|
. The following extracts are taken from Zondervan Theological Dictionaries for Windows - CD ROM, Zondervan ISBN: 0310246644. Refer to Zondervan On-Line permission agreement dated 07-11-03 Grant ID: 25551. The following material is Copyright ©. Used by permission of Zondervan . |
|
God |
|
God, Gods, Emmanuel qei'o" See qeov". qeiovth" See qeov". qeovth" See qeov". qeov" G2563 (theos), God; qei'o" G2521 (theios), divine; qeiovth" G2522 (theiote4s), deity; qeovth" G2540 (theote4s), deity, divinity. CL The etymology of the Gk. word has not yet been clarified; the only thing that is certain is that it was originally a title. 1 Gk. religion was polytheistic. The gods were represented in anthropomorphic form as personal beings who exercised a determining influence on the world and fate of men, but who themselves were dependent on a superior fate. As they were not creator-gods, they were not thought of as outside the universe and transcendent. The cosmos included both gods and men. The influence of the gods was not universal, but was limited by their natures and attributes. They were not righteous in the OT sense. The Gk. gods had form. Consequently, the statement "God is spirit" (Jn. 4:24) could not be applied to them. From Aeschylus onwards the different gods came increasingly to be identified. Their convergence into one divine being was prepared by the pre-Socratic thinkers and the ideas of classical tragedy. 2 The Gk. philosophical understanding of god was non-personal. Philosophers sought the origin of all things and the principle that shaped the world. In the process of rationalizing and moralizing, brought about by philosophical criticism and reflection, an important transformation of the Gk. concept of god took place. The divine forms were spiritualized and finally replaced by general concepts like "world reason," "the divine," and "being," which influenced and formed the world as powers giving it meaning and creating order. In Hellenistic syncretism the various Gk. and non-Gk. divinities were assimilated and even equated as a result of the recognition that behind the diverse names stood the same entities. This is particularly clear in the Isis cult. Not infrequently these tendencies lead to the honouring of one godhead as the divine All. The development reached its height in Neo-Platonism, where the divine is the universal One which has no objective existence or personality. It is being itself which is manifested through a series of hypostases and emanations in the world, since it is the ground and force behind everything that is. OT The religion of the OT and Judaism is monotheistic and personal. 1 In the OT the words 'e4l, 'elôah and 'elo4hi<m, from related roots, are generic designations of God. Alongside and alternating with them stands the individual, personal name Yahweh (cf. G. Quell, theos, TDNT III 79 ff.). The cult names formed with 'e4l are as a rule connected with local shrines. 'e4l is a word common to all Semitic languages. It occurs as a common noun (the god, god) and also as the proper name for a particular god. This is clearly demonstrated in the texts from Ugarit in North Syria (14th century B.C.). It is true also of the Canaanites in the first and second millennia B.C. and the patriarchs, for whom 'e4l is clearly not the highest god in a pantheon, but the only God, whom they honoured on the basis of his revelation. He appears as 'e4l 'elyôn, "God Most High" (Gen. 14:18-22, RSV who was blessed by Melchizedek); 'e4l ro4'î, "God of Seeing" (Gen. 16:13 RSV); 'e4l 'o=la4m "the Everlasting God" (Gen. 21:33 RSV, so called by Abraham); 'e4l be=t{'e4l, "God of Bethel" (Gen. 31:13; 35:7, so called by Jacob; Bethel meaning lit. "house of God"); 'e4l 'elo4he= yis8ra4'e4l, "God, the god of Israel" (Gen. 33:20); and 'e4l s]adday, "God Almighty" (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3; 49:25; Exod. 6:3). (On these titles see A. Alt, "The God of the Fathers", in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 3-66, especially 8 ff.) God is most frequently referred to as s]addai, Almighty, in Job where it is used along with El, Elohim, Eloah and Yahweh (cf. E. Dhorme, Job, 1967, lxv ff.). The shrine of Shechem seems to have been the first central shrine of the twelve united tribes (Jos. 24). 'elo4hi<m, though plur. in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. gods). Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plur. 'elo4hi<m (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plur. is understood as the plural of fullness; God is the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God. J. Schneider 2 The origin and meaning of the divine name Yahweh has been the subject of considerable discussion. Some scholars derive it from a primitive form Yah which they regard as an interjection associated with the moon cult (cf. G. R. Driver, ZAW, 46, 1928, 24). It is suggested that it derives from Ya-huwa, meaning "O he" (cf. M. Buber, Moses, (1946) 1958, 49 f.; S. Mowinckel, "The Name of the God of Moses," Hebrew Union College Annual 32, 1961, 121-33). But this has been rejected on the grounds that to regard the name as an interjection makes it difficult to account for the religious content which faith has always found in the name and the revelatory value which is attached to it (cf. E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 19643, 48). It is more likely that the name is connected with the verbal root hwy or hwh, meaning to be (cf. R. de Vaux, "The Revelation of the Divine Name YHWH" in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 59 ff.; E. Jacob, op. cit., 50 f.; J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 79; T. C. Vriezen, "‘Ehje ‘as]er ‘ehje", in W. Baumgartner et al., Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, 1950, 498-512). The only interpretation of the name Yahweh given in the OT is at the theophany of the burning bush (Exod. 3:13 ff. attributed to the E source or tradition). "Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, "What is his name?" what shall I say to them?‘ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM [MT: 'ehyeh 'as]er 'ehyeh]‘. And he said, ‘Say to this people of Israel, ‘I AM ['ehyeh] has sent me to you.‘" God also said to Moses, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, "The LORD [MT: YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you"; this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations’" (RSV). There has been considered debate as to the translation and meaning of the words 'ehyeh 'as]er 'ehyeh. This is partially reflected in the RSV mg alternative translations: "I AM WHAT I AM" and "I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE." J. P. Hyatt lists five lines of interpretation (op. cit., 75 ff.). (i) That the reply is intentionally evasive, because it is God’s nature to remain hidden, or because to know God’s name might give man power over him. But against this is the fact that the name is revealed to Moses in v. 15. (ii) God is the eternally existent one. (iii) "I am because I am." This suggests that there is no cause for God’s existence outside himself. (iv) "I will be what I will be," or "I will be what I intend to be." (v) "I am he who is," or "I am the one who is." He is the God who alone has real existence. For discussion of the syntax involved in this translation see E. Schild, Vetus Testamentum 4, 1954, 296-302; J. Lindblom, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, III 1964, 4-15; B. Albrektson "On the Syntax of 'hyh 's]r 'hyh in Exodus 3:14," in P. R. Ackroyd, and B. Lindars, eds., Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, 1968, 15-28. R. de Vaux holds that the best rendering of the formula is "I am He who Exists" (op. cit., 71). Yahweh is the God whom Israel must recognize as really existing. This is not presented as part of a metaphysic of being (cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q. 2 art. 3). In the context of Exodus the revelation of the divine name is a proclamation to Israel of the one with whom they have to do. God is calling his people out of Egypt and promises to be with Moses for that purpose (Exod. 3:10 ff.; 4:12; 15, 22 f.; 6:2 f.; cf. J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name, 1959). The proclamation of the Decalogue begins with the words: "I am Yahweh" (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 6:5). The first commandment requires exclusive worship and service (Exod. 20:3, cf. 5). When Moses sought God’s presence, he was not permitted to see God’s face but nevertheless received the reply: "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name Yahweh; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" (Exod. 33:19). The God who thus reveals himself to Moses and to Israel is distinct from the deities of Egypt and Canaan with their fertility rites concerned with the cycle of nature. He remains a mystery, and yet he is graciously active in the history of his people. It is possible that the name of Yahweh existed outside Israel prior to Moses, but there is no conclusive proof (for a review of evidence see R. de Vaux, op. cit., 49-56; E. Jacob, op. cit., 48 ff.). Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already but now identified as that of the saving God of Israel. Although Israel did not work out a metaphysical doctrine of time, the idea of God as "He who Is" is paralleled by numerous other statements about God in the OT (Pss. 90:1; 102:27 f.; Hab. 1:2; Exod. 30:8; Isa. 41:4; 48:12). But the thought of time is also bound up with that of Yahweh’s ongoing presence (Gen. 20:18; Jos. 3:7; Jdg. 6:12; Isa. 49:6, 26; cf. E. Jacob, op. cit., 52). The Heb. name YHWH s[eb{a4'o=t{, Lord of hosts, occurs some 279 times. It is absent from the Pentateuch, Jos. and Jdg., but is frequent in the prophets (especially Isa. 1-39 [54 times]; Jer. [77 times]; and Zech. 1-8 [44 times]). The hosts in question have been variously interpreted as the earthly armies of Israel, the armies of the stars, and the celestial armies of spirits and angels. E. Jacob relates the title to the ark of the covenant accompanied by the armies of Israel in battle (1 Sam. 17:45; 2 Sam. 6:2, 18; 7:2, 8, 26 f.; 1 Chr. 17:7; cf. op. cit., 55). He notes that it is found most frequently among the prophets for whom Yahweh was above all a warrior God. It is not simply a case of the prophets transferring the hosts from the terrestrial to the celestial plane. The term refers to the totality of forces over which Yahweh rules. But possibly the term also had polemical overtones, directed against the cult of the stars and spirits, claiming by its use that Yahweh also controlled them. In the LXX the term is translated by kyrios pantokrato4r, Lord Almighty (2 Sam. 5:10 [2 Ki. 5:10]; 7:8, 25 ff.; cf. Jer. 3:19; Hos. 12:6; Amos 3:13; 4:13; 5:14; Zeph. 2:10; 2 Macc. 8:18; 3 Macc. 6:2; Arndt, 613 f.) and basileus to4n dynameo4n, king of powers (Ps. 67:13 LXX). The term pantokrato4r is taken up by 2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:15; 21:22. The Gk. transcription sabao4th (which occurs some 65 times in the LXX and other versions) is twice used in the NT (Rom. 9:29 = Isa. 1:9; Jas. 5:4; cf. Arndt, 746). The name of Yahweh was combined with various Heb. verbs to form proper names: e.g. Jehoiachin (Yahweh establishes, from Yahweh and kûn), Jonathan (Yahweh gives, from Yahweh and na4t{an), and Joshua (Yahweh is salvation, from Yahweh and s]u=a' or ye4s]u=a‘). The latter is the oldest name containing Yahweh (Koehler-Baumgartner, 370). M. H. Segal sees in its early existence evidence that the name Yahweh was known prior to the revelation to Moses (The Pentateuch, 1967, 4). Joshua is the Heb. form which underlies the name of Jesus. The form Jehovah arose out of a misunderstanding which in turn arose out of the reluctance of pious Jews to pronounce the divine name (c. 300 B.C.). Instead they uttered the word 'ad{o4na4y, my Lord. In the MT the divine name was written with the consonants of YHWH and the vowels of 'ad{o4na4y, as a reminder to say the latter whenever the word was read. The divine name appears as yeho4wa=h in the MT. The LXX reflects the Jewish reluctance to pronounce the divine name and puts the word kyrios, Lord, in its place. The RSV and other Eng. versions also reflect the practice by giving the word LORD in capital letters whenever the name YHWH stands in the text. The Lat. likewise gives the word Dominus, Lord, for YHWH. The form Jehovah is thus a malformation giving what is virtually a transliteration of a word which is found in the text of the Heb. OT, but which was never actually used as a word. It became current in the sixteenth century and is attested in the Lat. of P. Galatinus in the form Iehoua (De Arcanis Cath. Veritatis, 1516, II, 1 f., xlviii). In 1530 Tyndale used Iehouah in his translation of Exod. 6:3 (Wycliffe had Adonay). Subsequently Jehovah became the standard spelling. But also Lord, art. kuvrio" OT 2. C. Brown It was only in the course of history that the belief in the superiority of Israel’s God over all other gods led to the development of absolute monotheism. Jeremiah was probably the first to support the proposition that the gods of the heathen are no gods (Jer. 2:11). This knowledge was first given full expression in Isa. 40:25. The God of Israel is the Lord of all, whose sovereign power fills all the earth (Isa. 6:3). There are no gods apart from the One (Isa. 41:4; 42:8; 43:10 ff.; 45:3, 6; 48:11). (See further H. H. Rowley, The Re-Discovery of the Old Testament, 1945, 77-93; G. E. Wright, The Old Testament against its Environment, 1950, 9-41; C. F. Whitley, The Prophetic Achievement, 1963, 93-128.) 3 The LXX is characterized by the Hellenizing of Israelite--Jewish monotheism and by the reduction of the designations of God. Thus the Heb. words 'e4l, 'elo4ah and 'elo4hi<m are as a rule rendered by theos, "God", and in exceptional cases by kyrios, "Lord", or other expressions. Apart from theos and kyrios, 'e4l is translated about 20 times by ischyros, "Mighty One", "Powerful One", otherwise by dynamis "Might", "Power" (Neh. 5:5), or dynaste4s "Prince", "Ruler", "Potentate" (Sir. 46:5, 6). The name Yahweh or Yah, which is mostly translated by kyrios, is replaced by theos only about 330 times (G. Quell, TDNT II 79). 4 The OT contains no all-embracing definition of the concept of God. On the other hand, it makes an extensive range of statements which testify to the being of God and have their basis in the divine revelation. Nor is there in the OT any theogony; it does not go beyond the assertion that God is. He is the first and the last (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), the eternal, the almighty and the living one (Ps. 36:10), the creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1; 2:4, etc.); the Lord, who guides the destinies of the nations, but who has made Israel a people for his own possession (Exod. 19:5 f.). Israel stands, therefore, under his special protection. Yahweh not only leads, guides and gives Israel his promises; he also imposes his judgments when he goes his own way. God is the commanding and demanding God who makes his will known and demands obedience. The history of Israel is the history of God with this people. Thus Israel’s belief in God is founded on a theology of history. It expresses a conception of God as personal, that God is capable of all the emotions that a person can have: love, anger, repentance and other emotions. But even if human characteristics can be attributed to him, he cannot be compared with any human being (Hos. 11:9). The transcendent God who dwells in light, where no one can approach, is exalted above time and space and is therefore unique in his Godhead, not to be portrayed or localized (cf. Exod. 20:4). He is the eternal king (Isa. 52:7) who rules over all the kingdoms of the world (Isa. 37:16). The most fundamental feature of God’s being is expressed by the word "holy". In the OT this has become the characteristic attribute of God. He is the Holy One (Isa. 40:25; Hab. 3:3; Hos 11:9). But the holy, transcendent God steps out of his concealment through his word and his acts of revelation, and repeatedly communicates with his people in demonstrations of power and glory. The holy God is just in all that he does (cf. Ps. 7:11). He is the judge who condemns unrighteousness and to whom man has to answer. But the OT also testifies to his grace and mercy (e.g. Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8). He comforts the pious (Job 15:11), blesses him and helps him in his need (Pss. 45:7; 90:1; 94:22). Through the personal relationship between God and his people there is created an I-Thou relation between God and the individual believer who can turn to him in prayer in all his needs. God in the OT is also called Father; he is the father of the people of Israel (Exod. 4:22 f.; Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). However, a full knowledge of the divine grace and love which embraces the whole world is only arrived at through the revelation of the new covenant. Nevertheless, the OT testifies to the fact that God forgives transgressions and sins (Exod. 34:6 f.). He has mercy on his people in everlasting grace (Isa. 54:8), and in particular takes up the cause of the poor and needy, and widows and orphans (Isa. 49:13; Ps. 146:9). Therefore, even in the OT God is not just a dreaded enemy of man in his unholiness; he also makes it possible for him both to trust and love, because he himself loves his chosen people. 5 Judaism confessed the one God in unswerving loyalty and fought passionately against pagan polytheism. But it saw the one God working in a multitude of mediatorial and angelic beings. Dualistic concepts were taken up in apocalyptic writings. It was this, E. Stauffer argues, that gave the fundamental monotheistic conviction of the OT the character of a "dynamic monotheism" (TDNT III 96). The rabbis laid great stress on avoiding the name of God; in its place they put a whole system of substitute terms: e.g. Heaven (ha-s]a4mayim or s]a4mayim), the Lord ('ad{o4na4y) and later the Name (ha-s]e4m) (cf. K. G. Kuhn, TDNT III 92 ff.). In addition there were abstract terms like Glory, Power and the Abode (of God). 6 The Essenes of the Qumran community took over a cosmological dualism which was probably influenced by Zoroastrianism: e.g. God and Belial, light and darkness, Spirit of truth and Spirit of falsehood. To this corresponds the anthropological opposition of flesh and spirit, the pious and the godless, sons of light and sons of darkness. However, the dualism of the two spirits that rule the world is subordinated to the fundamental OT, Jewish idea of God as the creator of all things. For he created the spirits of light and of darkness which lie at the basis of his working (1QS 3:25; cf. 3:19-26). The Qumran texts give a series of designations of God. God is not only the creator of the world and of men, but also in a special way the "God of Israel" (1QM 1:9 f.; 14:4; 18:6), the "Father of the sons of truth" (1QH 9:35). His majesty and glory are expressed in his being called the "Prince of gods," the "King of majesties," the "Ruler of all creatures" (1QH 10:8), the "Highest" or the "Highest of all" (1QS 4:22; 1QGen Ap 2:4; 20:12), the "God of gods" (1QM 14:16), the "King of kings" (ibid.), the "Ruler over all the kings of the earth" (1QGen Ap 20:13). He is the "God of knowledge" (1QS 3:15; 1QH 1:26), full of deep and unfathomable secrets (1QS 11:5; 1QH 10:3; 12:13), who hides all wisdom within himself (1QH 12:10) and thus is the foundation of knowledge (1QS 10:12). The eternal God (1QH 13:13) is wise (1QH 9:17), just (1QH 11:7, 18; 14:15), all his deeds are just (1QH 13:19), the True (1QH 15:25) and Holy (1QM 19:1), but also the God who is full of grace, favour, goodness and mercy (1QH 4:32, 37; 7:30 f.; 9:34; 10:14, 16; 11:29), who forgives sins and by his righteousness cleanses men from their guilt and from the "terrors of falsehood" (1QH 4:37; cf. 1QS 11:14; 1QHFr 2:13). He is the source of judgments (1QS 10:18) and acts of grace (1QS 10:16) found in history and the life of individuals. All this is experienced by the pious who belong to the sons of light. Through the grace and goodness of God they receive justification and atonement (1QS 11:13 f.). But above all they have received through revelation and instruction, the mysteries of God and of his mighty acts which are otherwise hidden from men (1QH 11:9f., 17). The Qumran doctrine of God stands out as being rigidly deterministic. God’s actions are determined by a fixed plan (1QS 3:15; 11:11; 1QH 18:22). Nothing happens apart from his will (1QS 3:15; 11:17, 19; 1QH 1:20; 10:9), for all authority is in his power. This is especially true for the personal life of the individual. The pious poet acknowledges, "Thou hast not cast my lot in the congregation of vanity, nor hast thou placed my portion in the council of the cunning" (1QH 7:34). "Thou hast known me from [the time of] my father [and hast chosen me] from the womb" (1QH 9:30). His hand leads him at all times and his just rebuke accompanies all his perversity (1QH 9:32 f.). He can only speak because God opens his mouth (1QH 11:33). All his thinking and planning is determined by God (1QH 10:5 f.). The eschatological statements of Qumran are also strongly characterized by determinism. God created the righteous for eternal salvation and lasting peace, but the "perverse" for the time of his wrath (1QH 14:15 ff.); from their mother’s womb they were "dedicated to the Day of Massacre" (ibid., 15:17). The "lot" of Belial will bring judgment to eternal destruction (1QM 1:5); all "men of lies" will be destroyed (1QH 4:20). The influence of the Qumran texts on the NT has been greatly overestimated. In the case of the doctrine of God, at any rate, no real connections are to be found. Primitive Christianity is much more independent in the expression of its theological thought than is often accepted. (This is true also of the cases when it has borrowed Jewish apocalyptic and gnostic concepts as vehicles for primitive Christian theology and preaching.) 7 Philo’s concept of God has been affected by his attempt to link the OT idea of Yahweh with the Platonic- Stoic idea of God. When he speaks of the God of Israel, he distinguishes between ho theos and ho kyrios. ho theos is the good God, the Creator; ho kyrios the kingly Lord of the world. By omitting the definite article and speaking of theos he indicates the "second God," the Word. Philo also makes extensive use of the philosophical concept of to theion, the divine. For Philo God is fully transcendent and also the active power in everything. He produces out of himself the original, typical ideas, and forms them into the visible world. The Word is his mediator for creation and revelation. (See further H. A. Wolfson, Religious Philosophy, 1961; and Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I-II, 19623.) NT The NT rests firmly on the foundation of the OT, when it speaks about God, but its emphases are new. He is the God who is near, the Father of Jesus Christ who justifies freely by his grace (cf. the Pauline concept of the righteousness of God). His action in election bursts all claims to exclusiveness. But it is the same God who reveals himself here as in the OT, and whose plan of salvation, there promised, comes to fulfilment here. 1 The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. Belief in the one, only and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of primitive Christian tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Judaism his own and expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4 f.; Mk. 12:29 f.; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27). This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenant. For the God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts 13:17; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 11:16), and the God of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Just as God once made Israel his people, so now he has chosen those who believe in Christ as an elect race and a holy people for his possession (Acts 15:14; 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:9; Heb. 11:25). Faith is in him (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; Tit. 3:8; Jas. 2:23; Heb. 6:1; 1 Pet. 1:21), hope is on him (Acts 24:15; Rom. 4:18; 2 Cor. 3:4; 1 Pet. 3:5), and prayer is to him. The community of Jesus may have no false gods beside him, whether Mammon (Matt. 6:24), the "belly" (Phil. 3:19) or the cosmic powers (Gal. 4:8 ff.). It must serve him alone, do his will and remain faithful to him. (b) Confession of the one God appears in Eph. 4:6 in an expanded form ("one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through and in all"), which glorifies, no doubt under Jewish-Hel. influence, the omnipresence of the rule of God. Similar formulae, referring now to God, now to Christ, occur in Rom. 11:36 and 1 Cor. 8:6. (See further J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 19723, 1-29; O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1963; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 1955, 244 ff.) (c) The one God is the living and only true God (Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; Jude 25; cf. Jn. 17:3). He is the God whom the heathen do not know (1 Thess. 4:5). It is true that Paul reckons with the existence of "so-called" gods, who have authority as demonic powers over the heathen, but for the Christians there is only the one God (1 Cor. 8:5 f.). Even if the honour and power of gods does not belong to the stoicheia (Law, article stoicheia) which the Galatians previously worshipped, they can still intrude divisively between the young congregation and their God (Gal. 4:8 f.). This one God is called "our God" (Acts 2:39; 2 Pet. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 7:12; 19:5). The individual believer, above all Paul, can speak quite personally of him as his God (Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 1:3; 4:19; Phm. 4). Belief in the one God involves turning away from all heathen ways. Therefore in missionary preaching testimony to God is linked with the struggle against the worship of false gods (Acts 14:15; 17:24 f.; 19:26). (d) The Epistles and especially Acts give a partial picture of the excesses of the NT world and their local expression. According to Acts, Paul was painfully impressed in Athens by the many figures of gods and shrines which he saw as he went through the city (Acts 17:16, 23). Just how strongly the cult of Artemis dominated the religious life of Ephesus is clear from the impressive account in Acts 19:23-41. (On the background to this see E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 571 ff.) Here things came to a head through a violent clash with the silversmiths who derived great profit from making little models of the temple of Artemis and felt their economic existence threatened by Paul’s preaching. 1 Cor. 8:1-7 indicates the significance of sacrificial meals in the heathen cultus at Corinth. Magic played an important part in Hel. times; in Acts it is mentioned in 8:9 (Samaria), 13:6 (Cyprus) and 19:13 ff. (Ephesus). In Ephesus, as a result of the powerful testimony borne to the Christian message of salvation, the books of magic were publicly burned (Acts 19:19). (See further below, section 9.) Conversion to the true and living God was experienced by those who had become believers as a gift of grace; for they had been freed from bondage to false gods (1 Thess. 1:9). But for many Christians the fascinating power of the heathen cults had not entirely lost its force. Therefore Paul explained to the Corinthians, "I do not want you to be partners with demons" (1 Cor. 10:20), for the heathen presented their sacrifices to demonic beings and not to God (see further C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 236 ff.). 2 The transcendent God. (a) God is the creator, sustainer and Lord of the world (Acts 17:24; Rev. 10:6), the master-builder of all things (Heb. 3:4). He exercises his lordship from heaven, for heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool (Matt. 5:34; 23:22; Acts 7:49). He is the Almighty with whom nothing is impossible (Mk. 10:27). No one can hinder, let alone destroy, his work (Acts 5:39; cf. 2 Tim. 2:9). He is the highest (Mk. 5:7; Lk. 1:32; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Heb. 7:1), the great king (Matt. 5:35), the king of the nations (Rev. 15:3). (b) Prayer is a powerful witness to belief in the transcendent God, for prayer is directed to God who is in heaven (Matt. 6:9; cf. Jn. 17:1), but who hears the suppliant here. At present the Satanic and demonic powers still stand opposed to God’s rule on earth. Therefore the congregation of Jesus prays for the full revelation of his basileia (kingdom), for the full accomplishment of his will ("on earth as it is in heaven," Matt. 6:10), and for the hallowing of his name (Matt. 6:9). In Jesus the kingdom of God has already broken in; it has been demonstrated by his powerful and wonderful acts. He has broken into Satan’s realm and driven out demons by the "finger of God" (Lk. 11:20); but only the age to come will bring the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Then Christ will conquer the powers opposed to God (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 21:8, 27). When he has completed this his last task, God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). 3 The personal character of God. When speaking about the personal character of God, it is illegitimate to transfer to God the concept of the human personality. God must not be imagined to possess a limiting form. On the other hand, we are only capable of speaking of him in concepts which belong to our categories of thought. Moreover, if the personal character of God is ignored or restricted, the meaning of revelation is drastically changed. A depersonalized God is not the God of the NT. The God to whom the NT testifies is the God who speaks and acts; he reveals himself through word and deed. He works in sovereign, absolute power (Jn. 5:17). He makes his will known in command and demand, and brings everything to the goal that he has determined. After he had spoken in the old covenant in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, he has spoken in these last days "to us" through the Son, who reflects his glory and bears the very stamp of his nature (Heb. 1:1 ff.). In the preaching of the word he addresses every man personally and receives into his fellowship all who believe on Jesus. There are countless illustrations of this I-Thou relationship in the NT; it is the distinguishing mark of genuine biblical piety. Without it Christian belief in God would lack its ultimate depth. (b) It belongs to the personal character of God that he is Spirit (Jn. 4:24). Activities of the Spirit and of power proceed from him. The Spirit of God descended on Jesus at his Baptism (Matt. 3:16; cf. 12:18). Filled by this Spirit, he worked as the messiah sent by God. Matt. 12:28 states explicitly that he cast out the evil spirits through the Spirit of God. Christians are characterized by having, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God (1 Cor. 2:12), for the natural man does not understand anything that comes from the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14 f.). Only the spiritual man is capable of knowing God (1 Cor. 2:11) and of penetrating the depths of God. God has revealed his secret wisdom to believers through his Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10). He dwells in them and thus becomes the formative power of their being (1 Cor. 2:11). In this age limits are imposed on the believer’s knowledge. In God’s rule over salvation history there are "times and seasons" of true revelation which he has reserved for himself (Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:2), "judgments" which are incomprehensible and "ways" which are unsearchable (Rom. 11:33). Nevertheless, mysteries, which have been hidden in God from the beginning of time until now, have been made known through the proclamation of the message of salvation. The apostolic ministry, given by grace, testifies to the world of the unfathomable riches of Christ. Through the Christian community the knowledge about God’s manifold wisdom has penetrated even as far as the cosmic powers (Eph. 3:8-10). Paul saw himself as the custodian of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1). In 1 Cor. 6:11 the apostle explains that the Spirit of God (in conjunction with the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) has washed, sanctified and justified Christians. Through the divine Spirit working in them they are no longer in the realm of the flesh but in that of the Spirit. Hence they live according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:4-14). True confession of Christ is brought about by the Spirit of God (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; cf. Matt. 16:17). In situations of suffering he gives the word that is necessary for the defence of and witness to the gospel (Matt. 10:20). He rests on those who are abused on account of the name of Christ (1 Pet. 4:14). (c) The personal character of God finds special expression in the confession of God as Father. Jesus’ relationship to God is essentially determined by his Father--Son relationship. As the "only-begotten" Son, he is bound to God in a special way, as Jn.’s use of the monogene4s is intended to show (cf. Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9). ([Ed.] Lit. the Gk. means "of a single [monos] kind [genos]." While genos is distantly related to gennan, beget Birth, there is little linguistic justification for translating monogene4s as "only begotten." The latter practice originated with Jerome who translated it by the Lat. unigenitus to emphasize Jesus’ divine origin in answer to Arianism. The word monogene4s reflects the Heb. ya4h[i<d{, only, precious [Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac], and is used in Heb. 11:17 of Isaac who was unique in the sense of being the sole son of promise, but who was not the only son whom Abraham begat. Perhaps the word may best be translated as "unique". Jn. clearly intends to distinguish Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father from that of others who become children of God through him [cf. Jn. 1:14 with v. 13]. For further discussion see Arndt, 528; D. Moody, JBL 72, 1953, 213-19; R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, I, 1966, 13 f.) In prayer Jesus called God "Abba, Father" (Mk. 14:36) or "Father" (Matt. 11:25 f.; Lk. 23:24; Jn. 11:41; 17:1; 5, 11). At other times he spoke of him as his heavenly Father (e.g. Matt. 10:33; 16:17). Jn. emphasizes the Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus (about 80 times) more strongly than the Synoptics (but see the fuller version of Peter’s confession of Christ in Matt. 16:16 ff. par. Mk. 8:29, Lk. 9:20; cf. Jn. 6:68 f.). Jesus also gave his disciples the right to approach God with the invocation "our Father" (Matt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2). In the quiet room at home the individual may pray personally to his Father (Matt. 6:4, 6, 18). The name "Father" is applied to God in illustrations and parables (e.g. Lk. 15:11 ff.). As Father, God is the God who is near to whom man can turn in believing trust with all his petitions. Moreover, God is the sustainer of the creatures he has made. He receives them with fatherly goodness and surrounds them with his care (Matt. 6:26-32; 10:29-31). The NT epistles use the solemn, confessional formula "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). In Christ believers are related to God as children. His Spirit testifies to them that they are God’s children (Rom. 8:16). Therefore, in prayer they too may cry "Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15). This is a gift of grace procured through the Spirit of the Son of God. The idea of the children of God takes on a special colouring in 1 John. Here the statements are no longer determined, as in Paul, by the concept of adoption, of being received into the place of a child, but by that of begetting (Birth, art. gennavw). Christians are God’s children because they have been begotten by God (1 Jn. 3:9; cf. 2:29; 4:7). This means that the origin of their new being is to be found solely in God (1 Jn. 4:4). With this are linked statements of a mystical nature. John knew not only a Christ-mysticism but also a God-mysticism. There is true fellowship with God only when Christians abide in God and when God abides in them (1 Jn. 4:16). But as God is love, this means abiding in love. Out of this deep, inner relationship with God arises a completely new, concrete, ethical obligation: love of the brethren which must lead to practical aid (1 Jn. 3:16 f.). 4 The attributes of God. (a) In the NT there is no fixed, systematically ordered doctrine of the attributes of God. But there is a wealth of allusions, especially in expressions of prayer and faith and in descriptions of divine acts. More rare than in the OT but nevertheless present are allusions to the holiness of God (Jn. 17:11; 1 Pet. 1:15; Rev. 3:7; 4:8; 15:4), his (present and future) wrath (Anger) (Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 6:17; 11:18; 14:10), and his glory (Acts 7:2; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:12; Tit. 2:13; Rev. 15:8; 21:11, 23). It is otherwise in the case of the kingly rule of God (Kingdom), which in the Synoptic Gospels forms the centre of Jesus’ preaching, but which in the proclamation of the apostles withdraws into the background in favour of the message of Christ. Only once is God called teleios, in the sense of moral perfection (Matt. 5:48, Goal). The will of God is spoken of more often (as commanding, demanding and gracious); his mysterious counsel (Acts 20:27) and plan of salvation (Eph. 1:3-11) are also spoken of. Paul strongly emphasizes the faithfulness of God (Rom. 3:3; 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; cf. 2 Cor. 1:18). God abides by his promises and fulfils them (Rom. 9:6 ff.; Fullness, art. plhrovw). For Israel this means that God’s gifts of grace and their election by God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). God does not lie (Heb. 6:18; cf. Tit. 1:2); he is utterly true and his testimony is absolutely valid (Jn. 3:33). (b) God is the eternal (Rom. 16:26) and only wise God (Rom. 16:27). Beside these expressions stand others which are to be found in contemporary philosophical language. Thus God is described as the invisible (Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15 f.; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27) and the immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. ). In 1 Tim. 1:11 and 6:15 he is called by an attribute taken over from Hellenistic Judaism, the "blessed" God. The doxology in 1 Tim. 6:15 f. is reminiscent of the prayers of the Hellenistic synagogue (for a review of background ideas see C. Spicq, Les épîtres Pastorales, 1947, 200 f.). It confesses God in solemn words as the only Sovereign, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, who dwells in unapproachable light and whom no man has ever seen nor can see. Paul’s description of God in the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:24) also betrays Hellenistic influence. It uses Isa. 42:5 freely and has affinities with Seneca, Ep. 41, 3 (cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 522; cf. also 2 Ki. 19:18; Dan. 5:4 LXX; Wis. 13:10). God created the world and everything that is in the world. The Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by human hands. Nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all beings life and breath and everything else. Though some of these expressions may sound strange today, Paul was concerned to testify to the true and living God in terms that were relevant to his day. This is the God whom the heathen of Athens worshipped, more unconsciously than consciously, and to whom they had erected an altar with the inscription "To an unknown god [agno4sto4 theo4]" (Acts 17:23). (E. Norden interpreted this as a reference to the unknown God of Gnosis in Agnostos Theos, 1913, 57 ff., but this is generally recognized as incorrect [cf. E. Haenchen, op. cit., 521, and also Arndt, 12]). The apostle could even press into service for his missionary task the words of a Greek poet which carry the stamp of pantheistic mysticism, "In him [God] we live and move and have our being" (Epimenides); "We are his offspring" (Aratus, Phaenomena 5; cf. Acts 17:28; see also below, section 9). ([Ed.] For Paul, man had a natural awareness of God which was consonant with the revelation of God in the OT and Christian experience. This knowledge is sufficient to show the error of identifying God with any finite thing or creature. Paul does not argue that man may arrive at such a conclusion as the result of a metaphysical proof. Man has this awareness already, and reflection on the finite character of the natural order should be sufficient to tell him that God is not to be identified with anything or anyone within that order [Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19 ff., 32; and possibly Rom. 2:12-16, though this last passage may well refer to Gentile believers who have responded to the gospel without having had the law and who thus fulfil the promise of the new covenant of Jer. 31:31 ff.]. For further discussion see N. B. Stonehouse, Paul before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies, 1957, 1-40; H. P. Owen, "The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom. 1 and Acts 17," NTS 5, 1958-9, 133-43; C. Brown, Karl Barth and the Christian Message, 1967, 94-98; and the literature listed by E. Haenchen, op. cit., 516.) (c) A central concept in Paul’s theology is the righteousness of God (Rom. 1:17, 21 f.; 9:30; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). It is a judging but also a saving righteousness. God is just when he condemns sinful mankind. But he is equally just when he bestows his forgiving grace on those who have believed in Christ and in the salvation procured through him. For Christ’s sake, in whom God himself offered the atoning sacrifice for the guilt of mankind, he does not count their sins against them but pronounces them righteous. Thus the dikaiosyne4 theou forms the foundation of Paul’s doctrine of justification (cf. L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 19633, 273 ff.; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 1967, 82-162). (d) Because God is the initiator of salvation, both he and Christ are called so4te4r, saviour (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Tit. 1:3; 2:13; 3:4). God sent his Son into the world (Gal. 4:4) and delivered him to death for us (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:10; cf. Rom. 8:32). The saving act of God is proclaimed through the word of the cross which is understood by believers as God’s power and God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18, 24). For Christ has been made by God our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification (Holy) and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). Paul can call the whole message of salvation, declared to the world, the " gospel of God" (Rom. 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 1:11; cf. also 1 Pet. 4:17). It brings salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 2:5). At the same time the offer of salvation, which comes through the proclamation, is universal. God desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), for his saving grace has appeared to all men (Tit. 2:11). The power of God (Might) is not only at work in the gospel; it has demonstrated itself to be powerful from the beginning. Every man can recognize the invisible being of God in the works of creation (Rom. 1:20). It is also the power of God which raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; Rom. 8:11; 10:9) and thereby ushered in the new creation of mankind and of the universe. Believers even now experience the transcendent fullness of God’s power (2 Cor. 4:7), his mighty strength (Eph. 1:19; 3:20). Hence the apostle prays that they may be continually built up through the Spirit, according to the riches of his glory, with power in the inner man (Eph. 3:16). But the ultimate aim of faith, knowledge and love is to be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19). John has the expression which does not occur elsewhere in the NT, "to have God" (1 Jn. 2:23; 2 Jn. 9). Having God, which includes having the Son (1 Jn. 5:12), is bound up with a firm, true confession of Christ, free from every false doctrine (1 Jn. 5:11; Fellowship, art. e[cw). (e) The saving power of the divine being is expressed in a series of genitives which are connected with the noun God. God is the God of peace (Rom. 15:33; 16:20; 1 Thess. 5:23; Phil. 4:9; 1 Cor. 14:33; cf. Heb. 13:20), the God of mercy (Lk. 1:78), the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (2 Cor. 1:3; cf. Rom. 12:1), the God of all grace (1 Pet. 5:10, 12), who has blessed us in Christ with the fullness and the riches of his grace (Eph. 1:7), the God of love (2 Cor. 13:11). (f) The full depth of God’s being, is expressed in the statement: God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). His love embraces the lost world which has turned away from him. It is the decisive reason for his saving and redeeming activity. He has proved his love by giving up his Son to death in order that all who believe on him may have eternal life (Jn. 3:16). Above all his love is for the individual believer; God loved us (1 Jn. 4:10); we are the beloved of God (Col. 3:12). All real love has its origin in God (1 Jn. 4:7). Whoever does not love has not known God (1 Jn. 4:8). The love of God is poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). It is the highest spiritual gift, without which all the other charismata are meaningless (1 Cor. 13). As God of love, God is rich in goodness, forbearance and patience (Rom. 2:4). Tit. 3:4 speaks of the goodness and kindness of God towards men, using Hel. language associated with the solemn courtly style for the Hel. ruler and frequently discussed by philosophers (cf. C. Spicq, Les épîtres Pastorales, 1947, 275 f.). 5 God and Christ. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the Son of God is most fully developed in Jn. and the epistles. He was "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3; cf. Matt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38; Acts 2:30; 2 Tim. 2:8; and cf. Mk. 12:35 f. par. Matt. 22:21, Lk. 20:41). And he was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 1:4). Perhaps the correct meaning here is: "whom God decreed Son of God with power . . . through resurrection . . ." (cf. M. Black, Romans, 1973, 36). The allusion is to the divine decree of Ps. 2:6 ff. (cf. L. C. Allen, "The Old Testament Background of prohorizein in the New Testament," NTS 17, 1970-71, 104 ff.; see also on this passage M. E. Boismard, "Constitué Fils de Dieu," RB 40, 1953, 5-17; E. Schweizer, "Röm. 1:3 f. und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus," EvTh 15, 1955, 563-71; E. Linnemann, "Tradition und Interpretation in Röm. 1:3 ff.," EvTh 31, 1971, 264-75; and for patristic interpretations M. F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church, 1967, 80 f.). According to the developed christology of Jn. 1:1, he existed already before his earthly existence as the divine Word (logos) with God. Thus he comes from God (Jn. 3:2; 13:3; 16:27 f.). It was God himself who sent him into the world at the time that he had determined to carry out his saving purposes among men (Gal. 4:4 f.). Therefore he comes with divine authority; God is with him (Jn. 3:2). He is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15); in him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col. 2:9). Because he has come from God, he alone is capable of bringing an authentic message from God (Jn. 1:18). Thus he is the only true and trustworthy revealer. He and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30; 14:10; 17:11, 21). Therefore, whoever sees him sees God (Jn. 12:45; 14:9). (b) There is not only a oneness of being shown by God and Jesus Christ, but also a complete harmony in speech and action. The words which Jesus speaks are words he has heard from the Father (Jn. 14:10); the works he performs are the works of God (Jn. 9:4). They serve to reveal the divine glory and therefore to glorify God (Jn. 17:4). This is expressed particularly in Jesus’ words of self-disclosure in statements using divine "I am" formulae (ego4 eimi) which in the OT are self-revelations of God himself. He is the light (Jn. 8:12; cf. 1:4, 8 f.; 9:5; 12:35), life (Jn. 14:6; cf. 3:15 f., 10:10 ff., 28; 17:2 f.; 20:31), truth (14:6; cf. 1:14, 17; 4:23 f.; 8:32), the living bread (Jn. 6:48; cf. vv. 51 ff., 63), water (Jn. 4:13 ff.; cf. 6:35; 7:38), and the only way to God (Jn. 14:6; cf. 10:9). (On the background and significance of these terms see C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953; and the commentaries on John by R. Schnackenburg, I, 1968; R. E. Brown, I, 1966, II, 1971; B. Lindars, 1972; and L. Morris, 1972.) In Rev., too, there occur divine I-am formulae like, "I am the first and the last," which come now from the mouth of God and now from that of the eternal Christ (Rev. 1:8, 17; 21:6; 22:13). It is clear that in the NT belief in God is most closely bound up with belief in Christ. The fate of men before God is decided by their position in relation to Christ. (c) But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his pre-existent being was in the form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). He is the mediator, but not the originator, of salvation (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:15), the lamb of God who bears the sins of the world (Jn. 1:36). After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed been raised to the right hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) and invested with the honour of the heavenly Kyrios, Lord (Phil. 2:9 f.). But he is still not made equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordinate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). This is true also of his position as eternal high priest in the heavenly sanctuary according to Heb. (Heb. 9:24; 10:12 f.; cf. Ps. 110:1). He represents us before God (cf. also Rom. 8:34). If in Rev. 1:13 ff. the appearance of the heavenly son of man is described with features from the picture of the "Ancient of Days" (God) of Dan. 7, this is not to say that Christ is equal with God. In Rev. a distinction is always made between God and the "Lamb" (cf. Rev. 5:6 ff.; Like). 6 Christ as God. A few NT texts raise the question whether the Son of God is also called God. (a) Rom. 9:5 is disputed. After Paul has expounded the position of Israel in salvation history and has emphasized as an especial advantage the fact that Christ, according to the flesh, stems from this people, he adds a relative clause, which runs lit. "who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen." It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, "Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul. Overwhelmed by God’s dealings with Israel, Paul concludes with an ascription of praise to God. The translation would then read, "The one who is God over all be blessed for ever. Amen." or alternatively, "God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." ([Ed.] See further M. Black, Romans, 1973, 130; B. M. Metzger, "The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5", in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 95-112; W. L. Lorimer, NTS 13, 1966-67, 385 f.; H.-W. Bartsch, "Röm. 9:5 und 1 Clem. 32:4: eine notwendige Konjektur im Römerbrief," ThZ 21, 1965, 401-9; H. M. Faccio, De Divinitate Christi iuxta S. Paulum: Röm. 9:5, 1945; for patristic interpretations M. F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church, 1967, 83 ff.; and J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II, 1965, 245-8. Murray claims that the passage cannot be treated as a doxology to God the Father, since it does not follow the form of doxologies elsewhere in the LXX and the NT. The application of theos to Christ suits the context and could be regarded as the culmination of a sequence of privileges given to Israel which Paul is enumerating. Moreover, comparable assertions of divinity may be found in 2 Thess. 1:12; Tit. 2:13; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; and 2 Cor. 3:17. The assertion of Christ’s Lordship is in accord with Paul’s teaching elsewhere [cf. Rom. 1:4; 14:9; Eph. 1:20, 23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:18 f.; cf. also Matt. 28:18; Jn. 3:35; Acts 2:36; Heb. 1:2 ff.; 8:1; 1 Pet. 3:22]. Hence, Murray argues that "God blessed for evermore" stands in apposition to Christ.) (b) Several passages in Jn. contain ascriptions of divinity. Jn. 1:1 (RSV) declares: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [kai theos e4n ho logos]." ([Ed.] The fact that there is no definite article before theos here has been taken to imply that the Word may be understood as being some kind of divine being but not in the fullest sense of the term. Such views have been put forward from Origen [Commentary on Jn. 2, 2], whose views were taken up by the Arians in the fourth century, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses today. The passage is rendered by the NEB: "what God was, the Word was." J. A. T. Robinson appealed to it in support of his plea for a restatement of orthodox christology [Honest to God, 1963, 71; cf. The Human Face of God, 1973, 182; and the discussion by E. D. Freed, "Honest to John," ExpT 75, 1963-64, 61 ff.]. R. E. Brown considers the NEB rendering more accurate than saying simply that the Word was "divine" [The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 5]. In any case, the adj. for "divine" is theios, whereas it is the noun theos that is used here. R. E. Brown points out that there are instances of nouns with the definite article after the vb. "to be" in Jn. (e.g. 11:25; 14:6), implying that we might expect the article here if Jn. had meant to say that "the word was God." On the other hand, the passage conforms to the pattern that in the NT definite nouns which precede the vb. regularly lack the article [cf. E. C. Colwell, JBL 52, 1933, 12-21; Funk, 143, §273; Moule, 116]. Hence, the RSV translation would be the correct one. For further discussion see B. M. Metzger, ExpT 63, 1951-52, 125 f.; J. G. Griffiths, ExpT 62, 1950-51, 314 ff.; N. Turner, Insights, 17; E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 1961, 48 f.; L. Morris, op. cit., 77. On the patristic interpretation of Jn. generally see M. F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, 1960; and F.-M. Braun, Jean le Théologien, I-III, 1959-66.) On monogene4s see above 3 (c). In Jn. 1:18 a number of very good MSS read monogene4s theos ("the only God" RSVmg) instead of ho monogene4s hyios ("the only Son" RSV). The unusualness of such a reading is regarded by some as grounds for accepting its authenticity (cf. L. Morris, op. cit., 113 f.). If so, it would be a further affirmation of the deity of the Word. Jn. 20:28 contains the unique affirmation of Thomas addressing the Risen Christ as God: "My Lord and my God [ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou]." The statement marks the climax of the Gospel. God has become visible for Thomas in the form of Jesus. The climax of Johannine teaching occurs in the confessional formula of 1 Jn. 5:20 which asserts the full identity of essence of Christ and God: "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (RSV). This gives a lit. reproduction of the Gk. words. An alternative translation is: "This [Christ] is the true one, God and eternal life." (c) This is the nearest that the NT comes to asserting the full identity of Christ with God. Tit. 2:13 speaks of "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (RSV, cf. RSV mg. "of the great God and our Saviour"). Hesitation has been expressed about appealing to this text as such an instance. "The application of the formula "great God" to Jesus which was a title for God firmly rooted in late Judaism would be completely unique in the New Testament" (J. Jeremias, NTD 9, 58). Paul’s teaching in Phil. 2:6 speaks against complete equation, when it draws a distinction in the words, "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." E. Stauffer is doubtless correct when he writes: "The Christology of the NT is carried to its logical conclusion with the thorough-going designation of Christ as theos" (TDNT III 106). J. Schneider (d) Jesus’ cry of desolation is recorded in Matt. 27:46 and Mk. 15:34. Both give a version of Jesus’ words in the original language and add their own translation: "e4li e4li lema sabachtani? that is ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?‘" (Matt.); "elo4i elo4i lama sabachthani which means, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?‘" (Mk.). The cry corresponds to the opening words of Ps. 22 which in the MT reads 'e4li< 'e4li< la4ma=h 'azab{ta4ni<. Mk. appears to have written the Aram. 'elo4i. The bystanders evidently took it to be a call to Elijah who was taken up to heaven (2 Ki. 2:9-12) and was believed to rescue the righteous in distress (SB IV, 2, 76 ff.). From the earliest times the cry has been felt to raise problems for christology. These are reflected in the MSS variants and the version of Gos. Pet 5:19: "My power, O power, thou hast forsaken me!" (cf. K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 19672, 83- 7; Henn.-Schn., I, 184). It is felt that the words imply an abandonment by God which is incompatible with belief in his divinity, and a lack of trust on Jesus’ part. Nevertheless, Matt. and Mk. did not shirk to record it. The cry expresses a sense of utter desolation, such as Jesus had not even experienced on occasions of temptation, rejection and in Gethsamene. His faithfulness to God’s will had led him to the point where that will had to be done without the conscious awareness of God’s presence. This was the experience of the Psalmist. And in recording the cry the evangelists may well have seen in it further fulfilment of Ps. 22 (cf. Matt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Lk. 23:34; Jn. 19:25 with Ps. 22:18; and Matt. 27:39, 43; Mk. 15:29; Lk. 23:35 with Ps. 22:7 f.; cf. also Heb. 2:12 with Ps. 22:22; see further B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 89-93; H. Gese, "Psalm 22 und das Neue Testament", ZTK 65, 1968, 1-22). The poignancy of the parallels and the solemnity of the narrative may have been too great for the evangelists to pause to speak of fulfilment. Jesus’ cry is all the more poignant in view of the taunt (also made to the Psalmist): he trusts in God, let God deliver him. The suggestion that the cry was an interpretation put into the mouth of Jesus’ perhaps in the light of the Ps. (cf. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1963, 313) raises more problems than it solves, for it is incredible that the church would have invented an utterance which appears to go back on all that Jesus had taught. The cry reveals the anguish felt by Jesus in being utterly rejected by friend and foe alike and in dying the most excruciating death. At the same time we may say with C. E. B. Cranfield that the cry is to be understood in the light of Mk. 14:36 (and par. Matt. 26:39; Lk. 22:42; Jn. 12:27) and the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ death in 2 Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13. "The burden of the world’s sin, his complete self-identification with sinners, involved not merely a felt, but a real, abandonment by his Father" (The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 1963, 458). The parallels with Ps. 22 may, however, be pursued even further. G. Dalman has suggested that for the Jews the opening words were recognized as an effective prayer for help in the light of the latter part of the Ps. (Jesus-Jeshua, 1929, 206). The Psalmist survives his immediate desolation to praise God in the congregation (v. 22; cf. Heb. 2:12). All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord (Ps. 22:27). Dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. (v. 28). Posterity shall serve him and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn (vv. 30 f.). If the earlier part of the Ps. may be seen as being fulfilled in Jesus’ death, the latter may be said to find fulfilment in the revelation of the risen Christ in the great commission to evangelize (Matt. 28:16-20). C. Brown 7 God and the Church. The community of believers is called the ekkle4sia tou theou (Acts 20:28; 2 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15; Church). It consists of those chosen by God and called to be saints (Rom. 1:7; cf. the opening address of most of Paul’s epistles) and who have received all the gifts of salvation and grace. They have peace with God (Rom. 5:1), for they have been reconciled through Christ (2 Cor. 5:18). As the beginning of God’s new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) they are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10). God works in them both to will and to accomplish (Phil. 2:13), and gives them assurance of the completion of their salvation (Rom. 5:2, Phil. 3:21). At the return of Christ he will give life to their mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11) and a share in his glory and in eternal life. (b) The church is the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21); God’s holy building into which all believers are placed as living stones (1 Pet. 2:4); the dwelling of God in the Spirit in which Christians are members of God’s household (Eph. 2:19, 21). It is the new people of God (1 Pet. 2:9) which forms the body of Christ in which believers have a share in the ple4ro4ma, the fullness of the being of God and Christ (Col. 2:10; Eph. 1:23; Fullness, art. plhrovw). The community stands under God’s protection. It is hidden in him, for God is on its side (Rom. 8:31). Therefore no power, whatever it may be called, is capable of separating it from God’s love. Paul emphasized strongly that the ekkle4sia of God consists of Jews and Gentiles. This is because Christ has reconciled Jews and Gentiles to God in one body through the cross. Whoever receives the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and believes in Christ has free access to the Father (Eph. 2:18). In God’s people of the new covenant racial and national differences are removed. 8 The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. "The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e. as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the Church doctrine of the Trinity" (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12 etc.) and homoousios which featured in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote that Christ was of the same substance as the Father (cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 19684, 113, 233-7). But the NT does contain the fixed, three-part formula of 2 Cor. 13:13 (EVV 14) in which God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit are mentioned together (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4 ff.). The Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit occurs only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19. The later addition, 1 Jn. 5:8 (in Lat. texts from the 6th cent.), contains the triad, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit (cf. E. Stauffer, TDNT III 108 f.). An extension of the triadic form in which, however, the important element is "the one God," "the one Lord" and "the one Spirit," appears in Eph. 4:4 ff. Gal. 4:4 ff. does not, strictly speaking, present a formula. It sets out the action of God in salvation history, placing God, Christ and the Holy Spirit in their right relationship: God first sends the Son and then the Spirit of his Son to continue the work of Jesus on earth. On the other hand, God and Christ especially are closely connected in two-part formulae: "one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 8:6). "one God . . . and one mediator between God and men" (1 Tim. 2:5). In this connection Matt. 23:8-10 must also be mentioned, where Jesus draws the disciples’ attention to the fact that they have one master (himself) and one God in heaven. In all these statements the two facts, that God and Christ belong together and that they are distinct, are equally stressed, with the precedence in every case due to God, the Father, who stands above Christ. (On the formulae see E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 1955, 235- 57, J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 19723, 6-29; V. F. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1963.) A close relationship exists also between Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus Paul can say outright that the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). In John’s Gospel the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete, Advocate) appears with "certain independence" (E. Stauffer, TDNT III 107). But in his work he is bound to the exalted Christ (Jn. 16:14; "He will take what is mine"). Christ and the Holy Spirit are in an interchangeable relationship. But even here there is no strict, dogmatic assertion. Although the Spirit is distinguished from Christ and subordinated to him, it can be said in 1 Jn. 2:1 that Christ is the Paraclete with the Father. All this underlines the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church. (For discussions of the Trinity in the NT see L. Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1943, 38-84; A. E. J. Rawlinson, ed., Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, 1933; Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 339-560; G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity, 1953; A. W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament, 1962.) J. Schneider 9 Pagan Deities. It is unlikely that the average Greek and Roman took the old gods and goddesses seriously, but tradition and superstition led people to altars, shrines and images. The multiplicity of altars at Athens moved Paul to describe the Athenians as deisidaimonesterous (Acts 17:22), a comparative form compounded from deido4 (fear) and daimo4n (a deity or demon). The adj. deisidaimo4n often means superstitious. But Paul evidently intended it in a more positive sense, i.e. "quite religious" (cf. the noun deisidaimonia which can mean superstition, fear or reverence for the divinity in a good sense, and religion [cf. Arndt. 172]). The main Gk. pantheon, with the Roman equivalents given in brackets, was: Zeus (Jupiter), Hera (Juno), Apollo (Apollo or Phoebus), Ares (Mars), Poseidon (Neptune), Aphrodite (Venus), Hermes (Mercury), Athene (Minerva), Artemis (Diana), Hades or Pluto (Pluto or Orcus). In 1 Cor. 10:20 Paul equated pagan deities with demons, but in addressing the intelligent Athenians, he quoted with approval Epimenides, Aratus, Phaenomena 5, and Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4 (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, 338 f.; see also above, section 4 (b)). "Yet he is not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring’" (Acts 17:27 f.). The poets are actually praising Zeus, but Paul makes it clear that he treats the quotations as referring to their highest conception of the supreme God, or rather their non-conception, the Unknown God, of whom he proceeded to speak. The following Greek deities are named in the NT. (i) Zeus and Hermes. At Lystra, after an outstanding miracle of healing, Barnabas and Paul were treated as heavenly visitants, the dignified Barnabas as Zeus and Paul, the talker, as Hermes (Acts 14:8- 18). (ii) Ares. At Athens Paul was taken to the Areopagus, or Hill of Ares, where speakers were allowed to hold forth, as at Hyde Park Corner in London, and where the Athenian Council met (Acts 17:19). (iii) Artemis. Her temple at Ephesus was one of the wonders of the world, and Paul’s successful preaching roused the makers of shrine souvenirs (Acts 19:21-41). The Ephesian Artemis was only loosely identified with Artemis the huntress. Statues and descriptions show that she was the great Mother Goddess. (iv) Hades. In classical Gk. the god’s name came to stand for his kingdom of the underworld, although it was quite common to use the expression en Hadou (gen. instead of dat.), meaning "in the house of Hades." In the NT the word is used of the place or state only (e.g. [en to4 Hade4] Lk. 16:23; Hell, art. a{/dh"). Two Canaanite gods appear in quotations from the OT: Baal (Rom. 11:4; 1 Ki. 19:18) and Moloch (Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26). J. Stafford Wright 10 There are several compound words in the NT which indicate an actual or potential link with God. (i) theosebeia (1 Tim. 2:10) means reverence for God, piety, religion. theosebe4s (Jn. 9:31) means God-fearing, devout, a worshipper of God. The vb. theosebeo4, to worship God, does not occur in the NT but is found in Ep. Diog. 3:1 in early Christian literature. In all these forms the root is from the vb. sebo4, worship or reverence, plus theos, God (Godliness, art. sevbomai). Proselytes were sometimes referred to as sebomenoi [ton theon] (e.g. Acts 13:43; 18:7). These God-fearers were Gentiles who accepted the Jewish way of life in general, but did not bind themselves to keep all the ritual details of the law, in particular circumcision (Conversion, art. prose4lytos). (ii) theostyge4s (Rom. 1:30) is a compound from stygeo4, to hate, plus theos. In cl. Gk. it means God- hated or God forsaken. But in its sole NT occurrence an active meaning appears necessary, i.e. God-hating, haters of God (RSV). (iii) Theophilos, Theophilus, is derived from phileo4, to love. Its meaning is either "dear to God", as generally in cl. Gk., or "lover of God." In the NT it occurs only in Lk. 1:3 and Acts 1:1 as the name of the person for whom Luke writes. It is almost certainly a proper name, perhaps a pseudonym for some well-known person, but it could stand for any Christian reader (for discussion and literature see F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, 65 f.; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 136 f.). (iv) theios occurs 3 times in the NT. With the art., to theion means the Deity (Acts 17:29). As an adj., it means divine and is used with power and nature in 2 Pet. 1:3 f. (v) theiote4s (Rom. 1:20) means deity: God’s "invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (see above, 4 (b)). theote4s, deity, divinity (Col. 2:9), is a stronger word and is used as an abstract noun for theos in connection with the incarnation: "For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily." By contrast the weaker words to theion (Acts 17:29) and theiote4s (Rom. 1:20) speak of the Gentile awareness of the deity. (See further H. S. Nash, theiote4s-theote4s, JBL 18, 1899, 1-34; Moulton-Milligan, 286 ff.; and Arndt, 354, 357 ff. for the terms discussed above.) J. Stafford Wright jEmmanouhvl G1842 (Emmanoue4l), Emmanuel. OT The name Emmanuel which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. "God [is] with us" (Heb. 'imma4nu= 'e4l). In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass "before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good." Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious, saving presence among his people. The name can have either a minimum or a maximum significance. It could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us. Or it could be a divine name meaning that God’s presence with us is to be found in the child. In justification of the latter interpretation is the name of the one whom we may fairly regard as the same child in Isa. 9:6. One of his names here is 'e4l gibbôr which, in the light of its application to Yahweh himself in 10:21, means Mighty God. (See further E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, I, 1965, 283- 94, 306 f., 335 ff.; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12, 1972, 96-106; J. Lindblom, A Study on the Immanuel Section of Isaiah, 1958 reprint; J. A. Motyer, "Context and Content in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14," TB 21, 1970, 118-25.) NT Matt. 1:23 sees the angel’s promise to Joseph of the son conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit, who is to be called "Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins," as a fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. The quotation corresponds largely with the LXX, though the LXX does not give a translation of the name to indicate its significance. It does not necessarily mean that a virgin birth was prophesied, for parthenos could be used of others than virgins (e.g. Gen. 34:3), and similarly the Heb. 'almâh could mean a young woman married or single (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Pss. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Cant. 1:3; 6:8). On the question of the virgin birth see J. Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907; J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ, [1930] 1958; T. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth, 1962; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 1973. This question rests on the interpretation of verses other than Matt. 1:23. The name Emmanuel is not applied to Jesus elsewhere in the NT. The point of the present passage is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child. But whereas the earlier event in Isaiah’s day was regarded at the time as having decisive significance, in the light of the coming of Jesus it proves to be merely the anticipation of the really decisive saving act and presence of God. For Matt.’s concept of fulfilment Fullness, art. plhrovw, NT 1 (c). See also on this passage W. C. van Unnik, "Dominus Vobiscum", in A. J. B. Higgins, ed, New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, 270-305. One may link Matt.’s quotation, written in the light of the disciples’ experience of Jesus Christ, with Lk. 1:35, where the unique act of the Holy Spirit means that the child will be "the Son of God." Thus "God with us" is to be taken in a similar way. The child will be God come to earth. The conception by the Holy Spirit draws attention to the role of God in the birth and life of Jesus. J. Stafford Wright, C. Brown On God in the OT and in the ancient world: (a). W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1956; From Stone Age to Christianity, 1957; and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 1968; A. Alt, "The God of the Fathers", in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 1-77; L. R. Bailey, "Israelite 'e4l s]adday and Amorite bêl s]ade=", JBL 87, 1968, 434-38; T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, 1960; but see also the discussion of Boman’s metholodogy in J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961; M. Buber, The Prophetic Faith, 1960; J. S. Chesnut, The Old Testament Understanding of God, 1968; R. E. Clements, God and Temple, 1965; A. Deissler, "God", EBT I 298-309; M. Delcor, "Les diverses manières d’écrire le tetragramme sacré dans les anciens documents hébraïques," RHR 147, 1955, 145ff.; R. C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel 1968; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I-II, 1961-67; O. Eissfeldt, "‘My God’ in the Old Testament", EQ 19, 1947, 7 ff.; M. Eliade, From Primitives to Zen, 1967; J. Ferguson, The Religion of the Roman Empire, 19742; D. Flusser, "Paganism in Palestine," in S. Safrai, M. Stern et al., eds., The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and |