GOD
an
image
of
JahwehCJgS"'),
though
theword
was
afterwards
used
for
a
gold
or
silver
casing
of
an
image,
and
bo
in
later
times
for
a
sort
of
waistcoat.
In
our
uncertainty
as
to
the
date
of
the
various
sources
of
the
Hexateuch
it
is
impossible
to
come_
to
a
definite
conclusion
about
this
matter;
and
Moaes,
like
the
later
prophets,
may
have
preached
a
high
doctrine
which
popular
opinion
did
not
endorse.
To
this
view
Barnes
(Hastings'
DB,
art.
'
Israel,'
ii.
509)
seems
to
incline.
At
least
the
fact
remains
that
images
of
Jahweh
were
actually
used
for
many
generations
after
Moses.
6.
The
conceptions
of
the
Prophetic
age.—
This
age
is
marked
by
a
growth,
perhaps
a
very
gradual
growth,
towards
a
true
monotheism.
More
spiritual
conceptions
of
God
are
taught;
images
of
Jahweh
are
denounced;
God
is
unrestricted
in
space
and
time
(e.g.
1
K
8^'),
and
is
enthroned
in
heaven.
He
is
holy
(Is
6')
—
separate
from
sinners
(cf
.
He
7"),
for
this
seems
to
be
the
sense
of
the
Hebrew
word
;
the
idea
is
as
old
as
1
S
6">.
He
is
the
'
Holy
One
of
Israel
'
(Is
1"
and
often).
He
is
Almighty,
present
everywhere
(Jer
23M),and
full
of
love.
—
The
prophets,
though
they
taught
more
spiritual
ideas
about
God,
still
used
anthropomorphisms:
thus,
Isaiah
saw
Jahweh
on
His
throne
(Is
6'),
though
this
was
only
in
a
vision.
—
The
growth
of
true
monotheistic
ideas
may
be
traced
in
such
passages
as
Dt
4?^-
'»
6<
10",
1
K
8",
Is
37'6,
Jl
22';
it
culminates
in
Deutero-Isaiah
(Is
43i°
'
Before
me
there
was
no
God
formed,
neither
shall
there
be
after
me
'
;
44°
'
I
am
the
first
and
I
am
the
last,
and
beside
me
there
is
no
God';
so
45').
The
same
idea
is
expressed
by
the
teaching
that
Jahweh
rules
not
only
His
people
but
all
nations,
as
in
the
numerous
passages
in
Deutero-Isaiah
about
the
Gentiles,
in
Jer
10',
often
in
Ezekiel
(e.g.
35<-
s-
«
of
Edora),
Mai
isu-u,
and
else-where.
"The
earlier
prophets
liad
recognized
Jahweh
as
Creator
(though
Kautzsch
thinks
that
several
passages
like
Am
V^
are
later
glosses);
but
Deutero-Isaiah
emphasizes
this
attribute
more
than
any
of
his
brethren
(Is
401"-
22.
2»
41<
42=
442»
45'2.
is
481').
We
may
here
make
a
short
digression
to
discuss
whether
the
heathen
deities,
though
believed
by
the
later
Jews,
and
afterwards
by
the
Christians,
to
be
no
gods,
were
yet
thought
to
have
a
real
existence,
or
whether
they
were
considered
to
be
simply
non-existent^creatures
of
the
imagina-tion
only.
In
Is
14^2
(the
Babylonian
king
likened
to
false
divinities?)
and
2421
the
heathen
gods
seem
to
be
identified
with
the
fallen
angels
(see
Whitehouae,
in
Hastings'
DB
i.
692);
so
perhaps
m
Deutero-Isaiah
(46i'-).
In
later
times
they
are
often
identified
with
demons.
In
£th.
Enoch
(xix.
1)
Uriel
speaks
of
the
evil
angels
leading
men
astray
into
sacrificing
to
demons
as
to
gods
(see
Charles's
note;
and
also
xcix.
7).
And
the
idea
was
common
in
Christian
times;
it
has
been
attributed
to
St.
Paul
(1
(Jo
102°;
though
8'*-
points
the
other
way,
whether
these
verses
are
the
Apostle's
own
words
or
are
a
quotation
from
the
letter
of
the
Corinthians)
.
Justin
Martyr
(.Apol.
i.
9,
64,
etc.),
Tatian
(Add.
io
the
Greeks,
8),
and
Irenaeus
(Hcer.
iii.
6°),
while
denying
that
the
heathen
deities
are
really
gods,
make
them
to
have
a
real
existence
and
to
be
demons;
Athenagoras
(Aval.
18,
28)
,
Clement
of
Alexandria(£xft.
to
theGreeks,2t.),
and
Tertullian
{Apol.
10)
make
them
to
be
mere
men
or
beasts
deified
by
superstition,
or
combine
both
ideas.
6
.
Post-exilic
conceptions
of
God.
—
Inthe
period
from
the
Exile
to
Christ,
a
certain
deterioration
in
the
spiritual
conception
of
God
is
visible.
It
is
true
that
there
was
no
longer
any
danger
of
idolatry,
and
that
this
age
was
marked
by
an
uncompromising
monotheism.
Yet
there
was
a
tendency
greatly
to
exaggerate
God's
transcend-ence,
to
make
Him
self-centred
and
self-absorbed,
and
to
widen
the
gulf
between
Him
and
the
world
(Sanday,
in
Hastings'
DB
ii.
206).
This
tendency
began
even
at
the
Exile,
and
accounts
for
the
discontinuance
of
anthropomorphic
language.
In
the
Priest's
Code
(P)
this
language
is
avoided
as
much
as
possible.
And
later,
when
the
LXX
was
translated,
the
alterations
made
to
avoid
anthropomorphisms
are
very
significant.
Thus
in
Ex
15'
LXX
the
name
'Man
of
war'
(of
Jahweh)
dis-appears;
in
Ex
193
LXX
Moses
went
up
not
'
to
Elohim,'
but
'
to
the
mount
of
God
'
;
in
Ex
24'°
the
words
'
they
saw
Elohim
of
Israel
'
become
'
they
saw
the
place
where
the
God
of
Israel
stood.'
So
in
the
Targums
man
is
described
GOD
as
being
created
in
the
image
of
the
angels,
and
many
other
anthropomorphisms
are
removed.
—
The
same
tendency
is
seen
in
the
almost
constant
use
of
'
Elohim
'
rather
than
of
'
Jahweh
'
in
the
later
books
of
OT.
The
tendency,
only
faintly
marked
in
the
later
canonical
books,
is
much
more
evident
as
time
went
on.
Side
by
side
with
it
is
to
be
noticed
the
exaltation
of
the
Law,
and
the
incon-sistent
conception
of
God
as
subject
to
His
own
Law.
In
the
Talmud
He
is
represented
as
a
great
Rabbi,
studying
the
Law,
and
keeping
the
Sabbath
(Gilbert,
in
Hastings'
DCG
i.
682).
Yet
there
were
preparations
tor
the
full
teaching
of
the
gospel
with
regard
to
distinctions
in
the
Godhead.
The
old
narratives
of
the
Theophanies,
of
the
mysterious
'
Angel
of
the
Lord
'
who
appeared
at
one
time
to
be
God
and
at
another
to
be
distinct
from
Him,
would
prepare
men's
minds
in
some
degree
for
the
Incarnation,
by
suggesting
a
personal
unveiling
of
God
(see
Liddon,
BL
II.
i.
P);
even
the
common
use
of
the
plural
name
'
Elohim,
'whateverits
original
significance
(see
§
2
above),
would
necessarily
prepare
them
tor
the
doctrine
of
distinctions
in
the
Godhead,
as
would
the
guasi-personi-fication
of
'the
Word'
and
'Wisdom',
as
in
Proverbs,
Job,
Wisdom,
Sirach,
and
in
the
later
Jewish
writers,
who
not
only
personified
but
deified
them
(Scott,
in
Hastings'
DB,
Ext.
vol.
p.
308).
Above
all,
the
guasi-personiflca-tion
of
the
'Spirit
of
God'
in
the
prophetical
books
(esp.
Is
4816
eai")
and
in
the
Psalms
(esp.
61"),
and
the
expectation
of
a
superhuman
King
Messiah,
would
tend
in
the
same
direction.
7
.
Christian
development
of
the
doctrine
of
God.
—
We
may
first
deal
with
the
development
in
the
conception
of
God's
fatherhood.
As
contrasted
with
the
OT,
the
NT
emphasizes
the
universal
fatherhood
and
love
of
God.
The
previous
ages
had
scarcely
risen
above
a
conception
of
God
as
Father
of
Israel,
and
in
a
special
sense
of
Messiah
(Ps
2')
;
they
had
thought
of
God
only
as
ruling
the
Gentiles
and
bringing
them
into
subjection.
Our
Lord
taught,
on
the
other
hand,
that
God
is
Father
of
all
and
loving
to
all;
He
is
kind
even
'toward
the
un-thankful
and
evil'
(Lk
6==,
cf.
Mt
5").
Jesus
therefore
used
the
name
'Father'
more
frequently
than
any
other.
Yet
He
Himself
bears
to
the
Father
a
unique
relationship;
the
Voice
at
the
Baptism
and
at
the
Trans-figuration
would
otherwise
have
no
meaning
(Mk
1"
9'
and
II
Mt.
Lk.).
Jesus
never
speaks
to
His
disciples
of
the
Father
sis
'our
Father';
He
calls
Him
absolutely
'
the
Father'
(seldom
in
Synoptics,
Mt
II2'
2436
[RV]
28"
[see
§8],
Mk
13'2,
Lk
I022,
passim
in
Jn.),
or
'my
Father'
(very
frequently
in
all
the
Gospels,
also
in
Rev
22'
3'),
or
else
'
my
Father
and
your
Father'
(Jn
20").
The
use
of
'
his
Father'
in
Mk
S's
and
||
Mt.
Lk.
is
similar.
This
unique
relationship
is
the
point
of
the
saying
that
God
sent
His
only-begotten
Son
to
save
the
world
(Jn
S"'-,
1
Jn
4')
—
a
saying
which
shows
also
the
universal
fatherhood
of
God,
for
salvation
is
offered
to
all
men
(so
Jn
1232).
The
passage
Mt
112'
(
=
Lk
1022)
is
important
as
being
'among
the
earliest
materials
made
use
of
by
the
Evangelists,'
and
as
containing
'the
whole
of
the
Christology
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
'
(Plummer,
ICC,
'St
Luke,'
p.
282;
for
the
latest
criticism
on
it
see
Sanday,
Criticism
of
the
Fourth
Gosp.
p.
223f.).
It
marks
the
unique
relation
in
which
Jesus
stands
to
the
Father.
—
We
have,
then,
in
the
NT
three
senses
in
which
God
is
Father,
(a)
He
is
the
Father
of
Jesus
Christ.
(6)
He
is
the
Father
of
all
His
creatures
(cf.
Ac
172*,
Ja
l'"-.
He
12»),
of
Gentiles
as
well
as
of
Jews
;
Mk
72'
impUes
that,
though
the
Jews
were
to
be
ted
first,
the
Gentiles
were
also
to
be
fed.
He
is
the
Father
of
all
the
Jews,
as
well
as
of
the
disciples
of
Jesus;
the
words
'
One
is
your
Father'
were
spoken
to
the
multitudes
also
(Mt
231-
»).
(c)
But
in
a
very
special
sense
He
is
Father
of
the
disciples,
who
are
taught
to
pray
'Our
Father'
(Mt
6';
in
the
shorter
version
of
Lk
IP
RV,
'
Father'),
and
who
call
on
Him
as
Father
(1
P
1"
RV).
For
Pauline
passages
which
teach
this
triple
fatherhood
see
art.
Paul
the
Apostle,
iii.
1.
