The world outside of Christ is described as lying in the evil one (1 Jn 5''), of the evil one, children of the devil (3'°) ; but Christ is the propitiation for the whole world (2-) ; and as the love of God is manifested in sending his Son to be a propitiation for our sins (4'°), it is implied that God's fatherly love has a universal aspect, though all men are not really, in St. John's view, God's children.
LiTERATiTRK. — The subject of our BODsbip to God has not been much discussed until recent times, though it came incidentally into consideration in connexion with the Sonship of Christ, aa in Athanosius' Orat. agst. Ariang (esp. Or. ii.), and in the systems of theology, as in Calvin's Inst. (l. xiv. 18, n. xiii. 1, 111. ii. 23), and practical treatises, as Thomas Goodn-in's On the Work of the lioly Ghost. In modern times such writers as F. D. Maurice, F. W. Robertson, etc., have made great use of the idea that all men are children of God, to exclude the doctrine of God's judicial dealings. R. 8. Candlish discussed the subject in his Cunningham Lectures on the Fatherhood of God, maintaining that sonship belongs to believers, and is founded on that of Christ. T. J. Crawford in his Fatherhood of God criticised these positions, and maintained a twofold son- ship — one universal, founded on Creation, and another special, bestowed on believers in Christ. Another work that appeared at the same time is The Diirine Fatherhood, by C. U. H. Wright, taking mainly Dr. Candlish's view. The other side is strcnglj maintained in A. M. Fairbaim's Chritl in ilodem Thectogy.
GUD FORDID
GODLINESS
^21
In tliL-se discussions the subject was connected more or less with farreaOiing q-icstions or systematic theology, and the notion of sonship to God plays an important part in the Dftg- matik o( R. A. Lipsms. Its exeifeticiil discussion belon^'s pro- perly to the Bib. Theol. of the NT, ari<l reference may be made to the works, on that subject, of Schmid, Weiss, Beyschlag, also to Wcndt'8 Teaching o/ Jesus, and to Bruce's The KiwjJuin of (Jod and St. Paul's Conception of I'hrislianitj/. There is a very interesting special study of St. Taul'sconception of atloption lo relation to Kom. law by W. E. Hall in the Contemp. Kto. A"?- l**"!- J. S. CANDLISn.
GOD FORBID.— See Forbid.
GODHEAD. — This word occurs three times in AV. Ac IT-^* ' We ou''ht not to think tliat the Godhead ia like unto ko'". or silver, or stone, {jraven by art and man's device ' (Gr. to deioi') ; Ko l'" ' For the invisible thinjjs of hira from tlie creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ' (Gr. SeiirTpt) ; Col 2'' ' For in him dwelloth all the fulness of the (Joilhe.ad bodily' (Gr. OeorTjs). In each case the Gr. word is approiiriately em- l)loyed, and the one could not have tieen u.sed for the other, .so that to give 'Godhead' as the tr° of them all is most unhappy.
In Ac 17^ Ti OeTov, 'the Di>'ine,' is chosen by St. Paul in his speech to the Athenians as a familiar philosophical expression which enables him
to carry their thoughts easily with him. Even they, with scarcely a personal conception of God, o\iglit not to debase tlu'ir conception to the level of men's handiwork. Hence KVm ' that which is divine' is better than tc.xt 'the Godhead,' though 'the Divine' would have been better. Wj-c. errs on the other side when he oilers ' godly thing ' (after Vvilg. Divinum). Tindale gave ' godheil,' and was followed by all the Versions e.xcept the Uhcmish, which has 'the Divinitie,' though 'Godhead' is given as an alternative in the Annotation to the verse. The Gr. expression occurs nowhere
else in biblical Greek, though the adj. tfeiot is commo ' divine ').
is common in LXX and occurs in 2
10 aui.
op !». 4
(EV
Lightfoot (on Col 2') expresses the difference between deiSrrit and Belirrt^ thus : OeiiTti! is the quality, fleAnjt the essence of God. The distinction 18 best seen hy observing that Se&rrji comes from <?eis ' God,' while SfciTT)! comes from ffelos 'Divine.' Therefore Sanday - Headlam (on Ko I'-") more happily: 9ecrT7)s = Divine Personality, ^ei4j-7)s = Divine nature and properties (cf. Bengel [on Col 2'J : ' Non modo divinoe virtutes, eed ipsa divina natura,' and see Trench, iVy Synontjms, p. 6 tf. ). It is at once seen how ajipropriately St. Paul uses Sd/rrri^ in Ko !•'" where he speaks of such attributes of God as can be read in the book of Nature ; and how appropriately eeiT-q^ in Col 2" where he a.sserts of the Son that in Him dwells the fulness of the entire (revealed and unrevealed) Personality of God. The Latin Versions were forced to use divinitns for both words. But its insuMieiency to represent Bei/T-qt was early felt, and Augustine says (/>(' Civ. Dei, vii. I) : ' Hanc divinitatem vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem : nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non jiiget, ut de Gra>co expiessius trans- feraiit id (juoii illi 0e!m}Ta appellant.' The same feeling is now finding expression in English, and theologians prefer to speak of the Deity rather than of the Divinity ot Christ, since the former word alone gives Him the full PersDnality of God. The Eng. Versions fioiu Wyclif to AV make no distinction, but use ' Godlieinl ' at both places, ex- cept that the Khem. NT has • Divinitie' at Ho l". Yet Beza (on Col 2°) had shown the distinction : 'Non dicit, ttiv OftimjTa, id est divinitatem, setl rijv Btirrrra, id est deitatem.' I.uther also was content with 'Gottheit' fur Ixitli words; but De W'elto gives" ' tioKJicI ki'it ' for fl«i .rijs ; \\\\\\r Wii/sickcr