that I have builded' (1 K 8='). But while God was thus present on earth, the tempest or the thunderstorm was at the same time a theophany in the heavens. Two beliefs cliaracterizo the Hebrew mind from the beginning: first, the strong belief in causation — every change on the face of nature, or in the life of men or nations, must be due to a cause ; and, secondly, the only conceivable causality is a personal agent. The unseen power under all things, which threw up all changes on the face of the world, which gave animation to the creature or withdrew it, which moved the generations of men upon the earth from the be- ginning (Is 41'), bringing Israel out of Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir {Aui 9'), was the living God. Some pheno- mena or events, such as the thunderstorm or the dividing of the sea, might be more striking in- stances of His operation than others. Tliey were miracles, that is, wonders, but tliey did not dili'er in kind from the ordinary plienomena of nature, from His making the sun to rise and sealing up tlie stars (.fob 9'), from His clothing the heavens with blackness (Is SO") and making them clear again with His breath (Job 20'^). Everything is supernatural, that is, direct divine operation. The regular alternation of day and night is due to J"'s covenant with them (Jer 33-''- '^).
Another class of passages may be referred to. The first class cited vividly suggested the person- ality of God. The second class added the idea that He manifested Himself to men in place and circumstance, though with no implication that He was locally confined. This third class briniis in tlie idea of the moral in His personality. Thus He repents that He made man (Gn 6''), and also of the evil He intended to do (Ex 32"); He is grieved (Gn 6«), angry (1 K 11"), jealous (Dt6"), gracious (Ps 111'); He loves (1 K lO'-'), hates (Pr Q'"), and much more. All the emotions of which men are conscious, and all the human conduct corresponding to these emotions, are thrown back upon God. Now, it may be true tli.at from another point of view God must be held free of all i)assion, and not subject to such cliange as is implied in one emotion succeeding another. Still, this latter conception if carried to its just conclusions would reduce God to a being not only absolutely unmoral, but even impersonal. The religious mind could express its relations to God in no other way but by attributing to Him a nature similar to its own. Scripture is not unaware that this mode of con- ception may be puslied too far : ' The Lord is not a man that he should repent' (1 S 15^). What is of importance, however, in these representations of God is the general conception which they combine to suggest, viz. the moral Being of (iod.
iii. Names of God. — (1) Some names express the general notion of Deity, as 'El, 'Elo/iim, 'God'; (2) others are descriptive titles applied to Deity, as 'El Shaddai (AV 'God Almiglity'), 'El 'Elijun, 'God Most High'; while (3) from the Exodus, J" is the personal name of the God of Israel. The names El, Elohim, Shaddai, and J' are probably all prehistoric, and their meaning is very obscure.
(1) The name EI ('?><) is the most widely distributed of all names for Deity, being used in Babylonian, Aramaean, Phoenician, Hebrew, and Arabic, particularly southern Arabic. It tliua belongs to the primitive Shemitic speech before it became modified into dialects, though conceivably one or more of the dialects may have retained in use the root with which it is connected, (a) It has been referred to the Heb. root Vm 'to be strong,' of which it would be the ptcp., meaning 'the strong." (b) Others have referred it to an • OeseniuB.
Arab, root 'lU, meaning 'to be in front' (hence auwal, 'first'), 'to govern,' and assigneii to it tlie sense of ' leader.' * This meaning would be more in harmony witli otlier yemitic names for God, such as baal, 'udun 'lord,' mele/c 'king,' etc. It is, liowever, against such derivations, which should give an unchanj;eably long i in el, that the first vowel is short in Bab. 'ilu and in Arab., and changeable in Heb., as "Jit-'^.s. (c) Some others have suggested a root nSx, eitlier a cognate form to 'ul, ' to he strong,' considering the word an abstract = ' power,' ' might ';t or a word connected with prep, ""jx ' unto,' God being the goal towards which men strive.^ This last meaning is too abstract for a primitive name of Deity, and altogether improbable. No plausible derivation of the term has been suggested. In Heb. i)rose the word is usually connected with an epithet, as ' the living God ' ('0 Sx), ' the eternal God,' ' God Most High ' ; but in the prophets and poetry it is used alone for 'god' or 'God,' and in a few cases is found in the plur. 'gods.' It has maintained its place all through the language as well as in other dialects in the formation of proper names.
Elohim is a plur. of which the sing, is a'l^'K, Aram. 'iMh, Arab, 'ildh (with art. 'al'il&h = 'aU(ih, ' God '). The sing, is used in poetry (Ps 18, Dt 32), and occasionally in very late prose. It has been contended (a) that the sing, is an artificial form coined from the plur. Elohim ; and (6) that Elohim is really the plur. of el, formed by inserting h, as occasionally happens. But decidedly against (a) is the existence of the similar sing, form in Aram, and Arab., which there is no reason to suppose late ; and against (6) is the fact that it is only in plurals of /em. form that there is an insertion of h (Syr. plur. shemohin, 'names,' cannot be held primary, as the word ' name ' has fern. plur. in Ileb. and western Aram.). El, too, has Its ovm proper plur. 'elim. The attempt to con- nect the word with 'elali, 'elon, names of trees,§ may be safely neglected. Whether the term 'ildah be connected with 'el, and what its meaning is, remains uncertain. The use of the plur. Elohim is also dilRcult to explain. The plur. had so ob- tained the upjier hand in usage that tlie more archaic sing, was confined to poetry. Tlie plur. can scarcely be a remnant of polytheism ; the Shemites did not use the general expression ' the