk more deeply into the Hebrew mind by this time than the unity of God.<P>(1) The Divinity of Christ:<P>Yet it is obvious from what has been written, that Jesus Christ claimed a power, authority and position so unique that they can only be adequately described by calling Him God; and the apostolic church both in worship and in doctrine accorded Him that honor. All that they knew of God as now fully and finally revealed was summed up in His person, "for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">Col 2:9</a>). If they did not call Him God, they recognized and named Him everything that God meant for them.<P>(2) The Holy Spirit:<P>Moreover, the Holy Spirit is a third term that represents a Divine person in the experience, thought and language of Christ and His disciples. In the Johannine account of Christ\'s teaching, it is probable that the Holy Spirit is identified with the risen Lord Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,16,17);">Joh 14:16-17</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',14,18);">Joh 14:18</a>), and Paul seems also to identify them in at least one passage: "the Lord is the Spirit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',3,17);">2Co 3:17</a>). But in other places the three names are ranged side by side as representing three distinct persons (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,19);">Mt 28:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,14);">2Co 13:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,\'4-6\');">Eph 4:4-6</a>).<P>(3) The Church\'s Problem:<P>But how does the unity of God cohere with the Divine status of the Son and the distinct subsistence of the Holy Spirit? Jesus Christ affirmed a unity between Himself and the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,30);">Joh 10:30</a>), a unity, too, which might be realized in a wider sphere, where the Father, the Son and believers should form one society (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,21,23);">Joh 17:21, 23</a>), but He reveals no category which would construe the unity of the Godhead in a manifoldness of manifestation. The experience of the first Christians as a rule found Christ so entirely sufficient to all their religious needs, so filled with all the fullness of God, that the tremendous problem which had arisen for thought did not trouble them. Paul expresses his conception of the relation of Christ to God under the figure of the image. Christ "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',1,15);">Col 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a>). Another writer employs a similar metaphor. Christ is "the effulgence of (God\'s) glory, and the very image of his substance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',1,3);">Heb 1:3</a>). But these figures do not carry us beyond the fact, abundantly evident elsewhere, that Christ in all things represented God because He participated in His being. In the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the doctrine of the Word is developed for the same purpose. The eternal Reason of God who was ever with Him, and of Him, issues forth as revealed thought, or spoken word, in the person of Jesus Christ, who therefore is the eternal Word of God incarnate. So far and no farther the New Testament goes. Jesus Christ is God revealed; we know nothing of God, but that which is manifest in Him. His love, holiness, righteousness and purpose of grace, ordering and guiding all things to realize the ends of His fatherly love, all this we know in and through Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit takes of Christ\'s and declares it to men (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,14);">Joh 16:14</a>). The problems of the coordination of the One with the Three, of personality with the plurality of consciousness, of the Infinite with the finite, and of the Eternal God with the Word made flesh, were left over for the church to solve. The Holy Spirit was given to teach it all things and guide it into all the truth (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',16,13);">Joh 16:13</a>). "And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,20);">Mt 28:20</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Harris The Philosophical Basis of Theism; God the Creator and Lord of All; Flint, Theism; Orr, The Christian View of God and the World; E. Caird, The Evolution of Religion; James Ward, The Realm of Ends; Fairbairn, The Philosophy of the Christian Religion; W.N. Clarke, The Christian Doctrine of God; Adeney, The Christian Conception of God; Rocholl, Der Christliche Gottesbegriff; O. Holtzmann, Der Christliche Gottesglaube, seine Vorgeschichte und Urgeschichte; G. Wobbernim, Der Christliche Gottesglaube in seinem Verhaltnis zur heutigen Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft; Kostlin, article "Gott" in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche; R. S. Candlish, Crawford and Scott-Lidgett, books on The Fatherhood of God: Old Testament Theologies by Oehler, Schultz and Davidson; New Testament Theologies by Schmid, B. Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann and Stevens; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; sections in systems of Christian Doctrine by Schleiermacher, Darner, Nitzsch, Martensen, Thomasius, Hodge, etc.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=JESUS+CHRIST,+1+OUTLINE">JESUS CHRIST</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOLY+SPIRIT,+1">HOLY SPIRIT</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=TRINITY,+1">TRINITY</a>`145';
isbe[3853]='God, Children of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CHILDREN+OF+GOD">CHILDREN OF GOD</a>`1';
isbe[3854]='God, Image of`In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26,27);">Ge 1:26-27</a>, the truth is declared that God created man in His own "image" (tselem), after His "likeness" (demuth). The two ideas denote the same thing—resemblance to God. The like conception of man, tacit or avowed, underlies all revelation. It is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,6);">Ge 9:6</a> as the ground of the prohibition of the shedding of man\'s blood; is echoed in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,\'1-\);">Ps 8</a>; is reiterated frequently in the New Testament (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',11,7);">1Co 11:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',4,24);">Eph 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,10);">Col 3:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',3,9);">Isa 3:9</a>). The nature of this image of God in man is discussed in other articles—see especially <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ANTHROPOLOGY">ANTHROPOLOGY</a>. It lies in the nature of the case that the "image" does not consist in bodily form; it can only reside in spiritual qualities, in man\'s mental and moral attributes as a self-conscious, rational, personal agent, capable of self-determination and obedience to moral law. This gives man his position of lordship in creation, and invests his being with the sanctity of personality. The image of God, defaced, but not entirely lost through sin, is restored in yet more perfect form in the redemption of Christ. See the full discussion in the writer\'s work, God\'s Image in Man and Its Defacement; see also Dr. J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man.``132';
isbe[3855]='God, Names of`<p><b>I. INTRODUCTORY</b><P class="in15">1. The Phrase "His Name"<P class="in15">2. Classification.<P><b>II. PERSONAL NAMES OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. \'Elohim<P class="in15">2. \'El<P class="in15">3. \'Eloah<P class="in15">4. \'Adhon, \'Adhonay<P class="in15">5. Yahweh (Yahweh)<P class="in15">6. Tsur (Rock)<P class="in15">7. Ka\'dhosh<P class="in15">8. Shadday<P><b>III. DESCRIPTIVE NAMES OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. \'Abhir<P class="in15">2. \'El-\'Elohe-Yisra\'el<P class="in15">3. \'Elyon<P class="in15">4. Gibbor<P class="in15">5. \'El-ro\'i<P class="in15">6. Tsaddiq<P class="in15">7. Qanna\'<P class="in15">8. Yahweh Tsebha\'oth<P class="in15">9. "I Am That I Am"<P><b>IV. NEW TESTAMENT NAMES OF GOD</b><P class="in15">1. God<P class="in15">2. Lord<P class="in15">3. Descriptive and Figurative Names<P><b>LITERATURE</b><hr /><P>I. Introduction:<P>To an extent beyond the appreciation of modern and western minds the people of Biblical times and lands valued the name of the person. They always gave to it symbolical or character meaning.<P>While our modern names are almost exclusively designatory, and intended merely for identification, the Biblical names were also descriptive, and often prophetic. Religious significance nearly always inhered in the name, a parent relating his child to the Deity, or declaring its consecration to the Deity, by joining the name of the Deity with the service which the child should render, or perhaps commemorating in a name the favor of God in the gracious gift of the child, e.g. Nathaniel ("gift of God"); Samuel ("heard of God"); Adonijah ("Yahweh is my Lord"), etc. It seems to us strange that at its birth, the life and character of a child should be forecast by its parents in a name; and this unique custom has been regarded by an unsympathetic criticism as evidence of the origin of such names and their attendant narratives long subsequent to the completed life itself; such names, for example, as Abraham, Sarah, etc. But that this was actually done, and that it was regarded as a matter of course, is proved by the name given to Our Lord at His birth: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',1,21);">Mt 1:21</a>). It is not unlikely that the giving of a character name represented the parents\' purpose and fidelity in the child\'s training, resulting necessarily in giving to the child\'s life that very direction, which the name indicated. A child\'s name, therefore, became both a prayer and a consecration, and its realization in character became often a necessary psychological effect. Great honor or dishonor was attached to a name. The Old Testament writings contain many and varied instances of this. Sometimes contempt for certain reprobate men would be most expressively indicated by a change of name, e.g. the change of Esh-baal, "man of Baal," to Ish-bosheth, "man of shame" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',2,8);">2Sa 2:8</a>), and the omission of Yahweh from the name of the apostate king, Ahaz (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',15,38);">2Ki 15:38</a>, etc.). The name of the last king of Judah was most expressively changed by Nebuchadnezzar from Mattaniah to Zedekiah, to assure his fidelity to his overlord who made him king (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,17);">2Ki 24:17</a>).<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=NAMES,+PROPER">NAMES, PROPER</a>.<P>1. The Phrase "His Name":<P>Since the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament are essentially for purposes of revelation, and since the Hebrews laid such store by names, we should confidently expect them to make the Divine name a medium of revelation of the first importance. People accustomed by long usage to significant character indications in their own names, necessarily would regard the names of the Deity as expressive of His nature. The very phrase "name of Yahweh," or "His name," as applied to the Deity in Biblical usage, is most interesting and suggestive, sometimes expressing comprehensively His revelation in Nature (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,1);">Ps 8:1</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',138,2);">138:2</a>); or marking the place of His worship, where men will call upon His name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,5);">De 12:5</a>); or used as a synonym of His various attributes, e.g. faithfulness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,9);">Isa 48:9</a>), grace (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,3);">Ps 23:3</a>), His honor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',79,9);">Ps 79:9</a>), etc. "Accordingly, since the name of God denotes this God Himself as He is revealed, and as He desires to be known by His creatures, when it is said that God will make a name for Himself by His mighty deeds, or that the new world of the future shall be unto Him for a name, we can easily understand that the name of God is often synonymous with the glory of God, and that the expressions for both are combined in the utmost variety of ways, or used alternately" (Schultz, Old Testament Theology, English translation, I, 124-25; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,19);">Ps 72:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',63,14);">Isa 63:14</a>; also Davidson, Old Testament Theol., 37-38).<P>2. Classification:<P>From the important place which the Divine name occupies in revelation, we would expect frequency of occurrence and diversity of form; and this is just that which we find to be true. The many forms or varieties of the name will be considered under the following heads:<P>(1) Absolute or Personal Names,<P>(2) Attributive, or Qualifying Names, and<P>(3) Names of God in the New Testament. Naturally and in course of time attributive names tend to crystallize through frequent use and devotional regard into personal names; e.g. the attributive adjective qadhosh, "holy," becomes the personal, transcendental name for Deity in Job and Isaiah. For fuller details of each name reference may be made to separate articles.<P>II. Absolute or Personal Names of God in the Old Testament:<P>1. \'Elohim:<P>The first form of the Divine name in the Bible is \'Elohim, ordinarily translated "God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,1);">Ge 1:1</a>). This is the most frequently used name in the Old Testament, as its equivalent theos, is in the New Testament, occurring in Genesis alone approximately 200 times. It is one of a group of kindred words, to which belong also \'El and \'Eloah.<p>(1) Its form is plural, but the construction is uniformly singular, i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective, unless used of heathen divinities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,5);">Ps 96:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,7);">97:7</a>). It is characteristic of Hebrew that extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as actual multiplicity, are expressed by the plural. It is not reasonable, therefore, to assume that plurality of form indicates primitive Semitic polytheism. On the contrary, historic Hebrew is unquestionably and uniformly monotheistic.<P>(2) The derivation is quite uncertain. Gesenius, Ewald and others find its origin in \'ul, "to be strong," from which also are derived \'ayil, "ram," and \'elah, "terebinth"; it is then an expanded plural form of \'el; others trace it to \'alah, "to terrify," and the singular form is found in the infrequent \'eloah, which occurs chiefly in poetical books; BDB inclines to the derivation from \'alah, "to be strong," as the root of the three forms, \'El, \'Eloah and \'Elohim, although admitting that the whole question is involved in uncertainty (for full statement see BDB, under the word...); a somewhat fanciful suggestion is the Arabic root \'ul, "to be in front," from which comes the meaning "leader"; and still more fanciful is the suggested connection with the preposition \'el, signifying God as the "goal" of man\'s life and aspiration. The origin must always lie in doubt, since the derivation is prehistoric, and the name, with its kindred words \'El and \'Eloah, is common to Semitic languages and religions and beyond the range of Hebrew records.<P>(3) It is the reasonable conclusion that the meaning is "might" or "power"; that it is common to Semitic language; that the form is plural to express majesty or "all-mightiness," and that it is a generic, rather than a specific personal, name for Deity, as is indicated by its application to those who represent the Deity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,8);">Jud 5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,1);">Ps 82:1</a>) or who are in His presence (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',28,13);">1Sa 28:13</a>).<P>2. \'Eloah:<P>The singular form of the preceding name, \'Eloah, is confined in its use almost exclusively to poetry, or to poetic expression, being characteristic of the Book of Job, occurring oftener in that book than in all other parts of the Old Testament. It is, in fact, found in Job oftener than the elsewhere more ordinary plural \'Elohim. For derivation and meaning see above under 1 (2). Compare also the Aramaic form, \'elah, found frequently in Ezra and Daniel.<P>3. \'El:<P>In the group of Semitic languages, the most common word for Deity is El (\'el), represented by the Babylonian ilu and the Arabic \'Allah. It is found throughout the Old Testament, but oftener in Job and Psalms than in all the other books. It occurs seldom in the historical books, and not at all in Lev. The same variety of derivations is attributed to it as to <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ELOHIM">ELOHIM</a> (which see), most probable of which is \'ul, "to be strong." BDB interprets \'ul as meaning "to be in front," from which came \'ayil, "ram" the one in front of the flock, and \'elah, the prominent "terebinth," deriving [\'El] from \'alah, "to be strong." It occurs in many of the more ancient names; and, like [\'Elohim], it is used of pagan gods. It is frequently combined with nouns or adjectives to express the Divine name with reference to particular attributes or phases of His being, as \'El \'Elyon, \'El-Ro\'i, etc. (see below under III, "Attributive Names").<P>4. \'Adhon, \'Adhonay:<P>An attributive name, which in prehistoric Hebrew had already passed over into a generic name of God, is \'Adhon, \'Adhonay, the latter formed from the former, being the construct plural, \'adhone, with the 1st person ending -ay, which has been lengthened to ay and so retained as characteristic of the proper name and distinguishing it from the possessive "my Lord." The King James Version does not distinguish, but renders both as possessive, "my Lord" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,15);">Jud 6:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',13,8);">13:8</a>), and as personal name (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,4);">Ps 2:4</a>); the Revised Version (British and American) also, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,2);">Ps 16:2</a>, is in doubt, giving "my Lord," possessive, in text and "the Lord" in the margin. \'Adhonay, as a name of Deity, emphasizes His sovereignty (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',2,4);">Ps 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,7);">Isa 7:7</a>), and corresponds closely to Kurios of the New Testament. It is frequently combined with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,8);">Ge 15:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,7);">Isa 7:7</a>, etc.) and with \'Elohim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,12);">Ps 86:12</a>). Its most significant service in Massoretic Text is the use of its vowels to point the unpronounceable tetragrammaton YHWH, indicating that the word "\'Adhonay" should be spoken aloud instead of "Yah-weh." This combination of vowels and consonants gives the transliteration "Yahweh," adopted by the American Standard Revised Version, while the other English Versions of the Bible, since Coverdale, represents the combination by the capitals LORD. Septuagint represents it by Kurios.<P>5. Yahweh (Yahweh):<P>The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is (Yahweh, a combination of the tetragrammaton (YHWH) with the vowels of \'Adhonay, transliterated as Yehowah, but read aloud by the Hebrews \'adhonay). While both derivation and meaning are lost to us in the uncertainties of its ante-Biblical origin, the following inferences seem to be justified by the facts:<P>(1) This name was common to religions other than Israel\'s, according to Friedr. Delitzsch, Hommel, Winckler, and Guthe (EB, under the word), having been found in Babylonian inscriptions. Ammonite, Arabic and Egyptian names appear also to contain it (compare Davidson, Old Testament Theol., 52f); but while, like \'Elohim, it was common to primitive Semitic religion, it became Israel\'s distinctive name for the Deity.<P>(2) It was, therefore, not first made known at the call of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'13-16\');">Ex 3:13-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'2-8\');">6:2-8</a>), but, being already known, was at that time given a larger revelation and interpretation: God, to be known to Israel henceforth under the name "Yahweh" and in its fuller significance, was the One sending Moses to deliver Israel; "when I shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said...I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE...say...I WILL BE hath sent me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,13,14);">Ex 3:13-14</a> margin). The name is assumed as known in the narrative of Genesis; it also occurs in pre-Mosaic names (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,20);">Ex 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',2,25);">1Ch 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',7,8);">7:8</a>).<P>(3) The derivation is from the archaic chawah, "to be," better "to become," in Biblical Hebrew hayah; this archaic use of w for y appears also in derivatives of the similar chayah, "to live," e.g. chawwah in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,20);">Ge 3:20</a>.<P>(4) It is evident from the interpretative passages (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'1-\');">Ex 3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',6,\'1-\');">6</a>) that the form is the fut. of the simple stem (Qal) and not future of the causative (Hiph\'il) stem in the sense "giver of life"—an idea not borne out by any of the occurrences of the word. The fanciful theory that the word is a combination of the future, present and perfect tenses of the verb, signifying "the One who will be, is, and was," is not to be taken seriously (Stier, etc., in Oehler\'s Old Testament Theology, in the place cited.).<P>(5) The meaning may with some confidence be inferred from Origen\'s transliteration, Iao, the form in Samaritan, Iabe, the form as combined in Old Testament names, and the evident signification in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,\'1-\');">Ex 3</a> and other passages, to be that of the simple future, yahweh, "he will be." It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future. And thus it became bound up with the Messianic hope, as in the phrase, "the Day of Yahweh," and consequently both it and the Septuagint translation Kurios were applied by the New Testament as titles of Christ.<P>(6) It is the personal name of God, as distinguished from such generic or essential names as \'El, \'Elohim, Shadday, etc. Characteristic of the Old Testament is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Yahweh is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the Old Testament insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. The American Standard Revised Version quite correctly adopts the transliteration "Yahweh" to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed.<P>6. Tsur (Rock):<P>Five times in the "Song" of Moses (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4,15,18,30,31);">De 32:4, 15, 18, 30, 31</a>) the word tsur, "Rock," is used as a title of God. It occurs also in the Psalms, Isaiah and poetical passages of other books, and also in proper names, Elizur, Zuriel, etc. Once in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',44,8);">Isa 44:8</a>) it is translated "God," but "Rock" in the American Standard Revised Version and the American Revised Version, margin. The effort to interpret this title as indicating the animistic origin of Old Testament religion is unnecessary and a pure product of the imagination. It is customary for both Old Testament and New Testament writers to use descriptive names of God: "rock," "fortress," "shield," "light," "bread," etc., and is in harmony with all the rich figurativeness of the Scriptures; the use of the article in many of the cases cited further corroborates the view that the word is intended to be a descriptive title, not the name of a Nature-deity. It presents the idea of God as steadfast: "The appellation of God as tsur, \'rock,\' \'safe retreat,\' in Deuteronomy refers to this" (Oehler, Old Testament Theology). It often occurs, in a most striking figure, with the pers. suffix as "my rock," "their rock," to express confidence (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',28,1);">Ps 28:1</a>).<P>7. Kadhosh:<P>The name (qadhosh, "holy") is found frequently in Isaiah and Psalms, and occasionally in the other prophets. It is characteristic of Isaiah, being found 32 times in that book. It occurs often in the phrase qedhosh yisra\'el, "Holy One of Israel." The derivation and meaning remain in doubt, but the customary and most probable derivation is from qadhash, "to be separate," which best explains its use both of man and of the Deity. When used of God it signifies: (1) His transcendence, His separateness above all other beings, His aloneness as compared to other gods; (2) His peculiar relation to His people Israel unto whom He separated Himself, as He did not unto other nations. In the former sense Isaiah used it of His sole deity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,25);">40:25</A>), in the latter of His peculiar and unchanging covenant-relation to Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,3);">43:3</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',78,17);">48:17</A>), strikingly, expressed in the phrase "Holy One of Israel." Qadhosh was rather attributive than personal, but became personal in the use of such absolute theists as Job and Isaiah. It expresses essential Deity, rather than personal revelation.<P>8. Shadday:<P>In the patriarchal literature, and in Job particularly, where it is put into the mouths of the patriarchs, this name appears sometimes in the compound \'el shadday, sometimes alone. While its root meaning also is uncertain, the suggested derivation from shadhadh, "to destroy," "to terrify," seems most probable, signifying the God who is manifested by the terribleness of His mighty acts. "The Storm God," from shadha\', "to pour out," has been suggested, but is improbable; and even more so the fanciful she, and day, meaning "who is sufficient." Its use in patriarchal days marks an advance over looser Semitic conceptions to the stricter monotheistic idea of almightiness, and is in accord with the early consciousness of Deity in race or individual as a God of awe, or even terror. Its monotheistic character is in harmony with its use in the Abrahamic times, and is further corroborated by its parallel in Septuagint and New Testament, pantokrator, "all-powerful."<P>III. Descriptive Names of God in the Old Testament:<P>It is often difficult to distinguish between the personal and the attributive names of God, the two divisions necessarily shading into each other. Some of the preceding are really attributive, made personal by usage. The following are the most prominent descriptive or attributive names.<P>1. \'Abhir:<P>This name (\'abhir), translated in English Versions of the Bible "Mighty One," is always combined with Israel or Jacob; its root is \'abhar, "to be strong" from which is derived the word \'ebher, "pinion," used of the strong wing of the eagle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,31);">Isa 40:31</a>), figuratively of God in <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,11);">De 32:11</a>. It occurs in Jacob\'s blessing (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',49,24);">Ge 49:24</a>), in a prayer for the sanctuary (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',132,2,5);">Ps 132:2, 5</a>), and in Isaiah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,24);">1:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',49,26);">49:26</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,16);">60:16</A>), to express the assurance of the Divine strength in behalf of the oppressed in Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,24);">Isa 1:24</a>), or in behalf of Israel against his oppressors; it is interesting to note that this name was first used by Jacob himself.<P>2. \'El-\'Elohe-Israel:<P>The name \'El is combined with a number of descriptive adjectives to represent God in His various attributes; and these by usage have become names or titles of God. For the remarkable phrase <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL">\'EL-\'ELOHE-ISRAEL</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',33,20);">Ge 33:20</a>), see separate article<P>3. \'Elyon:<P>This name (\'elyon, "highest") is a derivative of \'alah, "to go up." It is used of persons or things to indicate their elevation or exaltation: of Israel, favored above other nations (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',26,19);">De 26:19</a>), of the aqueduct of "the upper pool" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',7,3);">Isa 7:3</a>), etc. This indicates that its meaning when applied to God is the "Exalted One," who is lifted far above all gods and men. It occurs alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,8);">De 32:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',18,13);">Ps 18:13</a>), or in combination with other names of God, most frequently with El (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,35);">Ps 78:35</a>), but also with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,17);">Ps 7:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,9);">97:9</a>), or with Elohim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',56,2);">Ps 56:2</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,56);">Ps 78:56</a>). Its early use (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,18);">Ge 14:18</a>f) points to a high conception of Deity, an unquestioned monotheism in the beginnings of Hebrew history.<P>4. Gibbor:<P>The ancient Hebrews were in constant struggle for their land and their liberties, a struggle most intense and patriotic in the heroic days of Saul and David, and in which there was developed a band of men whose great deeds entitled them to the honorable title "mighty men" of valor (gibborim). These were the knights of David\'s "Round Table." In like manner the Hebrew thought of his God as fighting for him, and easily then this title was applied to God as the Mighty Man of war, occurring in David\'s psalm of the Ark\'s Triumphant Entry (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',24,8);">Ps 24:8</a>), in the allegory of the Messiah-King (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,3);">Ps 45:3</a>), either alone or combined with El (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,6);">Isa 9:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',32,18);">Jer 32:18</a>), and sometimes with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,13);">Isa 42:13</a>).<P>5. \'El-Ro\'i:<P>When Hagar was fleeing from Sarah\'s persecutions, Yahweh spoke to her in the wilderness of Shur, words of promise and cheer. Whereupon "she called the name of Yahweh that spake unto her, Thou art El roi" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',16,13);">Ge 16:13</a> margin). In the text the word ro\'i, deriv. of ra\'ah, "to see," is translated "that seeth," literally, "of sight." This is the only occurrence of this title in the Old Testament.<P>6. Tsaddiq:<P>One of the covenant attributes of God, His righteousness, is spoken of so often that it passes from adjective to substantive, from attribute to name, and He is called "Righteous" (tsaddiq), or "the Righteous One." The word is never transliterated but always translated in English Versions of the Bible, although it might just as properly be considered a Divine name as \'Elyon or Qadhosh. The root tsadhaq, "to be straight" or "right," signifies fidelity to a standard, and is used of God\'s fidelity to His own nature and to His covenant-promise (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,10);">Isa 41:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,6);">42:6</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',2,19);">Ho 2:19</a>); it occurs alone (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',34,17);">Ps 34:17</a>), with El (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,4);">De 32:4</a>), with Elohim (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',9,15);">Ezr 9:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',7,9);">Ps 7:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',116,5);">116:5</a>), but most frequently with Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',129,4);">Ps 129:4</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,27);">Ex 9:27</a> Pharaoh, in acknowledging his sin against Yahweh, calls Him \'Yahweh the Righteous,\' using the article. The suggestive combination, "Yahweh our Righteousness," is the name given to David\'s "righteous Branch" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',23,6);">Jer 23:6</a>) and properly should be taken as a proper noun—the name of the Messiah-King.<P>7. Kanna:<P>Frequently in the Pentateuch, most often in the 3 versions of the Commandments (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,5);">Ex 20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,14);">34:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,9);">De 5:9</a>), God is given the title "Jealous" (qanna\'), most specifically in the phrase "Yahweh, whose name is Jealous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,14);">Ex 34:14</a>). This word, however, did not bear the evil meaning now associated with it in our usage, but rather signified "righteous zeal," Yahweh\'s zeal for His own name or glory (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,7);">Isa 9:7</a>, "the zeal of Yahweh," qin\'ah; also <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',1,14);">Zec 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,2);">8:2</a>).<P>8. Yahweh Tsebha\'-oth:<P>Connected with the personal and covenant name Yahweh, there is found frequently the word Sabaoth (tsebha\'oth, "hosts"). Invariably in the Old Testament it is translated "hosts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,9);">Isa 1:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',46,7,11);">Ps 46:7, 11</a>, etc.), but in the New Testament it is transliterated twice, both in the Greek and English (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,29);">Ro 9:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,4);">Jas 5:4</a>). The passage in Roman is a quotation from <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,9);">Isa 1:9</a> through Septuagint, which does not translate, but transliterates the Hebrew. Origin and meaning are uncertain. It is used of heavenly bodies and earthly forces (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,1);">Ge 2:1</a>); of the army of Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,16);">2Sa 8:16</a>); of the Heavenly beings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',103,21);">Ps 103:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',148,2);">148:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,35);">Da 4:35</a>). It is probable that the title is intended to include all created agencies and beings, of which Yahweh is maker and leader.<P>9. "I Am That I Am":<P>When God appeared to Moses at Sinai, commissioning him to deliver Israel; Moses, being well aware of the difficulty of impressing the people, asked by what name of God he should speak to them: "They shall say to me, What is his name?" Then "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM...say...I AM hath sent me unto you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,14);">Ex 3:14</a>). The name of the Deity given here is similar to Yahweh except that the form is not 3rd person future, as in the usual form, but the 1st person (\'ehyeh), since God is here speaking of Himself. The optional reading in the American Revised Version, margin is much to be preferred: "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE," indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow. For further explanation see above, II, 5.<P>IV. New Testament Names of God.<P>The variety of names which characterizes the Old Testament is lacking in the New Testament, where we are all but limited to two names, each of which corresponds to several in the Old Testament. The most frequent is the name "God" (Theos) occurring over 1,000 times, and corresponding to El, Elohim, etc., of the Old Testament.<P>1. God:<P>It may, as [\'Elohim], be used by accommodation of heathen gods; but in its true sense it expresses essential Deity, and as expressive of such it is applied to Christ as to the Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',20,28);">Joh 20:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',9,5);">Ro 9:5</a>).<P>2. Lord:<P>Five times "Lord" is a translation of despotes (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,29);">Lu 2:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',4,24);">Ac 4:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2:1</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jud\',1,4);">Jude 1:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">Re 6:10</a> the King James Version). In each case there is evident emphasis on sovereignty and correspondence to the \'Adhon of the Old Testament. The most common Greek word for Lord is Kurios, representing both Yahweh and \'Adhonai of the Old Testament, and occurring upwards of 600 times. Its use for Yahweh was in the spirit of both the Hebrew scribes, who pointed the consonants of the covenant name with the vowels of Adhonay, the title of dominion, and of the Septuagint, which rendered this combination as Kurios. Consequently quotations from the Old Testament in which Yahweh occurs are rendered by Kurios. It is applied to Christ equally with the Father and the Spirit, showing that the Messianic hopes conveyed by the name Yahweh were for New Testament writers fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and that in Him the long hoped for appearance of Yahweh was realized.<P>3. Descriptive and Figurative Names:<P>As in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament various attributive, descriptive or figurative names are found, often corresponding to those in the Old Testament. Some of these are: The "Highest" or "Most High" hupsistos), found in this sense only in Luke (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,32,35,76);">1:32,35,76</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,14);">2:14</a>, etc.), and equivalent to \'Elyon (see III,3,above); "Almighty," Pantokrator (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,18);">2Co 6:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,8);">Re 1:8</a>, etc.), corresponding to Shadday (see II, 8 above; see also <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ALMIGHTY">ALMIGHTY</a>); "Father," as in the Lord\'s Prayer, and elsewhere (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,9);">Mt 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,25);">11:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',17,25);">Joh 17:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',6,18);">2Co 6:18</a>); "King" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,17);">1Ti 1:17</a>); "King of kings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,15);">1Ti 6:15</a>); "King of kings," "Lord of lords" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,14);">Re 17:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',19,16);">19:16</a>); "Potentate" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,15);">1Ti 6:15</a>); "Master" (Kurios, <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,9);">Eph 6:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Pe\',2,1);">2Pe 2:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',6,10);">Re 6:10</a>); "Shepherd," "Bishop" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',2,25);">1Pe 2:25</a>).<P>LITERATURE.<P>Theology of Old Testament by various authors: Oehler, Schultz, Davidson; Delitzsch, Psychology of the Old Testament; H.P. Smith, "Theophorous Names of OT" in Old Testament and Semitic Studies; Gray, HPN; "God" in HDB and EB.``109';
isbe[3856]='God, Son (Sons) of``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONS+OF+GOD">SONS OF GOD</A>`1';
isbe[3857]='God, Strange`stranj: The word "strange," as used in this connection in the Old Testament, refers to the fact that the god or gods do not belong to Israel, but are the gods which are worshipped by other families or nations. In several cases a more exact translation would give us the "gods of the stranger" or foreigner. So in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,2,4);">Ge 35:2, 4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,2);">Jos 24:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,16);">Jud 10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,16);">De 31:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,12);">32:12</a>, etc. In a few passages like <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,16);">De 32:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,20);">Ps 44:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',81,9);">81:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,12);">Isa 43:12</a>, the word is an adjective, but the idea is the same: the gods are those which are worshipped by other peoples and hence are forbidden to Israel, which is under obligation to worship Yahweh alone (compare 2Esdras 1:6).<P>In the New Testament the phrase occurs only once, in the account of Paul\'s experiences in Athens (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,18);">Ac 17:18</a>), when some of his auditors said, "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods" (xena daimonia). Here the thought is clearly that by his preaching of Jesus he was regarded as introducing a new divinity, that is one who was strange or foreign to the Athenians and of whom they had never heard before. Like the Romans of this period the Athenians were doubtless interested in, and more or less favorable to, the numerous new cults which were coming to their attention as the result of the constant intercourse with the Orient.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=SONS+OF+GOD">SONS OF GOD</a>`13';
isbe[3858]='God, the Father``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FATHER,+GOD+THE">FATHER, GOD THE</a>`1';
isbe[3859]='God, the Unknown``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=UNKNOWN+GOD">UNKNOWN GOD</a>`1';
isbe[3860]='Goddess`god\'-es (\'elohim, thea): There is no separate word for "goddess" in the Old Testament. In the only instance in which the word occurs in English Versions of the Bible (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,5,33);">1Ki 11:5, 33</a>), the gender is determined by the noun—"Ashtoreth, the god (goddess) of the Sidonians." In the New Testament the term is applied to Diana of Ephesus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,27,35,37);">Ac 19:27, 35, 37</a>).``1';
isbe[3861]='Godhead`god\'-hed: The word "Godhead" is a simple doublet of the less frequently occurring "Godhood." Both forms stand side by side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 AD), and both have survived until today, though not in equally common use. They are representatives of a large class of abstract substantives, formed with the suffix "-head" or "-hood", most of which formerly occurred in both forms almost indifferently, though the majority of them survive only, or very preponderatingly (except in Scottish speech), in the form -hood. The two suffixes appear in Middle English as "-hede" and "-hod", and presuppose in the Anglo-Saxon which lies behind them a feminine "haeda" (which is not actually known) by the side of the masculine had. The Anglo-Saxon word "was originally a distinct substantive, meaning \'person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank\' "(Bradley, in A New English Dict. on a Historical Basis, under the word "-hood"), but its use as a suffix early superseded its separate employment. At first "-hede" appears to have been appropriated to adjectives, "-hod" to substantives; but, this distinction breaking down and the forms coming into indiscriminate use, "-hede" grew obsolete, and remains in common use only in one or two special forms, such as "Godhead," "maidenhead" (Bradley, as cited, under the word "-head").<P>The general elimination of the forms in -head has been followed by a fading consciousness, in the case of the few surviving instances in this form, of the qualitative sense inherent in the suffix. The words accordingly show a tendency to become simple denotatives. Thus, "the Godhead" is frequently employed merely as a somewhat strong synonym of "God" although usually with more or less emphasis upon that in God which makes Him God. One of its established usages is to denote the Divine essence as such, in distinction from the three "hypostases" or "persons" which share its common possession in the doctrine of the Trinity. This usage is old: Bradley (op. cit.) is able to adduce instances from the 13th century. In this usage the word has long held the rank of a technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1571, Art. I: "And in the unity of this Godhead, there be three persons" (compare the Irish Articles of 1615, and the Westminster Confession, II, 3); Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: "There are three persons in the Godhead." Pursuant to the fading of the qualitative sense of the word, there has arisen a tendency, when the qualitative consciousness is vivid, to revive the obsolescent "Godhood," to take its place; and this tendency naturally shows itself especially when the contrast with humanity is expressed. Carlyle, for example (French Revolution, III, Book vi, chapter iv, section 1), speaking of the posthumous reaction against Marat, writes: "Shorter godhood had no divine man"; and Phillips Brooks (Sermons, XIII, 237) speaks of Christ bridging the gulf "between the Godhood and the manhood." "Godhood" seems, indeed, always to have had a tendency to appear in such contrasts, as if the qualitative consciousness were more active in it than in "Godhead." Thus, it seems formerly to have suggested itself almost as inevitably to designate the Divine nature of Christ, as "Godhead" did to designate the common Divine essence of the Trinity. Bradley cites instances from 1563 down. The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him. "Godhead" is thus the Saxon equivalent of the Latin "Divinity," or, as it is now becoming more usual to say, "Deity." Like these terms it is rendered concrete by prefixing the article to it. As "the Divinity," "the Deity," so also "the Godhead" is only another way of saying "God," except that when we say "the Divinity," "the Deity," "the Godhead," we are saying "God" more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call "God."<P>The word "Godhead" occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,29);">Ac 17:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">Col 2:9</a>), and oddly enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek words, to theion theiotes, theotes.<P>To theion means "that which is Divine," concretely, or, shortly, "the Deity." Among the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of "the Divine Being," and particularly as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by Paul (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,29);">Ac 17:29</a>) in an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in which it is flanked by the simple term "God" (ho Theos) on both sides. It is obviously deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into which it is brought with the term "man." "Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that it is to gold or silver or stone graven by art and device of man that the Godhead is like." In an effort to bring out this qualitative emphasis, the Revised Version, margin suggests that we might substitute for "the Godhead" here the periphrastic rendering, "that which is Divine." But this seems both clumsy and ineffective for its purpose. From the philological standpoint, "the Godhead" is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the simple "God" precisely by its qualitative emphasis. It may be doubted, however, whether in the partial loss by "Godhead" of its qualitative force in its current usage, one of its synonyms, "the Divinity" (which is the rendering here of the Rhemish version) or "the Deity," would not better convey Paul\'s emphasis to modern readers.<P>Neither of these terms, "Divinity," "Deity," occurs anywhere in the King James Version, and "Deity" does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) either; but the Revised Version (British and American) (following the Rhemish version) substitutes "Dignity" for "Godhead" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a>. Of the two, "Dignity" was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. "Deity" was introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians\' God should be emphasized. Perhaps "Divinity" retains even in its English usage something of its traditional weaker connotation, although, of course, in a monotheistic consciousness the two terms coalesce in meaning. There exists a tendency to insist, therefore, on the "Deity" of Christ, rather than his mere "Divinity," in the feeling that "Divinity" might lend itself to the notion that Christ possessed but a secondary or reduced grade of Divine quality. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,29);">Ac 17:29</a> Paul is not discriminating between grades of Divinity, but is preaching monotheism. In this context, then, to theion does not lump together "all that is called God or is worshipped," and declare that all that is in any sense Divine should be esteemed beyond the power of material things worthily to represent. Paul has the idea of God at its height before his mind, and having quickened his hearers\' sense of God\'s exaltation by his elevated description of Him, he demands of them whether this Deity can be fitly represented by any art of man working in dead stuff. He uses the term to theion, rather than ho theos, not merely in courteous adoption of his hearers\' own language, but because of its qualitative emphasis. On the whole, the best English translation of it would probably be "the Deity." "The Godhead" has ceased to be sufficiently qualitative: "the Godhood" is not sufficiently current: "the Divine" is not sufficiently personal: "the Divinity" is perhaps not sufficiently strong: "Deity" without the article loses too much of its personal reference to compensate for the gain in qualitativeness: "the Deity" alone seems fairly to reproduce the apostle\'s thought.<P>The Greek term in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,20);">Ro 1:20</a> is theiotes, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by "Godhead." What Paul says here is that "the everlasting power and Godhead" of God "are clearly perceived by means of His works." By "Godhead" he clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by "God." By coupling the word with "power," Paul no doubt intimates that his mind is resting especially upon those qualities which enter most intimately into and constitute the exaltation of God; but we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term—all of God\'s attributes are glorious. The context shows that the thought of the apostle was moving on much the same lines as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,29);">Ac 17:29</a>; here, too, the contrast which determines the emphasis is with "corruptible man," and along with him, with the lower creatures in general (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,23);">Ro 1:23</a>). How could man think of the Godhead under such similitudes—the Godhead, so clearly manifested in its glory by its works! The substitution for "Godhead" here of its synonym "Divinity" by the Revised Version (British and American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive renderings to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly than "Godhead" in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication which is so strong in theiotes. Perhaps, however, the substitution is not altogether felicitous. "Divinity," in its contrast with "Deity," may have a certain weakness of connotation clinging to it, which would unsuit it to represent theiotes here. It is quite true that the two terms, "Divinity" and "Deity," are the representatives in Latin Patristic writers respectively of the Greek theiotes and theotes. Augustine (The City of God, VII, 1; compare X, 1) tells us that "Deity" was coined by Christian writers as a more accurate rendering of the Greek theotes than the current "Divinity." But it does not follow that because "Deity" more accurately renders theotes, therefore "Divinity" is always the best rendering of theiotes. The stress laid by the Greek Fathers on the employment of theotes to express the "Deity" of the Persons of the Trinity was in sequence to attempts which were being made to ascribe to the Son and the Spirit a reduced "Divinity"; and it was the need the Latin Fathers felt in the same interests which led them to coin "Deity" as a more accurate rendering, as they say, of theotes. Meanwhile theiotes and "Divinity" had done service in the two languages, the former as practically, and the latter as absolutely, the only term in use to express the idea of "Deity." Theotes is very rare in classical Greek, "Deity" non-existent in classical Latin. To represent theiotes uniformly by "Divinity," if any reduced connotation at all clings to "Divinity," would therefore be to represent it often very inadequately. And that is the case in the present passage. What Paul says is clearly made known by God\'s works, is His everlasting power and all the other everlasting attributes which form His Godhead and constitute His glory.<P>It is theotes which occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',2,9);">Col 2:9</a>. Here Paul declares that "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ "bodily." The phrase "fullness of the Godhead" is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ "bodily," that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not "bodily"; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotes may mean all that theotes can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotes means; but theotes must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotes refers to the essence and theiotes to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It it not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which "heroes" might aspire, and "demons" attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term "Godhead," in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert—that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term "God," dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.``187';
isbe[3862]='Godless`god\'-les: This word is not found in the text of the King James Version. It is found, however, in Apocrypha (2Macc 7:34, "O godless (the Revised Version (British and American) "unholy") man"). the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes the word "godless" for the word "hypocrite" in the following passages: <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',8,13);">Job 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',13,16);">13:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',15,34);">15:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',17,8);">17:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,5);">20:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',27,8);">27:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',34,30);">34:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',36,13);">36:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',11,9);">Pr 11:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',33,14);">Isa 33:14</a>. The Revised Version (British and American) does not seem to be consistent in carrying out the idea of "godless" for "hypocrite," for in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',9,17);">Isa 9:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',10,6);">10:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',35,16);">Ps 35:16</a> this same Hebrew word chaneph is translated "profane." The principal idea lying at the root of the word is that of pollution and profanity; a condition of not merely being without God but assuming an attitude of open and blatant opposition toward God. The godless man is not merely the atheistic, unbelieving or even irreligious, but the openly impious, wicked and profane man. Indeed it can hardly be rightly claimed that the idea of hypocrisy is involved in the meaning of the word, for the "godless" man is not the one who professes one thing and lives another, but the one who openly avows not only his disbelief in, but his open opposition to, God. Doubtless the idea of pollution and defilement is also to be included in the definition of this word; see <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,9);">Jer 3:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,33);">Nu 35:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,31);">Da 11:31</a>.``53';
isbe[3863]='Godliness; Godly`god\'-li-nes, god\'-li (eusebeia, eusebes, eusebos): In the Old Testament the word rendered "godly" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,3);">Ps 4:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',32,6);">32:6</a> (chacidh) is literally, "kind," then "pious" (the Revised Version, margin renders it in the former passage, "one that he favoreth"). Sometimes in both the Old Testament and the New Testament a periphrasis is employed, "of God," "according to God" (e.g. "godly sorrow," <a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',7,10);">2Co 7:10</a>). Godliness, as denoting character and conduct determined by the principle of love or fear of God in the heart, is the summing up of genuine religion. There can be no true religion without it: only a dead "form" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',3,5);">2Ti 3:5</a>). The term is a favorite one in the Pastoral Epistles. The incarnation is "the mystery of godliness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,16);">1Ti 3:16</a>).``132';
isbe[3864]='Gods` (\'elohim; theoi):<P><b>I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT</b><P class="in15">1. Superhuman Beings (God and Angels)<P class="in15">2. Judges, Rulers<P class="in15">3. Gods of the Nations<P class="in15">4. Superiority of Yahweh to Other Gods<P class="in15">5. Regulations Regarding the Gods of the Nations<P class="in15">6. Israel\'s Tendency to Idolatry<P><b>II. IN THE APOCRYPHA</b><P><b>III. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</b><hr /><P>The Hebrew plural \'elohim is generally known as the plural of "majesty" and is the ordinary name for God. The meaning of the plural seems to be "plenitude of powers." It denotes the fullness of those attributes of power which belonged to the Divine Being. Thus it is usually translated in the singular, "God," when referring to the God of Israel. When reference is made to the gods of the other nations the word is translated in the plural, "gods." The heathen nations usually had a plurality of gods. Among the Semites it was customary for one nation or tribe to have its own particular god. Often there were many tribes, or families, or communities, in one nation, each having a particular god. Thus, even among Semites a nation may have many gods and be polytheistic. Among the other nations, Iranian, Hamitic, etc., there were always a number of deities, sometimes a multitude. There are many references to these in the Old Testament. In a few cases where the plural is used, the singular would be better, e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,5);">Ge 3:5</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,4,8,23);">Ex 32:4, 8, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,15);">Ru 1:15</a> the King James Version; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',17,5);">Jud 17:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,24);">18:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,43);">1Sa 17:43</a>. This, however, might be disputed.<P>I. In the Old Testament.<P>1. Superhuman Beings (God and Angels):<P>The following are the more important usages of the word in the Old Testament: The translation of <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',8,5);">Ps 8:5</a> is disputed. The Septuagint and the King James Version translate it "angels," the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version, "God," with "angels" in the margin. The Epistle to the Hebrews has the word "angels." This seems to be more in keeping with the Old Testament ideas of the relation between God, men and angels. <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,26);">Ge 1:26</a> has the plural "us," but it is not certain to whom it refers, most probably to the angels or mighty ones which surrounded the throne of God as servants or counselors; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',38,7);">Job 38:7</a>, and see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SONS+OF+GOD">SONS OF GOD</a>. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,7);">Ps 97:7</a> the expression "worship him, all ye gods," may possibly refer to the gods of the nations, but more probably to the angels or mighty ones.<P>2. Judges, Rulers:<P>Judges, rulers, are regarded "either as Divine representatives at sacred places, or as reflecting Divine majesty and power" (see BDB, under the word). <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,6);">Ex 21:6</a> might better be translated as in the margin, "the judges." These were men appointed to represent God and adjudicate on important matters of law. Septuagint has "Criterion of God." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,8);">Ex 22:8</a> the word is used in the same sense, and <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,9);">22:9</A> would also be better translated "the judges"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,28);">22:28</a> likewise. See also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,25);">1Sa 2:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,1,6);">Ps 82:1, 6</a>, where the reference is to those who act as judges.<P>3. Gods of the Nations:<P>(1) The ancestors of Israel "beyond the River" had their gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,14);">Jos 24:14</a>f). While there is no mention of idolatry before the Deluge, the ancestors and kindred of Abraham were idolaters. Ur of the Chaldees was the center for the worship of Sin, the Moon-god. Many others were worshipped in the various cities of Babylon.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BABYLONIA">BABYLONIA</a>.<P>(2) The gods of Laban and his family (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',31,30,32);">Ge 31:30, 32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',35,2,4);">35:2, 4</a>) were household gods or teraphim, and were stolen by Rachel and carried off in her flight with Jacob.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TERAPHIM">TERAPHIM</a>.<P>(3) Gods of Egypt: For many centuries before the time of Abraham there had been numerous objects of worship in Egypt. Many of these were animals, birds and natural objects. Horus, the hawk, was one of the earliest of all. The cat, the bull, etc., were worshipped at times. The plagues of Egypt were specially directed against these wretched deities (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,4);">Nu 33:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,12);">Ex 12:12</a>). Yahweh took vengeance on all the gods of Egypt. These terrible events showed that "Yahweh is greater than all gods" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,11);">Ex 18:11</a>). He redeemed His people from the nations and its gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',7,23);">2Sa 7:23</a>). Jeremiah predicted the time when Yahweh should destroy the gods of Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',43,12);">Jer 43:12</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',46,25);">46:25</A>).<P>(4) Of the gods of the Amorites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',6,10);">Jud 6:10</a>) no names are given, but they probably were the same as the gods of the Canaanites.<P>(5) The gods of the Canaanites were Nature-gods, and their worship was that of the productive and chiefly reproductive powers of Nature. Their service was perhaps the most immoral and degrading of all. The high places and altars of the different Baals, Ashtoreths, etc., were numerous throughout Canaan. These deities were always represented by images and Moses makes frequent reference to them with warnings against this seductive worship (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,25);">De 7:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,3,10,31);">12:3, 10, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',13,7);">13:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,18);">20:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,18);">29:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,16);">32:16</a>, etc.).<P>See also <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=IDOLATRY">IDOLATRY</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BAAL">BAAL</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHTORETH">ASHTORETH</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHERAH">ASHERAH</a>, etc.<P>(6) Gods of the Philistines: The champion Goliath cursed David by his gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,43);">1Sa 17:43</a>). Perhaps it would be better rendered "god." Saul\'s and his son\'s armor was put into the house of their gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',10,10);">1Ch 10:10</a>).<P>See also <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DAGON">DAGON</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BAALZEBUB">BAALZEBUB</a>.<P>(7) The two golden calves erected by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel to keep the people from going to Jerusalem to worship are called gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,28);">1Ki 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,8);">2Ch 13:8</a>f).<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CALF,+GOLDEN">CALF, GOLDEN</a>.<P>(8) The gods of Damascus: Ben-hadad was accustomed to worship in the house of the god Rimmon (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,18);">2Ki 5:18</a>). No other names are mentioned, but from <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',28,23);">2Ch 28:23</a> it is clear that there were many gods in Syria.<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=RIMMON">RIMMON</a>.<P>(9) Solomon\'s many wives worshipped their own gods, and he provided the means for their worship. Chief among these were Chemosh of Moab and Molech of Ammon (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,2,4,8);">1Ki 11:2, 4, 8</a>).<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEMOSH">CHEMOSH</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=MOLECH">MOLECH</a>.<P>(10) The mixed peoples transplanted into Samaria by Sargon had their various gods and mingled their service with that of Yahweh, after being taught by a priest of Yahweh. The names of some of these gods were <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SUCCOTH-BENOTH">SUCCOTH-BENOTH</A>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=NERGAL">Nergal</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ASHIMA">Ashima</A>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=NIBHAZ">Nibhaz</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TARTAK">Tartak</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ADRAMMELECH">Adrammelech (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,29,30,31,33);">2Ki 17:29-31, 33</a>). See separate articles.<P>(11) Of the gods of Seir, which were brought to Jerusalem by Amaziah, the names are not given (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',25,14);">2Ch 25:14</a>).<P>(12) The gods of the nations conquered by Sennacherib and his fathers, namely, Hamoth, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ARPAD">Arpad</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=SEPHARVAIM">Sepharvaim</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HENA">Hena</A>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=IVVAH">Ivvah</A> (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,\'33-35\');">2Ki 18:33-35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,13);">19:13</a>). Also those conquered by Sennacherib\'s fathers, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=GOZAN">Gozan</A>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=HARAN+(2)">Haran</a>, <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=REZEPH">Rezeph</a>, Eden or <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=TELASSAR">Telassar</a> (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,12);">2Ki 19:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',36,18,19,20);">Isa 36:18-20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,13);">2Ch 32:13</a>f).<P>(13) Gods of Moab are mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,15);">Ru 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,1,7);">1Ki 11:1, 7</a>. Possibly <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',1,15);">Ru 1:15</a> should be translated "god."<P>See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CHEMOSH">CHEMOSH</a>.<P>(14) Gods of Babylon: The graven images of her gods referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',21,9);">Isa 21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',42,17);">42:17</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=BEL">Bel</a> and <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=NEBO">Nebo</a> mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',46,1);">Isa 46:1</a>; other gods of silver and gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',1,7);">Ezr 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',4,8,9,18);">Da 4:8-9, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',5,4,11,14,23);">5:4, 11, 14, 23</a>).<P>(15) Nineveh\'s gods are merely referred to in <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,14);">Na 1:14</a>. Sennacherib was worshipping in the house of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=NISROCH">Nisroch</A> his god when slain by his sons (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',19,37);">2Ki 19:37</a>).<P>(16) The coastlands or borders and peninsulas of the Aegean Sea had numerous idol gods, shrines and devotees. Isaiah challenges them to prove that they are gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,22);">Isa 41:22</a>f).<P>Yahweh was "greater than all gods" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',15,11);">Ex 15:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,11);">18:11</a>); "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',10,14,17);">De 10:14, 17</a>); "The Mighty One" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,22);">Jos 22:22</a>); "to be feared above all gods" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,25);">1Ch 16:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',2,5);">2Ch 2:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',96,4);">Ps 96:4</a>f);<P>4. Superiority of Yahweh to Other Gods:<P>"King above all gods" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',95,3);">Ps 95:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',97,7,9);">97:7, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',86,8);">86:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,5);">135:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',136,2);">136:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',138,1);">138:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,11);">Jer 10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',2,11);">Ze 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,18,47);">Da 2:18, 47</a>). Jeremiah advances so far toward a pure and well-defined monotheism that he speaks of all other gods as "not gods." They have no existence to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,11);">Jer 2:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,7);">5:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,20);">16:20</a>). A similar position is taken in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,\'1-\');">Isa 41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',43,\'1-\');">43</a>, etc.<P>5. Regulations Regarding the Gods of the Nations:<P>The laws of Moses give no uncertain sound concerning them. The Decalogue begins: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Whatever may be the exact meaning of this, it is perfectly clear that Israel was to have nothing to do with any God but Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,3);">Ex 20:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,7);">De 5:7</a>). No images shall be made of them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,4,23);">Ex 20:4, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,17);">34:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',19,4);">Le 19:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',5,8);">De 5:8</a>f). No mention shall be made of them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,13);">Ex 23:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,7);">Jos 23:7</a>). They are not to be worshipped but destroyed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,24);">Ex 23:24</a>). They are to make no covenant with the people or their gods would be a snare to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',23,32);">Ex 23:32</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,14);">De 6:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,4,25);">7:4, 25</a>). A curse will follow any defection from Yahweh to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',11,28);">De 11:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,14);">28:14</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,3,10);">12:3,10</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',13,7);">13:7</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,18);">20:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,17);">29:17</a>). These gods are an abomination to Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',12,31);">De 12:31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',20,18);">20:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,17);">29:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',32,37);">32:37</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',7,20);">Eze 7:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,5);">1Ki 11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,13);">2Ki 23:13</a>). They are to be as foreign gods to Israel (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',7,3);">1Sa 7:3</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',24,20,23);">Jos 24:20, 23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,16);">Jud 10:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',14,3);">2Ch 14:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',33,15);">33:15</a>).<P>6. Israel\'s Tendency to Idolatry:<P>The constant tendency of Israel to go after other gods was first made manifest at Sinai (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,1,4,8,23,31);">Ex 32:1, 4, 8, 23, 31</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,15);">34:15</a>). Hosea says (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',11,12);">11:2</a>), "The more the prophets called them, the more they went from them." Ezekiel declares (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',16,3);">16:3</A>), "The Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite," referring doubtless to the idolatrous taint in the blood of Israel. The tendency manifested itself also at Baal-peor where Israel was led into the licentious rites of the Moabites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',25,2);">Nu 25:2</a>f). Moses saw the taint in the blood, foresaw the danger and repeatedly warned them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,3);">De 17:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',18,20);">18:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,26);">29:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,17);">30:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',31,18);">31:18</a>). Perhaps the most striking passages in Deuteronomy are chapters <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',13,\'1-\');">13</A>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-\');">28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',30,\'1-\');">30</a>, where are pictured the consequences of going after other gods. Joshua also warns them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,7);">23:7</a>), and the history of the period of the Judges is the story of their periodical defection from Yahweh and the punishment resulting therefrom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',2,12,17,19);">Jud 2:12, 17, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',5,8);">5:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',10,6);">10:6</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',8,8);">1Sa 8:8</a>). Solomon himself gave an impetus in that direction (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',11,\'5-8\');">1Ki 11:5-8</a>). After the disruption, the religion of the Northern Kingdom became very corrupt (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',14,9);">1Ki 14:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',13,8);">2Ch 13:8</a>f). The golden calves of Jeroboam opened the door for an inrush of idols and other gods. Ahab\'s marriage to Jezebel threatened to wipe out Yahweh-worship and substitute Baal-worship, and, but for the powerful ministry of Elijah and Elisha, might have effected such a result. Partly checked for a time, the evil broke out in other forms, and even the preaching of Amos and Hosea failed to turn the tide of idolatry. The result was the destruction of the kingdom (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',17,7);">2Ki 17:7</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',3,\'6-8\');">Jer 3:6-8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,25);">1Ch 5:25</a>). The Southern Kingdom fared better. Other gods were countenanced by Rehoboam, Abijah, Athaliah, Jehoram, Ahaz, Amon, Manasseh, Jehoiakim, etc. Reform movements were attempted by Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah, but did not wholly avail. In the reign of Manasseh the nation plunged into the worship of other gods. The ministries of Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., availed not to stop the tide (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,25);">2Ch 34:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',11,13);">Jer 11:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',5,19);">5:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,17);">2Ki 22:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',1,16);">Jer 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',19,4);">19:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',7,6);">7:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,10);">13:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',16,11);">16:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',44,5,8);">44:5, 8</a>). The nation was carried into exile because of its going after other gods (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',22,17);">2Ki 22:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,25);">De 29:25</a>f). The captivity had its desired effect. The Israel that returned and perpetuated the nation never again lapsed into the worship of other gods.<P>II. In the Apocrypha.<P>The Apocrypha reiterates much of the Old Testament teaching: the defection of Israel (2Esdras 1:6); the gods of the nations (Judith 3:8; 8:18); the gods which their fathers worshipped (Judith 5:7f); the sin of Israel (<span class="noTag">Additions to Esther 14:7</span>). The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon refers to the "creatures which they supposed to be gods" (<span class="noTag">12:27; 13:2,3,10; 15:15</span>). Mention is made of the gods of Babylon (Baruch 1:22; 6:6-57 passim; Bel and the Dragon 1:27).<P>III. In the New Testament.<P>The expression "gods" occurs in six places in the New Testament:<P>(1) Jesus, in reply to the Pharisees, who questioned His right to call Himself the son of God, quoted <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',82,6);">Ps 82:6</a>: "I said, Ye are gods." He argues from this that if God Himself called them gods to whom the word of God came, i.e. the judges who acted as representatives of God in a judicial capacity, could not He who had been sanctified and sent into the world justly call Himself the Son of God? It was an argumentum ad hominem (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,\'34-37\');">Joh 10:34-37</a>).<P>(2) When Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel in Lystra they healed a certain man who had been a cripple from birth. The Lycaonians, seeing the miracle, cried out in their own dialect, "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,11);">Ac 14:11</a>f). Their ascription of deity to the apostles in such times shows their familiarity with the Greek pantheon.<P>(3) As Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection at Athens the people said he seemed to be a setter forth of strange gods. The conception of only one God seemed to be wholly foreign to them (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,18);">Ac 17:18</a>).<P>(4) In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',8,5);">1Co 8:5</a> Paul speaks of "gods many, and lords many," but the context shows that he did not believe in the existence of any god but one; "We know that no idol is anything in the world."<P>(5) While at Ephesus, Paul was said to have "persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they are no gods, that are made with hands" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',19,26);">Ac 19:26</a>).<P>(6) The Galatians had been "in bondage to them that by nature are no gods" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',4,8);">Ga 4:8</a>). Indirect references are also found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,16);">Ac 17:16</a>, where Paul observed the city full of idols. Likewise in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,22);">Ro 1:22</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,25);">25</a>ff. Paul refers to the numerous gods of the heathen world. These were idols, birds, four-footed beasts and creeping things. The results of this degrading worship are shown in the verse following.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=IDOLATRY">IDOLATRY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOD+NAMES+OF">GOD, NAMES OF</a>`146';
isbe[3865]='Godspeed`god\'-sped (chairo): "Godspeed" occurs only in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Jo\',1,10,11);">2Joh 1:10-11</a> the King James Version as the translation of chairein, the infin. of chairo, and is rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "greeting." It means "rejoice," "be of good cheer," "be it well with thee"; chaire, chairete, chairein, were common forms of greeting, expressive of good-will and desire for the person\'s prosperity, translated in the Gospels, "Hail!" "All Hail!" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,49);">Mt 26:49</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,29);">27:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',28,9);">28:9</a>, etc.); chairein is the Septuagint for shalom (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',48,22);">Isa 48:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',57,21);">57:21</a>; compare 2Macc 1:10). "Godspeed" first appears in Tyndale\'s version; Wycliffe had "heil!" Rheims "God save you."<P>In the passage cited Christians are forbidden thus to salute false teachers who might come to them. The injunction does not imply any breach of charity, since it would not be right to wish anyone success in advocating what was believed to be false and harmful. We should be sincere in our greetings; formal courtesy must yield to truth, still courteously, however, and in the spirit of love.``185';
isbe[3866]='Goel`go\'-el (go\'el, "redeemer"): Goel is the participle of the Hebrew word gal\'al ("to deliver," "to redeem") which aside from its common usage is frequently employed in connection with Hebrew law, where it is the technical term applied to a person who as the nearest relative of another is placed under certain obligations to him.<P>(1) If a Jew because of poverty had been obliged to sell himself to a wealthy "stranger or sojourner," it became the duty of his relatives to redeem him. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,47);">Le 25:47</a>ff and the article <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JUBILEE">JUBILEE</a>.<P>(2) The same duty fell upon the nearest kinsman, if his brother, being poor, had been forced to sell some of his property. Compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,23);">Le 25:23</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',4,4);">Ru 4:4</a>ff, and the article <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JUBILEE">JUBILEE</a>.<P>(3) It also devolved upon the nearest relative to marry the childless widow of his brother (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rth\',3,13);">Ru 3:13</a>; Tobit 3:17).<P>(4) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',5,5);">Nu 5:5</a>ff a law is stated which demands that restitution be made to the nearest relative, and after him to the priest, if the injured party has died (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',6,1);">Le 6:1</a>).<P>(5) The law of blood-revenge (Blut-Rache) made it the sacred duty of the nearest relative to avenge the blood of his kinsman. He was called the go\'el ha-dam, "the avenger of blood." This law was based upon the command given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',9,5);">Ge 9:5</a> f: "Whoso sheddeth man\'s blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and was carried out even if an animal had killed a man; in this case, however, the payment of a ransom was permitted (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,28);">Ex 21:28</a>). A clear distinction was made between an accidental and a deliberate murder. In both cases the murderer could find refuge at the altar of the sanctuary; if, however, the investigation revealed presumptuous manslaughter, he was taken from the altar to be put to death (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,12);">Ex 21:12</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',1,50);">1Ki 1:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',2,28);">2:28</a>). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',35,9);">Nu 35:9</a>ff definite regulations as to the duties of the Goel are given. Six cities were to be appointed as "cities of refuge," three on each side of the Jordan. The congregation has judgment over the murderer. There must be more than one witness to convict a man. If he is found guilty, he is delivered to the Goel; if murder was committed by accident he is permitted to live within the border of the city of refuge; in case the manslayer leaves this city before the death of the high priest, the avenger of blood has a right to slay him. After the death of the high priest the murderer may return to his own city. Ransom cannot be given for the life of a murderer; no expiation can be made for a murder but by the blood of the murderer (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',19,4);">De 19:4</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,\'1-\');">Jos 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',14,6);">2Sa 14:6</a>). According to the law the children of a murderer could not be held responsible for the crime of their father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',24,16);">De 24:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,6);">2Ki 14:6</a>), but see <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,1);">2Sa 21:1</a>ff. The order in which the nearest relative was considered the Goel is given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',25,48);">Le 25:48</a> f: first a brother, then an uncle or an uncle\'s son, and after them any other near relative. This order was observed in connection with (1) above, but probably also in the other cases except (4).<P>For the figurative use of Goel ("redeemer") see <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,154);">Ps 119:154</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',23,11);">Pr 23:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,25);">Job 19:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,14);">Isa 41:14</a>.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=AVENGE">AVENGE</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MURDER">MURDER</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=REFUGE,+CITIES+OF">REFUGE, CITIES OF</a>`16';
isbe[3867]='Gog`gog (gogh; Goug):<P>(1) A son of Joel, and descendant of the tribe of Reuben (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',5,4);">1Ch 5:4</a>).<P>(2) The prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,2);">Eze 38:2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',39,\'1-16\');">39:1-16</A>). His territory was known as the land of Magog, and he was the chief of those northern hordes who were to make a final onslaught upon Israel while enjoying the blessings of the Messianic age. He has been identified with Gagi, ruler of Sakhi, mentioned by Ashurbanipal, but Professor Sayce thinks the Hebrew name corresponds more closely to Gyges, the Lydian king, the Gugu of the cuneiform inscriptions. According to Ezekiel\'s account Gog\'s army included in its numbers Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer or the Cimmerians, and Togarmah, from the extreme north. They are represented as a vast mixed horde from the far-off parts of the north, the limits of the horizon, completely armed and equipped for war. They were to come upon the mountains of Israel and cover the land like a cloud. Their purpose is plunder, for the people of Israel are rich and dwell in towns and villages without walls. His coming, which had been prophesied by the seers of Israel, shall be accompanied by a theophany and great convulsions in Nature. A panic shall seize the hosts of Gog, rain, hailstones, pestilence, fire and brimstone shall consume them. Their bodies shall be food for the birds, their weapons shall serve as firewood for seven years and their bones shall be buried east of the Jordan in Hamon-gog and thus not defile the holy land. The fulfillment of this strange prophecy can never be literal. In general it seems to refer to the last and desperate attempts of a dying heathenism to overturn the true religion of Yahweh, or make capital out of it, profiting by its great advantages.<P>(3) In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',20,7);">Re 20:7</a> Satan is let loose and goes to the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to muster his hosts for the final struggle against God. In Ezekiel the invasion of Gog occurs during the Messianic age, while in Revelation it occurs just at the close of the millennium. In Ezekiel, Gog and Magog are gathered by Yahweh for their destruction; in Revelation they are gathered by Satan. In both cases the number is vast, the destruction is by supernatural means, and is complete and final.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=MAGOG">MAGOG</a>`146';
isbe[3868]='Goiim`goi\'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,1);">Ge 14:1</a> where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',12,23);">Jos 12:23</a>.``1';
isbe[3869]='Going; Goings`go\'-ing, go\'-ingz: Besides, occasionally, forms of the common words for "go" (see Go), for "going" and "goings," the Hebrew has \'ashshur (\'ashur, \'ashur), "step," motsa\', totsa\'oth, "goings out," "outgoings." The word "goings" is sometimes used literally, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,2);">Nu 33:2</a>, "Moses wrote their goings out" (Hebrew motsa\')." Going up," ma\'aleh, is in many passages rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) (as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,4);">Nu 34:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',15,30);">2Sa 15:30</a> the King James Version) "ascent," as e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,7);">Jos 15:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',1,36);">Jud 1:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',12,37);">Ne 12:37</a> (the American Standard Revised Version only). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',44,5);">Eze 44:5</a>, the American Standard Revised Version substitutes "egress" (way out or place of exit) for "going forth." "The goings out (place of exit; hence, boundary) of it" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',34,4,5,9,12);">Nu 34:4-5, 9, 12</a> the King James Version) occurs frequently. The verbal forms bo\', mabho\', also me\'al (<a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',6,14);">Dan 6:14</a>), are used of the sunset, "the going down of the sun." Thus <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',8,29);">Jos 8:29</a> the Revised Version (British and American), the King James Version "as soon as the sun was down."<P>In the New Testament, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "going out" for "gone out" (sbennumi) (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',25,8);">Mt 25:8</a>); "going up" for "ascending" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',19,28);">Lu 19:28</a>); "going in" for "coming in" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',9,28);">Ac 9:28</a>); "going about" for "wandering" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,13);">1Ti 5:13</a>); "seeking" for "going about" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',10,3);">Ro 10:3</a>).<P>Metaphorically: "Goings" is used for a man\'s ways or conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,5);">Ps 17:5</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "steps"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',40,2);">Ps 40:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',14,15);">Pr 14:15</a>, etc.). In <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',17,5);">Ps 17:5</a> "Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not" becomes in the Revised Version (British and American) "My steps have held fast to thy paths, my feet have not slipped"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',5,21);">Pr 5:21</a>, "He pondereth all his goings," is in the Revised Version (British and American) "He maketh level all his paths," in "weigheth carefully"; conversely, in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,23);">Ps 37:23</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) has "goings" for "steps"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',1,11);">Jas 1:11</a> "goings" for "ways." In the important prophetic passage, <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',5,2);">Mic 5:2</a>, it is said of the Ruler from Bethlehem, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," the Revised Version (British and American) "are from of old, from everlasting," margin "from ancient days." Of God it is said in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,6);">Hab 3:6</a> "His ways are everlasting," the Revised Version (British and American) "His goings were as of old," margin "His ways are everlasting."``185';
isbe[3870]='Golan; Gaulonitis`go\'-lan (golan), (Gaulanitis): Golan was a city in the territory allotted to Manasseh in Bashan, the most northerly of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,43);">De 4:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',20,8);">Jos 20:8</a>); assigned with its "suburbs" to the Gershonite Levites (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',21,27);">Jos 21:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',6,71);">1Ch 6:71</a>). It must have been a great and important city in its day; but the site cannot now be determined with any certainty. It was known to Josephus (Ant., XIII, xv, 3). Near Golan Alexander was ambushed by Obodas, king of the Arabians; and his army, crowded together in a narrow and deep valley, was broken in pieces by the multitude of camels (BJ, I, iv, 4). This incident is located at Gadara in Ant, XIII, xiii, 5. Later, Golan was destroyed by Alexander. It had already given its name to a large district, Gaulonitis (BJ, III, iii,1,5; IV, i, 1). It formed the eastern boundary of Galilee. It was part of the tetrarchy of Philip (Ant., XVII, viii, 1; XVIII, iv, 6). The city was known to Eusebius as "a large village," giving its name to the surrounding country (Onomasticon, under the word Gaulon). This country must have corresponded roughly with the modern Jaulan, in which the ancient name is preserved. The boundaries of the province today are Mt. Hermon on the north, Jordan and the Sea of Galilee on the west, Wady Yarmuk on the south, and Nahr \'Allan on the east. This plateau, which in the north is about 3,000 ft. high, slopes gradually southward to a height of about 1,000 ft. It is entirely volcanic, and there are many cone-like peaks of extinct volcanoes, especially toward the north It affords good pasturage, and has long been a favorite summer grazing-ground of the nomads. Traces of ancient forests remain, but for the most part today it is treeless. To the east of the Sea of Galilee the soil is deep and rich. Splendid crops of wheat are grown here, and olives flourish in the hollows. The country is furrowed by deep valleys that carry the water southwestward into the Sea of Galilee. This region has not yet been subjected to thorough examination, but many important ruins have been found, which tell of a plentiful and prosperous population in times long past. The best description of these, and of the region generally, will be found in Schumacher\'s The Jaulan, and Across the Jordan. To him also we owe the excellent maps which carry us eastward to the province of el-Chauran.<P>Schumacher inclines to the belief that the ancient Golan may be represented by Sahm el-Jaulan, a large village fully 4 miles east of Nahr \'Allan, and 4 miles southeast of Tsil. The extensive ruins probably date from early in the Christian era. The buildings are of stone, many of them of Spacious dimensions, while the streets are wide and straight. The inhabitants number not more than 280. The surrounding soil is rich and well watered, bearing excellent crops. The present writer, after personal examination, corroborates Dr. Schumacher\'s description. Standing in the open country, it would be seen from afar; and it was easily accessible from all directions.``54';
isbe[3871]='Gold`gold (zahabh; chrusos):<P>1. Terms:<P>No metal has been more frequently mentioned in Old Testament writings than gold, and none has had more terms applied to it. Among these terms the one most used is zahabh. The Arabic equivalent, dhahab, is still the common name for gold throughout Palestine, Syria and Egypt. With zahabh frequently occur other words which, translated, mean "pure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,11);">Ex 25:11</a>), "refined" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,18);">1Ch 28:18</a>), "finest" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,18);">1Ki 10:18</a>), "beaten" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,17);">1Ki 10:17</a>), "Ophir" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,9);">Ps 45:9</a>).<P>Other terms occurring are: paz, "fine gold" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,17);">Job 28:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',19,10);">Ps 19:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',21,3);">21:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',119,127);">119:127</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,19);">Pr 8:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,11,15);">So 5:11,15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,12);">Isa 13:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,2);">La 4:2</a>); charuts (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',68,13);">Ps 68:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,14);">Pr 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,10,19);">8:10, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,16);">16:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',9,3);">Zec 9:3</a>); kethem, literally, "carved out" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,16,19);">Job 28:16, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',31,24);">31:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,12);">Pr 25:12</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,1);">La 4:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',10,5);">Da 10:5</a>); ceghor (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,20);">1Ki 6:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',7,50);">7:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,15);">Job 28:15</a>); betser (in the King James Version only: <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,24);">Job 22:24</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) "treasure").<P>2. Sources:<P>Sources definitely mentioned in the Old Testament are: Havilah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,11,12);">Ge 2:11-12</a>); Ophir (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',9,28);">1Ki 9:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,11);">10:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,48);">22:48</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',29,4);">1Ch 29:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',8,18);">2Ch 8:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,10);">9:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,24);">Job 22:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,16);">28:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,9);">Ps 45:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',13,12);">Isa 13:12</a>); Sheba (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,2,10);">1Ki 10:2-10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,1,9);">2Ch 9:1, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',72,15);">Ps 72:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',60,6);">Isa 60:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,22);">Eze 27:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,13);">38:13</a>); Arabia (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',9,14);">2Ch 9:14</a>). We are not justified in locating any of these places too definitely. They probably all refer to some region of Arabia.<P>The late origin of the geological formation of Palestine and Syria precludes the possibility of gold being found in any quantities (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=METALS">METALS</a>), so that the large quantities of gold used by the children of Israel in constructing their holy places was not the product of mines in the country, but was from the spoil taken from the inhabitants of the land (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,52);">Nu 31:52</a>), or brought with them from Egypt (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,22);">Ex 3:22</a>). This gold was probably mined in Egypt or India (possibly Arabia), and brought by the great caravan routes through Arabia to Syria, or by sea in the ships of Tyre (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,11,22);">1Ki 10:11, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',27,21,22);">Eze 27:21-22</a>). There is no doubt about the Egyptian sources. The old workings in the gold-bearing veins of the Egyptian desert and the ruins of the buildings connected with the mining and refining of the precious metal still remain. This region is being reopened with the prospect of its becoming a source of part of the world\'s supply. It might be inferred from the extensive spoils in gold taken from the Midianites (£100,000 HDB, under the word) that their country (Northwestern Arabia) produced gold. It is more likely that the Midianites had, in turn, captured most of it from other weaker nations. The tradition that Northwestern Arabia is rich in gold still persists. Every year Moslem pilgrims, returning from Mecca by the Damascus route, bring with them specimens of what is supposed to be gold ore. They secure it from the Arabs at the stopping-places along the route. Samples analyzed by the writer have been iron pyrites only. No gold-bearing rock has yet appeared. Whether these specimens come from the mines mentioned by Burton (The Land of Midian Revisited) is a question.<P>3. Forms:<P>Gold formed a part of every household treasure (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',13,2);">Ge 13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,35);">24:35</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',8,13);">De 8:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',17,17);">17:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',22,8);">Jos 22:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',28,4);">Eze 28:4</a>). It was probably treasured (a) in the form of nuggets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,6);">Job 28:6</a> the Revised Version, margin), (b) in regularly or irregularly shaped slabs or bars (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,14,20,84,86);">Nu 7:14, 20, 84, 86</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',7,21,24);">Jos 7:21, 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',5,5);">2Ki 5:5</a>), and (c) in the form of dust (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,6);">Job 28:6</a>). A specimen of yellow dust, which the owner claimed to have taken from an ancient jar, unearthed in the vicinity of the Hauran, was once brought to the writer\'s laboratory. On examination it was found to contain iron pyrites and metallic gold in finely divided state. It was probably part of an ancient household treasure. A common practice was to make gold into jewelry with the dual purpose of ornamentation and of treasuring it. This custom still prevails, especially among the Moslems, who do not let out their money at interest. A poor woman will save her small coins until she has enough to buy a gold bracelet. This she will wear or put away against the day of need (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,22,53);">Ge 24:22, 53</a>). It was weight and not beauty which was noted in the jewels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',3,22);">Ex 3:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',11,2);">11:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',12,35);">12:35</a>). Gold coinage was unknown in the early Old Testament times.<P>4. Uses:<P>(1) The use of gold as the most convenient way of treasuring wealth is mentioned above.<P>(2) Jewelry took many forms: armlets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,50);">Nu 31:50</a>), bracelets (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,22);">Ge 24:22</a>), chains (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,42);">Ge 41:42</a>), crescents (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,26);">Jud 8:26</a>), crowns (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',12,30);">2Sa 12:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,2);">1Ch 20:2</a>), earrings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,2,3);">Ex 32:2-3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,50);">Nu 31:50</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',8,24,26);">Jud 8:24, 26</a>), rings (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,22);">Ge 24:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,42);">41:42</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,2);">Jas 2:2</a>).<P>(3) Making and decorating objects in connection with places of worship: In the description of the building of the ark and the tabernacle in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff, we read of the lavish use of gold in overlaying wood and metals, and in shaping candlesticks, dishes, spoons, flagons, bowls, snuffers, curtain clasps, hooks, etc. (one estimate of the value of gold used is £90,000; see HDB). In <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,\'1-\');">1Ki 6</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,\'1-\');">1Ch 28</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',1,\'1-\');">2Ch 1</a>ff are records of still more extensive use of gold in building the temple.<P>(4) Idols were made of gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',20,23);">Ex 20:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',32,4);">32:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',7,25);">De 7:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',29,17);">29:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',12,28);">1Ki 12:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',115,4);">Ps 115:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',135,15);">135:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',30,22);">Isa 30:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',9,20);">Re 9:20</a>).<P>(5) Gold was used for lavish display. Among the fabulous luxuries of Solomon\'s court were his gold drinking-vessels (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,21);">1Ki 10:21</a>), a throne of ivory overlaid with gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',10,18);">1Ki 10:18</a>), and golden chariot trimmings (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',28,18);">1Ch 28:18</a>). Sacred treasure saved from votive offerings or portions dedicated from booty were principally gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,36);">Ex 25:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',7,14,20,84,86);">Nu 7:14, 20, 84, 86</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,50,52,54);">31:50, 52, 54</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',6,19,24);">Jos 6:19, 24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',6,8,11,15);">1Sa 6:8, 11, 15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',8,11);">2Sa 8:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',18,7,10,11);">1Ch 18:7, 10-11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',22,14,16);">22:14, 16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',23,17);">Mt 23:17</a>). This treasure was the spoil most sought after by the enemy. It was paid to them as tribute (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',15,15);">1Ki 15:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',12,18);">2Ki 12:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',14,14);">14:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',16,8);">16:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',18,\'14-16\');">18:14-16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',23,33,35);">23:33, 35</a>), or taken as plunder (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',24,13);">2Ki 24:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',25,15,35);">25:35</a>).<P>5. Figurative:<P>Gold is used to symbolize earthly riches (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',3,15);">Job 3:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',22,24);">22:24</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',2,7);">Isa 2:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',10,9);">Mt 10:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',3,6);">Ac 3:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,33);">20:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,12);">Re 18:12</a>). Finer than gold, which, physically speaking, is considered non-perishable, typifies incorruptibility (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',17,29);">Ac 17:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,7,18);">1Pe 1:7, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,3);">3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',5,3);">Jas 5:3</a>). Refining of gold is a figure for great purity or a test of stedfastness (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',23,10);">Job 23:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,3);">Pr 17:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,25);">Isa 1:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,2);">Mal 3:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,7);">1Pe 1:7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,18);">Re 3:18</a>). Gold was the most valuable of metals. It stood for anything of great value (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',3,14);">Pr 3:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,10,19);">8:10, 19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',16,16,22);">16:16, 22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,12);">25:12</a>), hence was most worthy for use in worshipping Yahweh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,\'1-\');">Ex 25</a>ff; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',1,12,13,20);">Re 1:12-13, 20</a>, etc.), and the adornment of angels (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',15,6);">Re 15:6</a>) or saints (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,13);">Ps 45:13</a>). The head was called golden as being the most precious part of the body (<a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',5,11);">So 5:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',2,38);">Da 2:38</a>; compare "the golden bowl," <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',12,6);">Ec 12:6</a>). "The golden city" meant Babylon (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,4);">Isa 14:4</a>), as did also "the golden cup," sensuality (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',51,7);">Jer 51:7</a>). A crown of gold was synonymous with royal honor (<a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',2,17);">Es 2:17</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',6,8);">6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',19,9);">Job 19:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',4,4);">Re 4:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,14);">14:14</a>). Wearing of gold typified lavish adornment and worldly luxury (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',4,30);">Jer 4:30</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,4);">10:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',2,9);">1Ti 2:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,3);">1Pe 3:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',17,4);">Re 17:4</a>). Comparing men to gold suggested their nobility (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lam\',4,1,2);">La 4:1, 2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',2,20);">2Ti 2:20</a>).``133';
isbe[3872]='Golden Calf`gold\'-\'-n: Probably a representation of the sun in Taurus.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTROLOGY">ASTROLOGY</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CALF,+GOLDEN">CALF, GOLDEN</a>`1';
isbe[3873]='Golden City`gold\'-\'-n: The translation "golden city" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',14,4);">Isa 14:4</a>) is an attempt to render the received text (madhhebhah), but can hardly be justified. Almost all the ancient versions read (marhebhah), a word which connotes unrest and insolence, fitting the context well.``1';
isbe[3874]='Golden Number`gold\'-\'-n num\'-ber: Used in the regulation of the ecclesiastical calendar, in the "Metonic cycle" of 19 years, which almost exactly reconciles the natural month and the solar year.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ASTRONOMY,+i">ASTRONOMY</a>`1';
isbe[3875]='Goldsmith`gold\'-smith (tsreph): Goldsmiths are first mentioned in connection with the building of the tabernacle (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',31,4);">Ex 31:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',36,1);">36:1</a>). Later, goldsmiths\' guilds are mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',3,8,32);">Ne 3:8, 32</a>). The art of refining gold and shaping it into objects was probably introduced into Palestine from Phoenicia (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CRAFTS">CRAFTS</a>). Examples of gold work from the earliest Egyptian periods are so numerous in the museums of the world that we do not have to draw on our imaginations to appreciate the wonderful skill of the ancient goldsmiths. their designs and methods were those later used by the Jews. The goldsmiths\' art was divided into<P>(1) the refining of the impure gold (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',28,1);">Job 28:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',17,3);">Pr 17:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',25,4);">25:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',27,21);">27:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',1,25);">Isa 1:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',3,3);">Mal 3:3</a>);<P>(2) shaping of objects,<P>(a) casting idols (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',33,52);">Nu 33:52</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',13,2);">Ho 13:2</a>),<P>(b) making graven images (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',34,3,4);">2Ch 34:3-4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',10,14);">Jer 10:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Nah\',1,14);">Na 1:14</a>),<P>(c) the making of beaten or turned work (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,18);">Ex 25:18</a>),<P>(d) plating or overlaying (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',25,11);">Ex 25:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',6,20);">1Ki 6:20</a>),<P>(e) soldering (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,7);">Isa 41:7</a>),<P>(f) making of wire (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',28,6);">Ex 28:6</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,3);">39:3</a>).<P>Most of these processes are carried on in Bible lands today. In Damascus there is a goldsmiths\' quarter where the refining, casting and beating of gold are still carried on, probably in much the same way as in Solomon\'s time. Jews are found among the goldsmiths. In Beirut, it is a Jew who is especially skilled in making refiners\' pots. Daily, one can see the gold being refined, cast into lumps, beaten on an anvil, rolled between rollers into thin sheets, cut into narrow strips (wire), and wound on bobbins ready for the weaver. are houses in Damascus and Aleppo still possessing beautiful gold overlaid work on wooden walls and ceilings, the work of goldsmiths of several centuries ago. grazing-ground of the nomads. Traces of ancient forests remain, but for the most part today it is treeless. To the east of the Sea of Galilee the soil is deep and rich. Splendid crops of wheat are grown here, and olives flourish in the hollows. The country is furrowed by deep valleys that carry the water southwestward into the Sea of Galilee. This region has not yet been subjected to thorough examination, but many important ruins have been found, which tell of a plentiful and prosperous population in times long past. The best description of these, and of the region generally, will be found in Schumacher\'s The Jaulan, and Across the Jordan. To him also we owe the excellent maps which carry us eastward to the province of el-Chauran.``133';
isbe[3876]='Golgotha`gol\'-go-tha (Golgotha, from "a skull"): In three references (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,33);">Mt 27:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,22);">Mr 15:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,17);">Joh 19:17</a>) it is interpreted to mean kraniou topos, "the place of a skull." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,33);">Lu 23:33</a> the King James Version it is called "Calvary," but in the Revised Version (British and American) simply "The skull." From the New Testament we may gather that it was outside the city (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,12);">Heb 13:12</a>), but close to it (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,20);">Joh 19:20</a>), apparently near some public thoroughfare (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,39);">Mt 27:39</a>), coming from the country (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,21);">Mr 15:21</a>). was a spot visible, from some points, from afar (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',15,40);">Mr 15:40</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,49);">Lu 23:49</a>).<P>1. The Name:<P>Four reasons have been suggested for the name Golgotha or "skull":<P>(1) That it was a spot where skulls were to be found lying about and probably, therefore, a public place of execution. This tradition apparently originates with Jerome (346-420 AD), who refers to (3), to condemn it, and says that "outside the city and without the gate there are places wherein the heads of condemned criminals are cut off and which have obtained the name of Calvary—that is, of the beheaded." This view has been adopted by several later writers. Against it may be urged that there is no shadow of evidence that there was any special place for Jewish executions in the 1st century, and that, if there were, the corpses could have been allowed burial (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',27,58);">Mt 27:58</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',19,38);">Joh 19:38</a>), in conformity with Jewish law (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',21,23);">De 21:23</a>) and with normal custom (Josephus, BJ, IV, v, 2).<P>(2) That the name was due to the skull-like shape of the hill—a modern popular view. No early or Greek writer suggests such an idea, and there is no evidence from the Gospels that the Crucifixion occurred on a raised place at all. Indeed Epiphanius (4th century) expressly says: "There is nothing to be seen on the place resembling this name; for it is not situated upon a height that it should be called (the place) of a skull, answering to the place of the head in the human body." It is true that the tradition embodied in the name Mons Calvary appears as early as the 4th century, and is materialized in the traditional site of the Crucifixion in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, but that the hill was skull-like in form is quite a modern idea. Guthe combines (2) and (3) and considers that a natural skull-like elevation came to be considered, by some folklore ideas, to be the skull of the first man. One of the strangest ideas is that of the late General Gordon, who thought that the resemblance to a skull lay in the contours of the ground as laid down in the ordinance survey map of Jerusalem.<P>(3) That the name is due to an ancient pre-Christian tradition that the skull of Adam was found there. The first mention of this is by Origen (185-253 AD), who himself lived in Jerusalem 20 years. He writes: "I have received a tradition to the effect that the body of Adam, the first man, was buried upon the spot where Christ was crucified," etc. This tradition was afterward referred to by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Basil of Caesarea, Chrysostom and other later writers. The tomb and skull of Adam, still pointed out in an excavated chamber below the traditional Calvary, marks the survival of this tradition on the spot. This is by far the most ancient explanation of the name Golgotha and, in spite of the absurdity of the original tradition about Adam, is probably the true one.<P>(4) The highly improbable theory that the Capitolium of AElia Capitolina (the name given by Hadrian to his new Jerusalem) stood where the Church of the Holy Sepulcher now is, and gave rise to the name Golgotha, is one which involves the idea that the site first received the name Golgotha in the 2nd century, and that all the references in the Gospels were inserted then. This is only mentioned to be dismissed as incompatible with history and common sense.<P>2. The Site:<P>With regard to the position of the site of the Crucifixion (with which is bound up the site of the Tomb) the New Testament gives us no indication whatever; indeed, by those who abandon tradition, sites have been suggested on all sides of the city—and west, Two views hold the field today:<P>(1) that the site of the Crucifixion, or at any rate that of the Tomb itself, is included within the precincts of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher; and<P>(2) that a prominent, rounded, grassy hill above the so-called "Grotto of Jeremiah," northeast of the Modern Damascus Gate, has at least a very high probability of being the true site. It is impossible here to go into the whole question, which requires minute and long elaboration, but excellent review of the whole evidence may be consulted in "Golgotha and the Holy Sepulcher," by the late Sir Charles W. Wilson, of PEF. Here only a few points can be touched upon.<P>(1) For the traditional view it may be said that it seems highly improbable that so sacred a spot as this, particularly the empty tomb, could have been entirely forgotten. Although it is true that Jews and Christians were driven out of Jerusalem after the second great revolt (130-33 AD), yet GentileChristians were free to return, and there was no break long enough to account for a site like this being entirely lost. Indeed there are traditions that this site was deliberately defiled by pagan buildings to annoy the Christians. Eusebius, at the time of Constantine, writes as if it were well known that a Temple of Aphrodite lay over the tomb.<P>He gives an account of the discovery of the spots still venerated as the Golgotha and the Tomb, and of the erection of churches in connection with them (Life of Constantine, III, 25-40). From the time of Constantine there has been no break in the reverence paid to these places. Of the earlier evidence Sir C. Wilson admits (loc. cit.) that "the tradition is so precarious and the evidence is undoubtedly so unsatisfactory as to raise serious doubts."<P>The topographical difficulties are dealt with in the <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM,+1">JERUSALEM</a>. It is difficult for the visitor to Jerusalem sufficiently to realize that the center of gravity of the city has much changed; once it was on the Hill Ophel, and the southern slopes, now bare, were in Christ\'s time crammed with houses; in later times, from the 4th century, it was the Church of the Holy Sepulcher round which the city tended to center. There is no insurmountable difficulty in believing that the site of the Crucifixion may be where tradition points out. As Sir C. Wilson says at the end of his book, "No objection urged against the sites (i.e. Golgotha and the Tomb) is of such a convincing nature that it need disturb the minds of those who accept, in all good faith, the authenticity of the places which are hallowed by the prayers of countless pilgrims since the days of Constantine" (loc. cit.).<P>(2) The so-called "Skull Hill" or "Green Hill" appears to have appealed first to Otto Thenius (1842), but has received its greatest support through the advocacy of the late Col. Conder and of the late Dr. Selah Merrill, U.S.A. consul at Jerusalem. The arguments for this site are mainly:<P>(a) its conspicuous and elevated position—a position which must impress every reverent pilgrim as strikingly suitable for an imaginary reconstruction of the scene. The very greenness of the hill—it is the first green spot in the neighborhood of the city—may influence the subconsciousness of those who have been brought up from childhood to think of the "green hill far away," as the popular hymn puts it. When, however, we consider the question historically, there is not the slightest reason to expect that the crucifixion of Jesus, one of many hundreds, should have been dramatically located in a setting so consonant with the importance with which the world has since learned to regard the event. There is no evidence whatever that the crucifixion was on a hill, much less on such a conspicuous place.<P>(b) The supposed resemblance to a human skull strikes many people, but it may be stated without hesitation that the most arresting points of the resemblance, the "eyeholes" and the rounded top, are not ancient; the former are due to artificial excavations going back perhaps a couple of centuries. Probably the whole formation of the hill, the sharp scarp to the south and the 10 or more feet of earth accumulated on the summit are both entirely new conditions since New Testament times.<P>(c) The nearness of the city walls and the great north road which make the site so appropriate today are quite different conditions from those in New Testament times. It is only if the present north wall can be proved to be on the line of the second wall that the argument holds good. On this see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=JERUSALEM,+1">JERUSALEM</a>.<P>(d) An argument has been based upon a supposed tradition that this spot was the Jewish place of stoning. This so-called tradition is worthless, and not a trace of it can be found outside interested circles, and even if it were the "place of stoning," it would be no argument for its being "Golgotha." To the Oriental, with his great respect for traditional sites, the church of the Holy Sepulcher, covering at once the Tomb, the Calvary, and other sacred spots, will probably always appeal as the appropriate spot: to the western tourist who wishes to visualize in the environs of Jerusalem in an appropriate setting the great world\'s tragedy, such a site as this "Skull Hill" must always make the greater appeal to his imagination, and both may find religious satisfaction in their ideas; but cold reason, reviewing the pro\'s and con\'s, is obliged to say "not proven" to both, with perhaps an admission of the stronger case for the traditional spot.``117';
isbe[3877]='Goliath`go-li\'-ath (golyath; Goliath):<P>(1) The giant of Gath, and champion of the Philistine army (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,\'4-23\');">1Sa 17:4-23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',21,9);">21:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',22,10);">22:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,5);">1Ch 20:5</a>). He defied the armies of Israel, challenging anyone to meet him in single combat while the two armies faced each other at Ephesdammim. He was slain by the youthful David. Goliath was almost certainly not of Philistine blood, but belonged to one of the races of giants, or aboriginal tribes, such as the Anakim, Avvim, Rephaim, etc. The Avvim had lived at Philistia, and most probably the giant was of that race. His size was most extraordinary. If a cubit was about 21 inches, he was over 11 feet in height; if about 18 inches, he was over 9 feet in height. The enormous weight of his armor would seem to require the larger cubit. This height probably included his full length in armor, helmet and all. In either case he is the largest man known to history. His sword was wielded by David to slay him and afterward carried about in his wanderings, so it could not have been excessively heavy. The story of his encounter with David is graphic, and the boasts of the two champions were perfectly in keeping with single combats in the Orient.<P>(2) The Goliath of <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',21,19);">2Sa 21:19</a> is another person, and quite probably a son of the first Goliath. He was slain by Elhanan, one of David\'s mighty men. The person mentioned in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',20,5);">1Ch 20:5</a> is called Lachmi, but this is almost certainly due to a corruption of the text. "The brother of Goliath" is the younger Goliath and probably a son of the greater Goliath, who had four sons, giants, one of them having 24 fingers and toes.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=ELHANAN">ELHANAN</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=LAHMI">LAHMI</a>`146';
isbe[3878]='Gomer (1)`go\'-mer (gomer): Given in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',10,2);">Ge 10:2</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',1,5);">1Ch 1:5</a>f as a son of Japheth. The name evidently designates the people called Gimirra by the Assyrians, Kimmerians by the Greeks. They were a barbaric horde of Aryans who in the 7th century BC left their abode in what is now Southern Russia and poured. through the Caucasus into western Asia, causing serious trouble to the Assyrians and other nations. One division moved eastward toward Media, another westward, where they conquered Cappadocia and made it their special abode. They fought also in other parts of Asia Minor, conquering some portions. The Armenian name for Cappadocia, Gamir, has come from this people. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,6);">Eze 38:6</a> Gomer is mentioned as one of the northern nations.``12';
isbe[3879]='Gomer (2)`go\'-mer (gomer; Gamer): Wife of Hosea. Hosea married Gomer according to Divine appointment, and this was the beginning of God\'s word to him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',1,3);">Ho 1:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,\'1-4\');">3:1-4</a>). She was to be a wife of whoredom and they were to have children of whoredom. This need not mean that at the time of marriage she was thus depraved, but she had the evil taint in her blood, had inherited immoral instincts. These soon manifested themselves, and the unfaithful, depraved wife of the prophet went deeper into sin. She seems to have left him and become the slave of her paramour (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,1);">Ho 3:1</a>). Hosea is now commanded by Yahweh to buy her back, paying the price of the ordinary slave. The prophet keeps her in confinement and without a husband for some time. This experience of the prophet was typical of Israel\'s unfaithfulness, of Israel\'s exile, and of God bringing her back after the punishment of the exile.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=HOSEA">HOSEA</a>`146';
isbe[3880]='Gomorrah`go-mor\'-a (\'amorah; Septuagint and New Testament Gomorra, or Gomorra; Arabic Ghamara, "to overwhelm with water"): One of the <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CITIES+OF+THE+PLAIN;+CICCAR">CITIES OF THE PLAIN</a> (which see) destroyed by fire from heaven in the time of Abraham and Lot (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',19,\'23-29\');">Ge 19:23-29</a>). It was located probably in the plain south of the Dead Sea, now covered with water. See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ARABAH">ARABAH</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=CITIES+OF+THE+PLAIN;+CICCAR">CITIES OF THE PLAIN</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=DEAD+SEA,+THE">DEAD SEA</a>. De Saulcy, however, with others who place the Cities of the Plain at the north end of the Dead Sea, fixes upon Khumran (or Gumran), marked on the Survey Map of Palestine north of Ras Feshkeh, where there are ruins about a mile from the Dead Sea. But there is nothing to support this view except the faint resemblance of the name and the inconclusive arguments placing the Cities of the Plain at that end of the sea.``198';
isbe[3881]='Good`good (Tobh, Tubh, yatabh; agathos, agathon, kalos, kalon): In English "good" is used in various senses, most of which are represented in the Bible.<P>(1) In the Old Testament the commonest word is Tobh, occurring very frequently and translated in a great variety of ways. Of the different shades of meaning, which frequently run into each other, the following may be distinguished:<P>(a) Possessing desirable qualities, beneficial, agreeable, e.g. "good for food" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,9);">Ge 2:9</a>); "We will do thee good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',10,29);">Nu 10:29</a>); Who will show us any good?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',4,6);">Ps 4:6</a>); "good tidings of good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',52,7);">Isa 52:7</a>).<P>(b) Moral excellence, piety: "to know good and evil" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,22);">Ge 3:22</a>); "that which is right and good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,18);">De 6:18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',12,23);">1Sa 12:23</a>); "good and bad" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',3,9);">1Ki 3:9</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "evil"); "Depart from evil and do good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',37,27);">Ps 37:27</a>); "a good man" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',12,2);">Pr 12:2</a>); compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',5,20);">Isa 5:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>, etc.<P>(c) Kind, benevolent: "The men were very good unto us" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,15);">1Sa 25:15</a>); "Give thanks unto Yahweh; for he is good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',16,34);">1Ch 16:34</a>); "the good Yahweh" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',30,18);">2Ch 30:18</a>); "God is good to Israel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,1);">Ps 73:1</a>); "Yahweh is good to all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',145,9);">Ps 145:9</a>), etc.<P>(d) Serviceable, adequate, sufficient: "saw the light that it was good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,4,10,12);">Ge 1:4, 10, 12</a>; etc.); "not good that the man should be alone" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',2,18);">Ge 2:18</a>); in the frequent phrase, "if it seem good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ch\',13,2);">1Ch 13:2</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,4);">Es 5:4</a>, etc.), sometimes rendered, "if it please" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',2,5,7);">Ne 2:5, 7</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',1,19);">Es 1:19</a>, etc.).<P>(e) Not small or deficient (full, complete): "a good old age" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,15);">Ge 15:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',25,8);">25:8</a>); "a good dowry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',30,20);">Ge 30:20</a>); "good ears," "years," "kine" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',41,24,26,35);">Ge 41:24, 26, 35</a>); "good understanding" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,3);">1Sa 25:3</a>); "good trees—"land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',3,19,25);">2Ki 3:19, 25</a>), etc.<p>(f) Not blemished, fair, honorable: "tender and good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',18,7);">Ge 18:7</a>); "good kids" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',27,9);">Ge 27:9</a>); "good report" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',2,24);">1Sa 2:24</a>; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',20,3);">2Ki 20:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',24,2);">Jer 24:2</a>); and the renderings "fair" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',26,7);">Ge 26:7</a>, etc.), "beautiful" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',11,2);">2Sa 11:2</a>), "pleasant" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ki\',2,19);">2Ki 2:19</a>), etc.<P>(g) Pleasure-giving, happy: "glad of heart" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',8,66);">1Ki 8:66</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Est\',5,9);">Es 5:9</a>); sometimes in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) translated "merry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',16,25);">Jud 16:25</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',25,36);">1Sa 25:36</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',13,28);">2Sa 13:28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',15,15);">Pr 15:15</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "cheerful"), etc.<P>Changes that may be noted in the Revised Version (British and American) are such as, "good" for "ready" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',41,7);">Isa 41:7</a>); "I have no good beyond thee" for "My goodness extendeth not to thee" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,2);">Ps 16:2</a>); "goodly" for "good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,1);">Ps 45:1</a>); "good" for "goodness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',107,9);">Ps 107:9</a>); "good" for "well" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',8,15);">Zec 8:15</a>).<P>Tubh means something good, e.g. "the good of the land" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,18,20);">Ge 45:18, 20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',6,11);">De 6:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',21,16);">Job 21:16</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "prosperity").<P>Yatabh, "to do good," occurs several times, as, "I will surely do thee good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',32,12);">Ge 32:12</a>); "to do good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',5,4);">Le 5:4</a>); "Make your ways and your doings good," the Revised Version (British and American) "amend" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,11);">Jer 18:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,12);">Ze 1:12</a>, etc.). Numerous other Hebrew words are rendered "good" in various verbal connections and otherwise, as "to bring good tidings" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',4,10);">2Sa 4:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,9);">Isa 40:9</a>, etc.); "take good heed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',2,4);">De 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',4,15);">4:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',23,11);">Jos 23:11</a>); "make good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,34);">Ex 21:34</a>), etc.; "good will" (ratson, <a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,16);">De 33:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mal\',2,13);">Mal 2:13</a>); "what good?" the Revised Version (British and American) "what advantages?" (kishron, <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,11);">Ec 5:11</a>); "good for nothing," the Revised Version (British and American) "profitable" (tsaleah, <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',13,10);">Jer 13:10</a>), etc. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',18,4);">Jer 18:4</a>, "as seemed good to the potter," the word is yahsar, which means literally, "right."<P>(2) In the New Testament the words most frequently translated "good" are agathos and kalos. The former, agathos, denotes good as a quality, physical or moral. Thus, "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,45);">Mt 5:45</a>); "good gifts" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>); "Good Master (the Revised Version (British and American) "Teacher")...Why callest thou me good? none is good save one" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',10,17);">Mr 10:17</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',18,18);">Lu 18:18</a>f; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,16);">Mt 19:16</a>f); "they that have done good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',5,29);">Joh 5:29</a>). Sometimes it is equivalent to "kind" (thus <a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,5);">Tit 2:5</a> the Revised Version (British and American)); to agathon is "that which is good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,45);">Lu 6:45</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,13);">Ro 7:13</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,15);">1Th 5:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',3,13);">1Pe 3:13</a>), etc.; "that which is honest," the Revised Version (British and American) "honorable "(<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',13,7);">2Co 13:7</a>); "meet" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',15,26);">Mt 15:26</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',7,27);">Mr 7:27</a>); "worthy," the Revised Version (British and American) "honorable" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,7);">Jas 2:7</a>); agathon is "a good thing," as "good things to them that ask him" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',7,11);">Mt 7:11</a>); Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',1,46);">Joh 1:46</a>), etc.; agathoergeo (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',6,18);">1Ti 6:18</a>), and agathopoieo (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,4);">Mr 3:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',14,17);">Ac 14:17</a>), etc., "to do good."<P>Kalos is properly, "beautiful," "pleasing," "useful," "noble," "worthy" in a moral sense, e.g. "that they may see your good works" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,16);">Mt 5:16</a>); "She hath wrought a good work on me" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',26,10);">Mt 26:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,6);">Mr 14:6)</a>; "the good shepherd" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,11,14);">Joh 10:11, 14</a>); "Many good works have I showed you" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jhn\',10,32);">Joh 10:32</a>); "good and acceptable before God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',5,4);">1Ti 5:4</a>; the Revised Version (British and American) omits "good"); "the good fight" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ti\',4,7);">2Ti 4:7</a>); "good works" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,7);">Tit 2:7</a>); "the good word of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',6,5);">Heb 6:5</a>). But it is often practically equivalent to agathos, e.g. "good fruit" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',3,10);">Mt 3:10</a>); "good ground" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,23);">Mt 13:23</a>); "good seed" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,24);">Mt 13:24</a>); but the idea of useful may underlie such expressions; to kalon is properly "that which is beautiful." It occurs in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,18,21);">Ro 7:18, 21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',5,21);">1Th 5:21</a>, "Hold fast that which is good." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,\'1-\');">Ro 7</a> it seems to be used interchangeably with to agathon. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',5,7);">Ro 5:7</a>, "the good man" (ho agathos) is distinguished from "a righteous man" (dikaios): "For the good man some one would even dare to die" (compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',7,16);">Ro 7:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',5,14);">Heb 5:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',4,17);">Jas 4:17</a>); kalos, "well," "pleasantly," is translated "good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,27);">Lu 6:27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,3);">Jas 2:3</a>); kalodidaskalos (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',2,3);">Tit 2:3</a>), "teachers of good things," the Revised Version (British and American) "of that which is good."<P>"Good" occurs in the rendering of many other Greek words and phrases, as eudokia, "good pleasure" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,9);">Eph 1:9</a>); "good will" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,14);">Lu 2:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',1,15);">Php 1:15</a>); sumphero, "to bear together," "not good to marry" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',19,10);">Mt 19:10</a>), the Revised Version (British and American) "expedient"; philagathos, "a lover of good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Tts\',1,8);">Tit 1:8</a>); chrestologia, "good words" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',16,18);">Ro 16:18</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "smooth speech," etc.).<P>The following changes in the Revised Version (British and American) may be noted. In <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',2,14);">Lu 2:14</a> for "men of good will" (eudokia) the Revised Version (British and American) reads "in whom he is well pleased," margin "good pleasure among men, Greek men of good pleasure." The meaning is "men to whom God is drawing nigh in goodwill or acceptance"; compare <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,19);">Lu 4:19</a>, "the acceptable year of the Lord"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,43);">4:43</A>, "Preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,5);">Mt 11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,43);">Lu 4:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,22);">7:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,25);">1Pe 1:25</a> and (American Standard Revised Version) <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',14,6);">Re 14:6</a> "the gospel" is changed into "good tidings." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',18,8);">Mt 18:8</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',9,43,45,47);">Mr 9:43, 45, 47</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',5,39);">Lu 5:39</a>, good is substituted for "better"; on the last passage in notes "Many authorities read \'better\' "; in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,15);">1Co 9:15</a> "good...rather" for "better"; "good" is substituted in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',1,19);">Lu 1:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',8,1);">8:1</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',13,32);">Ac 13:32</a> for "glad"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',6,3);">Ac 6:3</a> for "honest"; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',13,9);">Heb 13:9</a> for "a good thing." In <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,11);">2Th 1:11</a>, all the good pleasure of his goodness" becomes "every desire of goodness" (m "Gr good pleasure of goodness"); in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',3,2);">1Ti 3:2</a>, "good" (kosmios) becomes "orderly." There are many other instances of like changes.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOODNESS">GOODNESS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOOD,+CHIEF">GOOD, CHIEF</a>`185';
isbe[3882]='Good, Chief`What this consisted in was greatly discussed in ancient philosophy. Varro enumerated 288 answers to the question. By Plato "the good" was identified with God.<P>In the Old Testament while the "good" of the nation consisted in earthly well-being or prosperity (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,\'1-\');">De 28</a> etc.), that of the individual was to be found only in God Himself (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,2);">Ps 16:2</a> the Revised Version (British and American), "I have no good beyond thee"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',41,\'1-5\');">Ps 41:1-5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',43,5);">43:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',73,\'25-28\');">73:25-28</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,33);">Jer 31:33</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hab\',3,\'17-19\');">Hab 3:17-19</a>). This implied godly conduct (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mic\',6,8);">Mic 6:8</a>, etc.), and led to the experience described as "blessedness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',1,\'1-\');">Ps 1</a>, etc.; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',17,7);">Jer 17:7</a>, etc.). It is the "Wisdom" extolled in <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',1,20);">Pr 1:20</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',8,1);">8:1</a>f (compare Ecclesiasticus 1:1f; 5:1f), elsewhere described as "the fear of Yahweh." That God alone can be the true "good" of man is implied in the fact that man was created in the image of God (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,27);">Ge 1:27</a>).<P>In the New Testament the true "good" is placed by Jesus in "the kingdom of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,33);">Mt 6:33</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,44);">13:44</a>f; etc.). This means nothing earthly merely (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',6,19);">Mt 6:19</a>), but heavenly and eternal. It implies the Old Testament conception that God is the true "good"; for to seek the Kingdom supremely means whole-hearted devotion to God as our heavenly Father and to His righteousness. It was also spoken of by Jesus, as sonship to the heavenly Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,45);">Mt 5:45</a>, etc.). This "good" is not something merely to be given to men, but must be sought after and won through taking up a right attitude toward God and our fellows, cherishing the Love that God is, and acting it out in kindness and righteousness, in resemblance to our God and Father (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',5,\'43-48\');">Mt 5:43-48</a>; here <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',1,27);">Ge 1:27</a> is implied).<P>In some of the epistles Christ is represented as the true "good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Phl\',3,8);">Php 3:8</a>f; <a onClick="return mV(\'Col\',3,\'1-4\',11);">Col 3:1-4, 11</a>). This is because in Him God was manifested in His Truth and Grace; in Him "the Kingdom" was present; through His cross the world is so reconciled to God that men can find acceptance and rest in Him as their "good"; Christ Himself in the Spirit is our Life; in Him we have "God with us." Having God as our "good," nothing but good, in the truest and highest sense, can come to us. Even the most seemingly adverse things are turned into good "to them that love God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',8,28);">Ro 8:28</a>).<P>Our true "good" is found thus in God even in this present life; but its fullness can be realized only in the eternal life beyond. Placing our "good" in God leads to such life in devotion to the "good" that God is, as tends to bring all that is best to this present world. It is men\'s failure to do this that is the source of our misery (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',2,13);">Jer 2:13</a>, etc.). The ultimate ideal is that God shall be "all in all" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',15,28);">1Co 15:28</a>).``185';
isbe[3883]='Goodliness`good\'-li-nes: This word is found in <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,6);">Isa 40:6</a> as the translation of checedh, commonly translated "mercy," "kindness," etc.: "All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness (beauty, charm, comeliness) thereof is as the flower of the field." The rendering is retained by the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revised Version as appropriate in this place; checedh is frequently translated goodness.\' In <a onClick="return mV(\'Isa\',40,6);">Isa 40:6</a> Septuagint has doxa, "glory" (so also <a onClick="return mV(\'1Pe\',1,24);">1Pe 1:24</a>), which also fitly expresses the idea of the passage.``1';
isbe[3884]='Goodly`good\'-li Tobh; kalos, lampros): In the Old Testament various words are translated "goodly," the most of them occurring only once; Tobh (the common word for "good") is several times translated "goodly," chiefly in the sense of form or appearance e.g "a goodley child" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',2,2);">Ex 2:2</a>); "that goodly mountain" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',3,25);">De 3:25</a>); yapheh ("fair") is similarly translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',39,6);">Ge 39:6</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "comely," and mar\'oh in <a onClick="return mV(\'2Sa\',23,21);">2Sa 23:21</a>. Other words, such as \'addir imply excellence, honor, etc., e.g. <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',17,23);">Eze 17:23</a>, "bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar"; hodh, "his goodly horse" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Zec\',10,3);">Zec 10:3</a>); others imply beauty, ornament, such as peer "goodly bonnets," the Revised Version (British and American) "headtires" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',39,28);">Ex 39:28</a>); shaphar ("bright," "fair"), "a goodly heritage" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,6);">Ps 16:6</a>); once \'El ("God of might") is employed, the Revised Version (British and American) "cedars of God," margin "goodly cedars" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',80,10);">Ps 80:10</a>); renanim ("joyous soundings or shoutings") is translated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',39,13);">Job 39:13</a> "goodly wings," probably from the sound made in flying or flapping; the English Revised Version has "The wing of the ostrich rejoiceth," the American Standard Revised Version (wings) "wave proudly." For "goodly castles" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,10);">Nu 31:10</a>) the Revised Version (British and American) has "encampments"; "goodly vessels" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Ch\',32,27);">2Ch 32:27</a>) for "pleasant jewels"; "goodly" is substituted for "good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',45,1);">Ps 45:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Sgs\',1,3);">So 1:3</a>); "goodly things" for "all the goods" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,10);">Ge 24:10</a>); "goodly frame," the American Standard Revised Version for "comely proportion" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',41,12);">Job 41:12</a>).<P>In the New Testament kalos ("beautiful") is translated "goodly" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',13,45);">Mt 13:45</a>, "goodly pearls" and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',21,5);">Lu 21:5</a> "goodly stones"; lampros ("bright") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Jam\',2,2);">Jas 2:2</a>, "goodly apparel," the Revised Version (British and American) "fine clothing," and <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',18,14);">Re 18:14</a>, "dainty and goodly" the Revised Version (British and American) "dainty and sumptuous." In <a onClick="return mV(\'Hbr\',11,23);">Heb 11:23</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes "goodly" for "proper."<P>"Goodly" occurs in Apocrypha, 1Esdras 4:18; Judith 8:7 (horaios); 2Macc 9:16, "goodly gifts," kallistos, the Revised Version (British and American) "goodliest."``185';
isbe[3885]='Goodly Trees`(peri\'ets hadhar, "the fruit (the King James Version "boughs") of goodly (= beautiful or noble) trees"): One of the four species of plants used in the Feast of Tabernacles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Lev\',23,40);">Le 23:40</a>). In the Talmud (Cukkdh 35a) this is explained to be the citron (Citrus medica) known in Hebrew as \'ethrogh. This tradition is ancient, at least as old as the Maccabees. Josephus (Ant., XIII, xiii, 5) records that Alexander Janneus, while serving at the altar during this feast, was pelted by the infuriated Jews with citrons. This fruit also figures on coins of this period. It is probable that the citron tree (Malum Persica) was imported from Babylon by Jews returning from the captivity. A citron is now carried in the synagogue by every orthodox Jew in one hand, and the lalabh (of myrtle, willow, and palm branch) in the other, on each day of the Feast of Tabernacles.<P>Originally the "goodly trees" had a much more generic sense, and the term is so interpreted by the Septuagint and Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.)`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=FEASTS+AND+FASTS">FEASTS AND FASTS</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=BOOTHS,+FEAST+OF">BOOTH</a>`117';
isbe[3886]='Goodman`good\'-man (\'ish; oikodespotes): The word occurs once in the Old Testament and is a translation of the ordinary word for "man," \'ish (<a onClick="return mV(\'Pro\',7,19);">Pr 7:19</a>). "The goodman is not at home," so the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American), but the American Standard Revised Version, more correctly, "The man is not at home"; i.e. the husband is not at home; the Geneva and Douay versions have "My husband is not at home": so Wycliffe; while the Vulgate (Jerome\'s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) has "There is not a man in her house." In the New Testament "goodman" is a translation of oikodespotes. This word occurs 12 times in the Synoptists, and nowhere else. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have 3 translations of the word, the American Standard Revised Version 2. In 4 places the King James Version has "goodman" while the American Standard Revised Version has "householder" or "\'master of the house" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',20,11);">Mt 20:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,43);">24:43</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,39);">Lu 12:39</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,11);">22:11</a>). In all the other places, it is translated "householder" or "master of the house." the Revised Version (British and American) retains "goodman" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',14,14);">Mr 14:14</a> and <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',22,11);">Lu 22:11</a>. The word liteerally means "master of the house," or "husband." The adjective is a mark of respect, and is used somewhat as our word "Mr.," an appellative of respect or civility. Relationship by marriage was distinguished by this epithet, as "good-father," "good-sister," both in England and Scotland. Later the adjective lost its distinguishing force and was swallowed up in the word.``146';
isbe[3887]='Goodness`good\'-nes: This word in the Old Testament is the translation of Tobh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',18,9);">Ex 18:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',16,2);">Ps 16:2</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "good"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',23,6);">23:6</a>), etc.; of Tubh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',33,19);">Ex 33:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',31,19);">Ps 31:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jer\',31,14);">Jer 31:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Hsa\',3,5);">Ho 3:5</a>), etc.; of checedh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',34,6);">Ex 34:6</a>), "abundant in goodness," the English Revised Version "plenteous in mercy," the American Standard Revised Version "abundant in loving kindness"; "The goodness of God endureth continually," the Revised Version (British and American) "mercy," the American Standard Revised Version "loving kindness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',52,1);">Ps 52:1</a>), etc.<P>In the New Testament it is the translation of chrestotes ("usefulness," benignity); "the riches of his goodness" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,4);">Ro 2:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',11,22);">11:22</a>, thrice); of chrestos ("useful," "benign," "kind," in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,35);">Lu 6:35</a>); "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,4);">Ro 2:4</a>); of agathosune (found only in the New Testament and Septuagint and writings based thereon), "full of goodness." (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,14);">Ro 15:14</a>); "gentleness, goodness, faith" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>); "in all goodness and righteousness and truth" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,9);">Eph 5:9</a>); "all the good pleasure of his goodness," the Revised Version (British and American) "every desire of goodness." (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,11);">2Th 1:11</a>).<P>The thought of God as good and the prominence given to "good" and "goodness" are distinctive features of the Bible. In the passage quoted above from <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',5,22);">Ga 5:22</a>, "goodness" is one of the fruits of the indwelling Spirit of God, and in that from <a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',5,9);">Eph 5:9</a> it is described as being, along with righteousness and truth, "the fruit of the light" which Christians had been "made" in Christ. Here, as elsewhere, we are reminded that the Christian life in its truth is likeness to God, the source and perfection of all good. <a onClick="return mV(\'2Th\',1,11);">2Th 1:11</a> regards God Himself as expressing His goodness in and through us.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOOD">GOOD</a>; <a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOOD,+CHIEF">GOOD, CHIEF</a>`185';
isbe[3888]='Goods`goodz (rekhush, Tubh; ta huparchonta): In the Old Testament rekhush ("substance") is most frequently translated "goods," as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',14,11,12,16,21);">Ge 14:11-12, 16, 21</a>, etc.; Tubh is also 3 times so translated in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',24,10);">Ge 24:10</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "goodly things," margin "all the goods"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Neh\',9,25);">Ne 9:25</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "good things"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,21);">Job 20:21</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "prosperity"). Other words, are \'on (<a onClick="return mV(\'Job\',20,10);">Job 20:10</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "wealth"); Chayil ("force," <a onClick="return mV(\'Num\',31,9);">Nu 31:9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Zep\',1,13);">Ze 1:13</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "wealth"); Tobh (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',28,11);">De 28:11</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "for good"; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ecc\',5,11);">Ec 5:11</a>); mela\'khah ("work," <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',22,8,11);">Ex 22:8, 11</a>); nikhcin (Aramaic "riches," <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',6,8);">Ezr 6:8</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Ezr\',7,26);">7:26</a>); Qinyan, "getting" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,12);">Eze 38:12</a>f). We have ta huparchonta (literally, "the things existing") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',24,47);">Mt 24:47</a>, "ruler over all his goods," the Revised Version (British and American) "all that he hath," etc. Agathos is translated "goods" in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',12,18);">Lu 12:18</a>f; skeuos ("instrument") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',12,29);">Mt 12:29</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',3,27);">Mr 3:27</a>; ta sa ("the things belonging to thee") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',6,30);">Lu 6:30</a>; ousia ("substance") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',15,12);">Lu 15:12</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "substance"; huparxis ("existence," "substance") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',2,45);">Ac 2:45</a>; plouteo ("to be rich") in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rev\',3,17);">Re 3:17</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "have gotten riches." In the Revised Version (British and American) "goods" stands instead of "carriage" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jdg\',18,21);">Jud 18:21</a>), of "stuff" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',17,31);">Lu 17:31</a>), of "good" (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Jo\',3,17);">1Joh 3:17</a>). "Goods" was used in the sense of "possessions" generally; frequently in this sense in Apocrypha (1Esdras 6:32); ta huparchonta (Tobit 1:20); Ecclesiasticus 5:1, "Set not thy heart upon thy goods" (chrema), etc.``185';
isbe[3889]='Gopher Wood`go\'-fer wood (\'atse ghopher): The wood from which Noah\'s ark was made (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',6,14);">Ge 6:14</a>). Gopher is a word unknown elsewhere in Hebrew or allied languages. Lagarde considered that it was connected with gophrith, meaning "brimstone," or "pitch," while others connect it with kopher, also meaning "pitch"; hence, along both lines, we reach the probability of some resinous wood, and pine, cedar, and cypress have all had their supporters. A more probable explanation is that which connects gopher with the modern Arabic kufa, a name given to the boats made of interwoven willow branches and palm leaves with a coating of bitumen outside, used today on the rivers and canals of Mesopotamia. In the Gilgamesh story of the flood it is specially mentioned that Noah daubed his ark both inside and out with a kind of bitumen.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=DELUGE+OF+NOAH">DELUGE OF NOAH</a>`117';
isbe[3890]='Gore`gor (naghach): "Gore" occurs only three times in the King James Version, namely, <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,28,31);">Ex 21:28, 31</a> bis, "if an ox gore a man or a woman," etc.; in <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',21,29,32,36);">21:29,32,36</a>, the King James Version has "push" (with his horn), the Revised Version (British and American) "gore." The same verb in Piel and HithpaeI is elsewhere translated "push" and "pushing" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Deu\',33,17);">De 33:17</a>, "He shall push the peoples," the Revised Version, margin "gore"; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ki\',22,11);">1Ki 22:11</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',44,5);">Ps 44:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',34,21);">Eze 34:21</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',8,4);">Da 8:4</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Dan\',11,40);">11:40</a>, the Revised Version (British and American) "contend," margin "Hebrew push at," as an ox pushes with his horns so should the king fight—a fitting description of warfare).``1';
isbe[3891]='Gorgeous; Gorgeously`gor\'-jus, gor\'-jus-li (mikhlol; lampros): Mikhlol occurs twice in the Old Testament, translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "most gorgeously" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',23,12);">Eze 23:12</a>); in <a onClick="return mV(\'Eze\',38,4);">Eze 38:4</a>, the King James Version translates "all sorts" (of armor), the Revised Version (British and American) "clothed in full armor." Lampros ("shining," "bright"), is only once translated "gorgeous" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',23,11);">Lu 23:11</a>); "Herod...arrayed him in a gorgeous robe," the Revised Version (British and American) "gorgeous apparel." We have also in <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',7,25);">Lu 7:25</a>, "They that are gorgeously appareled (endoxos, "splendid," "glorious")...are in kings\' courts." They were scarcely to be looked for among the prophets, or in the new community of Jesus.``185';
isbe[3892]='Gorget`gor\'-jet: Appears only once in the King James Version (<a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,6);">1Sa 17:6</a>), being placed in the margin as an alternative to "target (of brass)" in the description of the armor worn by Goliath of Gath. The Hebrew word thus translated (kidhon) really means a "javelin," and is so rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version here and in <a onClick="return mV(\'1Sa\',17,45);">1Sa 17:45</a> ("Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin"). See <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ARMOR;+ARMOR">ARMOR</a>, sec. I,4,(3). Gorget, though so rarely used in Scripture and now displaced in our revised versions, occurs not infrequently and in various senses in English literature. In the meaning of "a piece of armor for the gorge or throat" which seems to have been in the mind of King James\'s translators, it is found in early English writers and down to recent times.<p>Spenser has it in Faerie Queene, IV, iii, 12:<P class="in15">"His weasand-pipe it through his gorget cleft";<P>Scott, Marmion, V, ii:<P class="in15">"Their brigantines and gorgets light";<P>and Prescott, Ferdinand and Isabella, III, 47: <P class="in15">"The gorget gave way and the sword entered his throat."``128';
isbe[3893]='Gorgias`gor\'-ji-as (Gorgias): A general in the service of Antiochus Epiphanes (1Macc 3:38; 2Macc 8:9). Lysias, who had been left as regent during the absence of Antiochus in Persia, appointed Gorgias to take the command against Judea in 166 BC. In 1Macc 4:1-24 is recorded a night attack by Gorgias with 5,000 foot and 1,000 horse upon the camp of Judas Maccabeus in the neighborhood of Emmaus, in which Judas was completely victorious. The victory was all the more striking as the force of Judas was considerably smaller in number and had "not armor nor swords to their minds" (1Macc 4:6). Later on (164 BC) he held a garrison in Jamnia, and gained a victory over the forces of Joseph and Azarias who, envying the glory of Judas and Jonathan, in direct disobedience to the orders of Judas, attacked Gorgias and were defeated.<P>Jamnia as given in Josephus, Ant, XII, viii,6,is probably the correct reading for Idumaea in 2Macc 12:32. The doings of Gorgias in 2Macc are recorded with some confusion. He was regarded with special hostility by the Jews. In 2Macc 12:35 he is described as "the accursed man."``79';
isbe[3894]='Gortyna`gor-ti\'-na (Gortunai): A city in Crete, next in importance to Gnossus. It is mentioned in 1Macc 15:23.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=CRETE">CRETE</a>`1';
isbe[3895]='Goshen (1)`go\'-shen (goshen; Gesem):<P>1. Meaning of Name:<P>The region where the Hebrews dwelt in Egypt. If the Septuagint reading Gesem be correct, the word, which in its Hebrew form has no known meaning, may mean "cultivated"—comparing the Arabic root jashima, "to labor." Egyptologists have suggested a connection with the Egyptian word qas, meaning "inundated land" because Goshen was apparently the same region, called by the Greeks the "Arabian nome," which had its capital at Phakousa representing the Egyptian Pa-qas (Brugsch, Geog., I, 298), the name of a town, with the determinative for "pouring forth." Van der Hardt, indeed, more than a century ago (see Sayce, Higher Criticism, 235), supposed the two words to be connected. Dr. Naville in 1887 found the word as denoting the vicinity of Pi-sopt (now Saft el Henneh), 6 miles east of Zagazig—in the form Q-s-m. He concludes that this was the site of Phakousa, but the latter is usually placed at Tell el Faqus, about 15 miles south of <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOAN">ZOAN</a> (which see), and this appears to be the situation of the "City of Arabia" which Silvia, about 385 AD, identifies with Gesse or Goshen; for she reached it in her journey from Heroopolis, through Goshen to Tathnis or Taphnis (Daphnai), and to Pelusium.<P>2. Situation:<P>It is generally agreed that Goshen was the region east of the Bubastic branch of the Nile; and in <a onClick="return mV(\'Psa\',78,12,43);">Ps 78:12, 43</a>, it seems to be clearly identified with the "field (or pastoral plain) of Zoan," which was probably also the "land of Rameses" mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,11);">Ge 47:11</a>) as possessed by Jacob\'s family (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=RAAMSES">RAAMSES</a>; <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ZOAN">ZOAN</a>). Where first mentioned (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',45,10);">Ge 45:10</a>), Goshen is promised by Joseph to Jacob as a land fit for flocks, and the Septuagint here reads, "Gesem of Arabia," probably referring to the Arabian nome which took its name from the "desert" which defended the east border of Egypt. In the second notice (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,28);">Ge 46:28</a>f), the boundary of the land of Goshen, where Joseph met his father, is called in the Septuagint Heroo(n)-polis, and also (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,28);">Ge 46:28</a>) "the land of Ramesse(s)"; so that in the 3rd century BC Goshen seems to have been identified with the whole region of the Arabian nome, as far south as Heroopolis which (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PITHOM">PITHOM</a>) lay in Wady Tumeilat. Goshen included pastoral lands (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',46,34);">Ge 46:34</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',47,1,4,6,27);">47:1, 4, 6, 27</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',50,8);">50:8</a>) and was still inhabited by the Hebrews at the time of the Exodus (<a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',8,22);">Ex 8:22</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Exd\',9,26);">9:26</a>), after which it is unnoticed in the Old Testament. The name, however, applied to other places which were probably "cultivated" lands, including a region in the south of Palestine (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,41);">Jos 10:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,16);">11:16</a>), "all the country of Goshen Septuagint Gosom), even unto Gibeon," and a city of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,51);">Jos 15:51</a>) in the mountains near Beersheba. These notices seem to show that the word is not of Egyptian origin.<P>3. Description:<P>The region thus very clearly indicated was not of any great extent, having an area of only about 900 square miles, including two very different districts. The western half, immediately east of the Bubastic branch of the Nile, stretches from Zoan to Bubastis (at both of which cities records of the Hyksos ruler Apepi have been found), or a distance of about 35 miles north and south. This region is an irrigated plain which is still considered to include some of the best land in Egypt. The description of the land of Rameses (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=RAAMSES">RAAMSES</a>), in the 14th century BC, shows its fertility; and Silvia says that the land of Goshen was 16 miles from Heroopolis, and that she traveled for two days in it "through vineyards, and balsam plantations, and orchards, and tilled fields, and gardens." The region narrows from about 15 miles near the seashore to about 10 miles between Zagazig and Tell el Kebir on the southeast of this, a sandy and gravelly desert lies between the Nile plain and the Suez Canal, broadening southward from near Daphnai (Tell Defeneh) to Wady Tumeilat, where it <span class="noTag">is</span> 40 miles across east and west. South of this valley an equally waterless desert stretches to Suez, and from the Bitter Lakes on the east to the vicinity of Heliopolis (southeast of Cairo) on the west. Thus, Wady Tumeilat, which is fertilized by the Nile waters (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=PI-HAHIROTH">PI-HAHIROTH</a>), and contains villages and corn fields, is the only natural route for a people driving with their flocks and herds by which the vicinity of the Red Sea can be reached, the road leading from the south end of the "field of Zoan" near Bubastis, and 40 miles eastward to the "edge of the wilderness" (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=ETHAM">ETHAM</a>) and the head of the Bitter Lakes. This physical conformation is important in relation to the route of the Israelites (see <a href="study/isbe/search.html?string=EXODUS">EXODUS</a>); and Wady Tumeilat may very possibly be intended to be included in Goshen, as the Septuagint translators supposed.``28';
isbe[3896]='Goshen (2)`go\'-shen (goshen):<P>(1) Mentioned as a country (\'erets) in the south of Judah distinct from the "hill country," the Negeb and the Shephelah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',10,41);">Jos 10:41</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',11,16);">11:16</a>). Unidentified.<P>(2) A town in the southwest part of the hill country of Judah (<a onClick="return mV(\'Jos\',15,51);">Jos 15:51</a>), very probably connected in some way with the district (1).`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=GOSHEN+1">GOSHEN 1</a>`1';
isbe[3897]='Gospel`gos\'-pel (to euaggelion): The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant "the story concerning God." In the New Testament the Greek word euaggelion, means "good news." It proclaims tidings of deliverance. The word sometimes stands for the record of the life of our Lord (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,1);">Mr 1:1</a>), embracing all His teachings, as in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,24);">Ac 20:24</a>. But the word "gospel" now has a peculiar use, and describes primarily the message which Christianity announces. "Good news" is its significance. It means a gift from God. It is the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and sonship with God restored through Christ. It means remission of sins and reconciliation with God. The gospel is not only a message of salvation, but also the instrument through which the Holy Spirit works (<a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,16);">Ro 1:16</a>).<P>The gospel differs from the law in being known entirely from revelation. It is proclaimed in all its fullness in the revelation given in the New Testament. It is also found, although obscurely, in the Old Testament. It begins with the prophecy concerning the \'seed of the woman\' (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',3,15);">Ge 3:15</a>), and the promise concerning Abraham, in whom all the nations should be blessed (<a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',12,3);">Ge 12:3</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gen\',15,5);">15:5</a>) and is also indicated in <a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',10,43);">Ac 10:43</a> and in the argument in <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',4,\'1-\');">Ro 4</a>.<P>In the New Testament the gospel never means simply a book, but rather the message which Christ and His apostles announced. In some places it is called "the gospel of God," as, for example, <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,1);">Ro 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Th\',2,2,9);">1Th 2:2, 9</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Ti\',1,11);">1Ti 1:11</a>. In others it is called "the gospel of Christ" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,1);">Mr 1:1</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,16);">Ro 1:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',15,19);">15:19</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,12,18);">1Co 9:12, 18</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Gal\',1,7);">Ga 1:7</a>). In another it is called "the gospel of the grace of God" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',20,24);">Ac 20:24</a>); in another "the gospel of peace" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',6,15);">Eph 6:15</a>); in another "the gospel of your salvation" (<a onClick="return mV(\'Eph\',1,13);">Eph 1:13</a>); and in yet another "the glorious gospel" (<a onClick="return mV(\'2Cr\',4,4);">2Co 4:4</a> the King James Version). The gospel is Christ: He is the subject of it, the object of it, and the life of it. It was preached by Him (<a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',4,23);">Mt 4:23</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mat\',11,5);">11:5</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Mar\',1,14);">Mr 1:14</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Luk\',4,18);">Lu 4:18</a> margin), by the apostles (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',16,10);">Ac 16:10</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',1,15);">Ro 1:15</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'Rom\',2,16);">2:16</a>; <a onClick="return mV(\'1Cr\',9,16);">1Co 9:16</a>) and by the evangelists (<a onClick="return mV(\'Act\',8,25);">Ac 8:25</a>).<P>We must note the clear antithesis between the law and the gospel. The distinction between the two is important because, as Luther indicates, it contains the substance of all Christian doctrine. "By the law," says he, "nothing else is meant than God\'s word and command, directing what to do and what to leave undone, and requiring of us obedience of works. But the gospel is such doctrine of the word of God that neither requires our works nor commands us to do anything, but announces the offered grace of the forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation. Here we do nothing, but only receive what is offered through the word." The gospel, then, is the message of God, the teaching of Christianity, the redemption in and by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, offered to all mankind. And as the gospel is bound up in the life of Christ, His biography and the record of His works, and the proclamation of what He has to offer, are all gathered into this single word, of which no better definition can be given than that of Melanchthon: "The gospel is the gratuitous promise of the remission of sins for Christ\'s sake." To hold tenaciously that in this gospel we have a supernatural revelation is in perfect consistency with the spirit of scientific inquiry. The gospel, as the whole message and doctrine of salvation, and as chiefly efficacious for contrition, faith, justification, renewal and sanctification, deals with facts of revelation and experience.``9';
isbe[3898]='Gospel According to the Hebrews``<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[3899]='Gospels of the Childhood`child\'-hood.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
isbe[3900]='Gospels, Spurious`spu\'-ri-us.`<a href="./study/isbe/search.html?string=APOCRYPHAL+GOSPELS">APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS</a>`1';
</script>
<script src="./study/isbe/author.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./study/isbe/isbeDisplay.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="./js/MainFooter.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink