The OT can scarcely be used as authoritj' for the existence of distinctions within the (iodhcad. The use of ' us ' by the divine speaker (Gn !•* 3'-"^ 11') is strange, but is perhaps due to His conscious- ness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (IsC). Some other things are suggestive, if nothing more. The angel of J" is at once identical with J" and yet dillerent from Him. In Ezk and later prophets there is a movement towards hypostiitizing tlie Spirit of God (see AXOEL). The 'word' of God is sometimes ipoken of as if it had an objective existence, and possessed a native power of realizing it.self. The 'wisd:;ni'of God in some pas.sages is no more an attriliute of Goil, but a iieisoiiilication of His thouglit. In Pr 8 ' wisdom ' is God's world-plan or conception, the articulated framework of the universe as a moral organism. Its creation is the first movement of the divine mind outward. lieing pro"ecteil outside of the mind of God, it becomes the suhjectof His own contem|ilation ; it is ' with' God. It is also His architect in creation, for creation is only the divine wisdom realizing itself. And as one work of creation arises after another
embodying it, its self-realization is as if it ' played ' before J", and this play of self-expression was most joyous in the moral economy of man (cf. Jn 1'-^ tph 3», Col l'«- "). Whethe'r the '8er^•ant of the Loud' be a true being, or only a conception personilied into a lieing, he may be delined as the word of God incarnated in the seed of Abraham. And if even the loftiest Messianic conceptions of the OT remain short of the idea that God ' became ' man, yet in Is 9'-' J " is manifested in the fulness of His being in the Messianic King (cf. chs. 7. 11).
LlTERATURB.— The OT Thenlogitt ; yatkc, Relvjion drt All. Tests. Is:i5; Kuenen, Heliijiun (//7»ro<i (trans.), 1S74, Xatiunal arid tVurld VWyioiui (Ilibbcrt Lecl.), 1SS2 ; Duliin, Tlieu'.itiU der f'rophrten, 1S7.T ; Nestle, Di^ 1st. Kvjrnnam^n (also divine names), 1870 | Baudissin,5fwrfi#nzwr5ir/m/. Rflvjionni-iticlivhU, 187<>-7a ; Koni{^, llanptproitleme der altUr. lWl\>jvjn»j'-»>:h, lSi4 ; Stade, G'lV, lsb7 ; Kittel, //(<(. o/ the //fir««'< (trans. ) ; IJaethj^cn, BritriKje zor Srmit. Iieliifi>,itjf-jesch. 1SS8 ; Montt-rtort-, Lectures on lietvi. of the Uel/rewg (lUh\»^Tl I^eot.), 18;*:i ; Sni'-iid, Lehrtntch der A'l^ lielujionggetich. 1893; W. It. Sniitll, /t.y-, l5:(4; J. Robertson, The Early Helig. 0/ Iisraei^, 1890 ; Tiele, (>Vj.Wi. J. r Beli/iion (CJemi. tran.s.), 189^96 ; Jevons, An Intrnductum t.i the Uuttiriiof ilelvjiim, 1896; Seltin, Beitrage zur Igr. und .Jitt. Jielvjwiu{<tejteh.lfiiity-97 ; Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbnrh il.r lieli'jioiisriegc/t.^ (p. 242 ff. 'Relit;, of Israel," by Valeton), 1M)7 ; Wellhau.sen. Israet, u. Jitdische Geschic/tte^, 1897, I{est<: Arti^'- ischen Ueidenluweg (Skizzen iii.), 1S87, ed. 2, 1897 ; Oltlev, Aspects 0/ the OT (Bampton Lect.), 1897 ; Hominel, ABT, 1897.
A. B. Davidson.
GOD (IN NT).*— The main object of this art. must be to draw in broad outline the doctrine of God in the NT, so as to show more particularlj' what new elements are added, and what old elements are specially developed or empha,sized. The details of the subject may be left to the special arts., but it is important to mark distinctly those points in which NT presents an advance upon OT.
With this object in view, our inquiry will naturally follow some such lines as these —
I. TK.S'bF,N'CIKS OP CONTKMPOBARY JUDAISM.
1. Monism.
2. Trans^;endence.
3. Particularist Limitationa IL Tbachinu of NT.
1. Attributes of Ood-
(i.) Fatherhood, (ii.) Love, (iii.) Righteousneaa.
2. Revelation of God-
(i.) Throui,-li the Son. (ii.) Through the Holy Ohort. S. Distinctions in the Godhead, (i.) The Father and the Son. (ii.) The Holy Ghost.
I. Tendkncih.s of Contemporary Judaism.— It is imjio-ssible not to be impressed by the intense and passionate loyalty of Jews to the idea of (iod as they conceived that it had been handed down to them. The reiaidiation of idolatry could not have been more complete. It was this uncompromising monotheism which formed at once the larfjest and the purest element in the antipathj- which tlie Jews felt for the heathen world, and in their impatience of its domination. The well-known instance of Caligula's attempt to set up his statue in the temple shows how the whole nation was stirred to its depths bv the threat of such a sacrilege (Philo, Lc<7. ad Gaium, §§ 32-43; Jos. Ant. xvill. viii. '2-9, ijJ II. X. 1-3). And smaller incident-, like the hewing down of the golden eagle from the gate of the temple under Her<Kl {Ant. XVII. vi. 2, BJ I. xxxiii. "2-4), and that of Pilate and the shields (.•lH^ Will. iii. 1, JIJ II. ix. 2.3; Philo, ar/ G. § :!S), illustrate the jealousy with which the slightest approach of heathen profanation was resisted.
Christian apologists have often done scant justice to the intensity of this faith, which was utterly disinterested and capable of magnilicent self-
♦ Tlie writ4'r of this portion of the art. very much n-inet" thai he liiu not hod the advantu^ of ■«olui{ tiiu provioua |urtio« lH>forc writing.
eacrifice. Those who believe most firmly that the Christian creed is an advance upon it are yet bound to recognize that it formed the base, broad and deep, on which that creed has been built. Judaism with all its faults and with all its cor- ruptions was yet the religion of the Chosen People. However imperfectly it embodies the leading principles of rsalmists and Prophets, it yet had those principles l)ehind it. It made great mistakes in the estimate and in the interpretation of its own past, but these very mistakes would seem to have been honest, and in the first instance at least mis- takes of the head rather than of the heart.