Gl-Gy

GLAD TIDINGS (ευaγγελizεsθai (yoo ag gel iz es thah ee, to show, declare,    

        or bring glad tidings) No distinction is made between religious and secu-

        lar usage. The Revised Standard Version replaced “tidings” with “news”

        in all the New Testament passages. In the Middle Ages the term “good 

        news” was the common, popular designation of the Gospel. To English 

        Protestants the term “glad tidings” appeared to be the most appropriate 

        expression for the Christian message, which comes from God and exhi-

        larates humankind and drives out anxiety and despair. 

GLASS  (זכוכית (zek oo keeth), crystal)    1.  The well-known transparent or

        translucent substance.  Glass was considered by the Hebrews as a pre-

        cious substance.  Because of defective industrial processes no sizable 

        glass containers were manufactured prior to the Roman period; glass 

        sticks of various colors, reheated & welded together, were fashioned 

        as pearls and elements of necklaces or other trinkets. 

                    Small vases for perfumes and unguents were obtained by wel-

        ding sticks of glass around a core of sand and clay built around a bar of 

        metal.  Greek traditions, however, locate the glass industry's origin in 

        Phoenicia; numerous glass objects were found there.  Certain articles of

        transparent glass, which have become iridescent because of oxidation,

        date from the Greek period.  The glass beads & vases found in Palestine

        can't be distinguished from Egyptian and Phoenician articles.  They are

        probably imports; there is no evidence of a local glass industry in bib-

        lical Palestine.

                    2.  The King James Version use “glass” to translate the Hebrew 

        word for “mirror,” even though ancient mirrors were made of polished 

        metal, and glass mirrors weren't invented until late Roman times.  The 

        Hebrew word galayanim is also translated as “glass” (mirrors) in Isaiah

         3.  The root of this Hebrew word suggests something shiny or transpa-

        rent without any further precision.  

GLAZING.  The potter’s glazing probably refers to the process of smearing with 

        paint, after which the smeared vessel was polished. 

GLEANING  (לקט (la kat), gather)  The practice of gathering or picking up 

        what was left in the field after reaping; the term also includes gathering 

        grapes or olives.  Hebrew law prohibited an owner from cleaning up his

        own field, so that there would be provision for the poor. 

GLEDE  (ראה (ra ‘aw), kite (bird))  This term is properly applied only to the

        red kite. 

GLORY (כבוד (kaw bode), honor; הלל (ha lal), shine; תפארה (tif ‘aw raw),

        splendor; δοξα (do eksa), honorable consideration; καυχαομαι (kow kha 

        om ahee), boast, rejoice, exult)  No fewer than 25 Hebrew words are ren-

        dered by the Greek word doxa in the Greek Old Testament; three of those

        are given above.  Kabod is “weight, importance, consideration,” and the 

        things that show people as possessing glory.  Though “glory” often expres-

        ses an outward and spectacular showing of human nature, it is also indica-

        tive of inner qualities, & of the spiritual endowment of man’s inner nature.

                    Early conceptions of the glory descriptive of Yahweh’s acts & might 

        achieved deeper significance in Isaiah, & later a more physical interpreta-

        tion in the visions of Ezekiel.  The association of glory with the Ark of the 

        Covenant is clear & belongs to the Early Monarchy days. In Psalm 29, the

        word perhaps referred to the Deity's character as it was manifested in the 

        storm, or to some liturgical act performed in the temple.  The 2 occurrences

        of the “glory” in Isaiah are also connected with the temple, & Ezekiel sees 

        in vision the divine glory as the appearance of brightness. 

G-39

              In the priestly writings which make up part of the first 5 Old Testa-

        ment books, the glory appears as a fiery presence associated with Sinai.  

        The idea of glory is closely connected with the cult, & also belongs to the 

        revelation of God in history and in nature.  How close the connection of 

        glory is with Presence & God is shown by the fact that “glory” and “God” 

        occasionally become synonymous.  Glory also became closely associated 

        with the coming of the New Age.  It will come to the temple, and New 

        Jerusalem will possess an abundant supply of it.  This glory will be univer-

        sally feared and known, and Israel will become God’s glory. 

                  In the New Testament, the first gospel uses the Greek doxa in a vari-

        ety of ways:  Solomon’s glory; the glory of the world’s kingdom seen in 

        the temptation story; a description of the brilliant display of the divine pre-

        sence; & most notably the appearance of Jesus in his transfiguration. The

        Gospel of John shows the glory of God’s Word being uniquely manifested 

        in Jesus, & that it belonged to Jesus before the creation of the world.  It is 

        his because he seeks God’s glory, and he will return to it.

                   In certain passages that Paul wrote, the Revised Standard Version 

        still uses the word “glory,” where “boast” or something similar would have

        been better. Paul begins theo-centrically, with the thought man is the image

        & glory of God, and that woman is the glory of man.  The churches, too, 

        are the glory of Christ, for they both reflect and promote the glory of their 

        Lord.

                   Glory is for Paul something that properly belongs to God, even if 

        the idea can be employed to illumine human relationships.  God is the 

        Source and Lord of glory, for glory belongs to God.  God's glory is given in

        the face of Jesus Christ; God’s glory has become visible in a person and on

        that person’s face, just as it used to be manifest in Israel in the tabernacle.  

        “Glory” is a description for the manifest perfection of God in all his com-

        plete goodness and saving grace.

                   There is glory in God in Christ & in Christians, & the glory in Chris-

        tians is Christ in them, and this in turn is the hope of glory.  Christ’s glory 

        is given & will be fully given at the end of world.  Glory is thus in Paul an 

        experience that is preparation for & part of the New Age.  Paul’s glory is an

        attribute of nature, of men and women in their natural and Christian estate, 

        of the churches, and especially of God and Christ in their activity in the 

        world and in the church. 

                   In the Letter to the Hebrews, the word appears in several mea-

        nings.  It describes humankind’s glory, and Jesus, who also for a time con-

        descended to be lower than the angels, is now himself crowned with glory.  

        The cherubim of glory are a part of the total glory of the Presence.  In the 

        letters attributed to Peter & his disciples, the references to glory are mostly 

        God-centered and concern the coming of the New Age.

                    In the Revelation 18, “splendor” translates the Greek “glory” of an

        angel illumining the earth.  The remaining references are God-centered & 

        relative to worship.  God is the glorious center of heaven & attracts glory 

        from all classes of the assembled company.  The heavenly glory is also 

        gracious, for it is the center not only of heaven but also of the New Jerusa-

        lem.  In that holy city which descended from heaven, the glory of God is 

        its sun.  In Revelation, as in the rest of the New Testament, the fact of the 

        Incarnation has given an irrevocable stamp to the image of God's glory. 

GLUTTONY (צולל (tso lel), squanderer, prodigal; φαγος (fa gos))  The word 

        “gluttony is not used in the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament.

                  In New Testament usage the word is intended as a term of general  

        opprobrium.  A glutton may therefore be one who is voracious or one 

        who proves to be a scoundrel because of an inordinate fondness for some 

        specified object or pursuit. 

GNATS  (כן (kane), lice; κwnwψ (ko nopes) )  It is uncertain whether the gnat, 

        mosquito, or yet another insect is meant.  Some possibilities: the Harves-

        ter Gnat; the Anopheles Mosquito; the transmitter of malaria; & the sand  

        fly. The last is a carrier of dengue fever and an intruder into the sleeping 

        rooms of Egypt.

                   In the New Testament, straining out a gnat is used as a metaphor 

        for the meticulous observance of self-imposed ceremonial trifles. 

G-40

GNOSTICISM  A modern term used to indicate a group of religious concepts

        found during the 100s A.D. & later.  These concepts include: beliefs in the 

        innate immortality of a divine spark, differentiated from body and soul; the

        necessity for the escape of this element to its source, an unknown god; the 

        control of the visible universe by evil spirits; & the bringing of knowledge 

        (gnosis) about the unknown god by a redeemer. 

                   The earliest testimonies we possess for the existence of Gnosticism 

        come from the 100s A.D., and from heretical groups rather loosely related 

        to the Christian church.  These groups made use of the Pauline letters and 

        of the Gospel of John.  Since the Pauline letters and John’s Gospel have 

        things in common with both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings on the  

        coming of the next age, these New Testament (NT) writings could have 

        arisen apart from Gnosticism.

                   The examination of Gnosticism is split between scholars who take 

        late systems in which various elements are combined & then showing that

        aspects of these themes are to be found earlier, & those scholars who in-

        sist upon a fairly chronological analysis and refuse to admit that later deve-

        lopments can explain what earlier writers had in mind.  

                   Other controversies have concerned the source of Gnostic thought, 

        which have been found in Iranian and Egyptian religion, in Judaism, in 

        Christianity, and in Greek philosophy & astrology; it is likely that all these 

        elements contributed to it.   A further question is:  Did their myths arise be-

        fore philosophical interpretations?  Or were the myths simply poetic ways     of expressing philosophical theological doctrines?  Most likely different 

        Gnostic systems arose in different ways and went by names other than 

        “Gnostic.”  In dealing with Gnosticism it is therefore necessary to examine

        the various systems. 

                   The early theologian Irenaeus first describes the system from Anti-

        och ascribed to Simon Magus.  Simon is said to have regarded himself as 

        Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and his followers were saved by his grace, not

        by works of law.  One of his disciples named Menander, soon produced his

        own doctrine.  He may well have been providing an alternative to Christian

        doctrine known to him at Antioch. 

                   Another system from Antioch is the doctrine of Saturninus, which 

        held that the supreme deity was completely unknown, but that Christ was 

        the Savior.  The supreme power made spiritual beings who made the world.

        They tried to copy a “luminous image” from above, and were only partly 

        successful until a “spark of life” came down to animate their creation.  

        Christ came to destroy all the spiritual beings, and men hostile to the 

        supreme being.  The law was given by the inferior spiritual beings; the pro-

        phets were also inspired by them.  The inferior beings included both Satan 

        and the God of the Jews.

                   In the systems of Simon and Menander there is a female principle, 

        God's Thought, perhaps derived from the Wisdom literature of Proverbs 

        and Ecclesiasticus.  Saturninus’ system contains no female principle, 

        & he advocates extreme asceticism.  In these systems from Antioch, there

        is a supreme & unknown god who has come to liberate men from the bon-

        dage of a wicked world.  Redemption is produced by knowledge of this libe-

        ration rather than by ordinary moral behavior; the followers of Simon live in 

        freedom in the world, while those of Saturninus live in freedom from the 

        world.  

                   The notion that the supreme god was completely unknown apart 

        from his revelation in Jesus, and that the prophets were inspired by an infe-

        rior being, was taken over and developed by the famous heretic Marcion.  

        For him, the Old Testament (OT) Creator, and the NT Father of Jesus were 

        two gods.  Marcion was probably attempting to free Roman Christianity of 

        its Jewish heritage at a time just after the disastrous Jewish revolt.

                   At the same time, Valentinus, came to Rome & set forth a doctrine 

        revealed to us his Gospel of Truth.  In it there is little emphasis on the hea-

        venly “aeons,” and the supreme God isn't separated from the Creator.  The 

        12th and lowest of these “aeons” was the female Sophia.  She fell into the 

        outer darkness, where she conceived spontaneously and brought forth a 

        premature infant who was our universe’s creator.  This creator regarded 

        himself as the only god there was; he constantly struggled with Sophia for 

        control over humankind, since she had inserted a divine spark or spirit into 

        humans.  Jesus was sent down to collect the scattered spiritual seeds & to 

        restore them to the “pleroma,” or completeness of spiritual being in the 

        “aeons” above. 

                   The Valentinian system is dualistic, but it is less dualistic than that 

        of Saturninus.  The emphasis on John’s Gospel among the Valentinians is 

        significant.  It suggests that Gnostics recognized proto-Gnostic ideas in the

        traditional portrait of John’s thought & developed in their way.  The Valen-

        tinians recognized 3 classes of men: material or fleshly (pagans); animate 

        or psychic (Christians); and spiritual (themselves).

                   Quite a different type of Gnostic thought is represented by Basilides.

        He taught that originally there was absolutely nothing.  A nonexistent god 

        then produced a nonexistent seed out of nothing.  From this seed there 

        proceeded various kinds of existent things, including a “3-fold Sonship” 

        whose goal was to return to the nonexistent god.  When the spiritual ele-

        ments have all gone back above, oblivion will come over the earth, & there 

        will be no further salvation.  Basilides did not attract so many followers as 

        Valentinus did.

G-41

            Later Gnostic systems were essentially combinations of the elements

        found earlier.  Much of early Gnosticism was supplanted by the rise of 

        Manicheism, which had the belief that one was essentially a part of God, a

        divine spark, and that nothing one did in the evil world made much differ-

        ence.  Gnostic use of finding hidden meaning in the Bible meant that Gnos-

        tics could claim to have the true explanations of difficult passages. 

                   The writings which preceded Gnosticism probably had an influence 

        on NT writing, but it has never been shown that before the 100s A.D. there 

        was a figure of a Gnostic redeemer.  It is likely that the crystallization of  

        Gnostic doctrine which included a redeemer is due to the influence of 

        Christian interpretations of Jesus, the Gnostic redeemer was described in 

        cosmic terms different from those employed by Christians.  Much of the 

        debate over the question whether Gnosticism is to be found in the NT is a 

        matter of definition.  While Paul prefers to speak of being known by God 

        rather than knowing him, John is willing to say that “this eternal life, that 

        they know thee the only true God, & Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”  

        Valentinian Gnosticism grew out of heterodox Judaism.  John's Gospel is 

        close to both.

                   It seems likely that the study of Gnosticism will be concerned with 

        the ways in which it developed out of the wreckage of Judaic beliefs in the 

        coming of a new age.  Gnosticism seems to have arisen in an environment 

        where people had abandoned an expectation of God’s immediate action.  

        It's significant that we seem to encounter 2 waves of Gnostic teaching, the 

        first after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the second after the Jews' bloody

        defeat in 135 A.D.  Gnosticism may be a reaction from apocalyptic Juda-

        ism, which led its proponents toward their almost universal hostility toward

        the God of the Jews. 

GOAD  (מלמד (ma law mad); teach)  A pointed stick used for driving or gui-

        ding cattle especially oxen.  “Goad” is also used metaphorically: The words 

        of the wise are as goads urging men on to better works. 

GOAH  (געה (go ‘aw), lowing)  A quarter or suburb, of Jerusalem, presuma-

        bly to the east or southeast of the hill Gareb.  It is mentioned in the prophe-

        cy of Jeremiah 31:39 on the restoration of the city. 

GOAT  (עז (aze))  A hollow-horned ruminant mammal allied to the sheep but of 

        lighter build.  The goat of biblical Palestine was probably the Syrian or 

        Mamber variety, commonly black in color.

                   Goats were the principal source of the milk used in Israel; their flesh

        served as meat, their hair as raw material for a fabric used for tents, their 

        tanned skins as leather, and their whole hides as skin bottles.  Goats were 

        a recognized form of wealth, & the size of the flocks indicated the owner’s 

        status in the community.

                   As a sacrificial animal, a goat had to be at least 8 days old before it 

        could be offered to Yahweh; a year-old male is specified for the Passover 

        in Exodus 12. Most allusions to goats as offerings relate to specific kinds 

        of sacrifice or to particular occasions.  The most striking use of goats in the

        Jerusalem cult was the Day of Atonement, when it was used as a scape-

        goat for all the people.  The he-goat typifies various human leaders.  In 

        Matthew 25, sheep and “kids” represent the righteous and the wicked. 

GOATSKIN  (תחש (tah khesh), badgers’ skins in King James Version; aiγεi-

        οn δερμa (ahee gie on  derma)  The skin of a goat presumably tanned.

        In Ezekiel 16, takhesh is a leather from which a woman’s shoes are made.  

       Elsewhere it is part of a phrase which appears to mean a kind of leather, 

        used as a covering for the tabernacle, the ark, and various other sacred ob-

        jects.  There is no satisfactory etymology for takhesh. Whatever meaning 

        the word may once have had was unknown to the primary Greek Old Testa-

        ment.  In the New Testament, goat-skins are mentioned in Hebrews 11 as 

        part of the destitution which the saintly men and women endured. 

GOB  (גוב, locust)  A place of unknown location at which 2 battles were fought

        with the Philistines by David (II Samuel 21). In the parallel story of I Chroni-

        cles 20, Gezer, rather than Gob is the location of the battle. 

GOBLETS (כלים (kal yeem), vessels)  At Ahasuerus’ banquet, drinks were 

        served in various kinds of gold goblets.  

 G-42

GOD, NAMES OF.  The name of God is the key to understanding the biblical 

        doctrine of God.  God’s revelation in history is accompanied by the giving 

        of his personal name, by which his people may worship & address him as 

        “Thou.”  God’s name signifies the personal relation between God and peo-  

        ple. For Israel, God’s personal name is Yahweh.  The other divine names, 

        many of them borrowed from ancient religious usage, have been redefined 

        in the light of Yahweh’s historical revelation. 

                  List of Topics—1. Relation of the Name to the Person;      

      2. Yahweh, Covenant Name;      3.  Sacred Name's (יהןה,    YHWH) Origin;       4. Names of God Borrowed by Israel;      

      5. Titles Used to Describe God;      6. Descriptive Expressions

        for God.

                   1. Relation of the Name to the Person —In the episode of the 

        “burning bush,” Moses asked for the name he would give his countrymen 

        to identify God.  In the ancient world, it was important to know what kind

        of god people were dealing with.  For unless the god’s name were known, 

        it was impossible to enter into relationship with God & invoke God in 

        worship.  

                   First, we must understand the psychological significance of a per-

        sonal name.  In modern usage, names are convenient labels by which we 

        differentiate one thing from another, one person from another.  In the an-

        cient world, a person’s self was expressed and contained in his name.  It 

        could also be said that one’s name was their very self.  Thus, when a radi-

        cal change in a person’s character took place, they were given a new 

        name, like Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel.

                   Likewise, God’s self, God’s real person, is concentrated in God’s 

        name.  The divine name is laden with the authority, power, and holiness 

        of God.  This accounts for the great reverence for the name.  According to

        the 10 Commandments, Yahweh’s name must not be taken in vain.  God’s 

        name, being filled with God’s very self, is active and powerful, for it is 

        the sign of his real presence in the midst of his people.  

                   2. Yahweh, Covenant Name—The disclosure of God’s name then,

         is the index to understanding biblical faith.  Israel’s view of God doesn't 

        find expression in a vague God-consciousness, but in God’s revelation in 

        person.  Christian faith affirms that God’s name was manifested in Jesus 

        Christ.  When Jesus says “I have manifested thy name,” the meaning is 

        that his mission was to reveal the very character and purpose of God. 

                   The disclosure of God’s name is inseparable from historical experi-

        ences in which the divine presence and purpose were revealed to Israel.  

        According to the tradition, the personal name, Yahweh, was introduced by 

        Moses at the time of the Exodus.  Israel knows who God is: the One who 

        rescued his people from Egyptian bondage.  Israel’s faith represented a 

        radically new kind of response to divine reality, a unique covenant commu-

        nity with its distinctive worship, historical understanding, and sense of 

        ethical responsibility.  It is therefore highly significant that God’s new reve-

        lation was tied closely to the disclosure of a new name.

                   The decisive new beginning in the Mosaic period is obscured by the 

        present Pentateuch narratives.  The Yahwist narrative traces worship of 

        Yahweh far back beyond the period of Moses to the time of Enosh,  Adam's

        grandson. This is an attempt to view the whole of human history in the light

        of the covenant faith & to demonstrate that Yahweh is not just the God of 

        Israel, but of all humankind. 

                   The Priestly writing gives a completely different view in Exodus 6: 

        “I am Yahweh.  I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Al-

        mighty [El Shaddai], but by my name Yahweh I didn't make myself known 

        to them.”  It seems that in this instance, the Priestly writer is bound by an 

        old and reliable tradition.  This conjecture is confirmed by a 3^rd tradition, 

        the Elohist writer, which avoids using Yahweh in the book of Genesis. The 

        God who spoke to Moses was the patriarchs’ God.  But the Elohist and 

        Priestly traditions are undoubtedly correct in stressing the break between 

        the patriarchal and Mosiac periods.  Knowledge of God, signified by this 

        name, was based on Moses’ prophetic interpretation of the Exodus' 

        meaning. 

                   3. Sacred Name's (יהןה, YHWH) Origin—In the earliest Hebrew

        the sacred name appeared as a 4-letter word: YHWH, without any vowels.  

        Since the vowels were added very late, the Old Testament (OT) itself gives

        no clue to its original pronunciation.  Some help, however, is given by the 

        early church fathers in the 200s & 300s A.D. It isn't even certain that “Yah-

        weh was the name's oldest form.  A short form, “Yah” appears 25 times in 

        the OT, especially in the cultic cry “halleluyah” or “praise Yah.”  Since the

        four-letter word is found in some of the oldest OT texts, as well as extra-

        biblical documents like the Moabite Stone or the Lachish Letters, it is pro-

        bable that the original cultic form of the name was “Yahweh,” which oc-

        curs about 6,800 times in the OT.

                   One theory as to the sacred name’s origin is the Kenite hypothesis.  

        In this theory, Moses became acquainted with the name through associa-

        ting with Jethro’s Kenite family.  It was while Moses was tending Jethro’s 

        flocks in the vicinity of Mount Sinai that Yahweh was revealed.  To this 

        “holy ground” Moses led the Hebrews after the Exodus.  Although this 

        hypothesis has much in its favor, it is based on several inferences from the 

        biblical text and it gives only one explanation of the source from which 

        Moses drew the sacred name. The important question is the new content 

        which the name acquired through Moses’ interpretation. 

G-43

              Since the OT itself makes no attempt to explain the Tetragramma-

        ton's meaning, it is not surprising that scholars have been unable to reach 

        agreement on its linguistic meaning.  According to one view, there's no 

        meaning, because originally the name was only an emotional ejaculation 

        or solemn cultic cry.  The majority view is that we're dealing with a word.  

                   Some commentators find in the imperfect tense of the verb “to be” 

        the conception of Israel’s God as “the One who is,” or the absolute and 

        unchangeable God.  It has also been proposed that the Tetragrammaton is 

        derived from Arabic ’HWY in its allegedly basic meaning of showing 

        passionate love.  Another theory is that the verb means “cause to fall, 

        fell,” referring either to rain or lightning or to the destruction of foes, 

        perhaps indicating that Yahweh was originally a storm-god.

                   The theory which perhaps has aroused the greatest interest is that 

        the word is from havah, meaning “come to pass, or come into being.” 

        Yahweh is the one who causes to be what comes to pass. This is how the 

        divine name is explained in Exodus 3, but the origin’s explanation, “I am

        who [or what] I am” is rather opaque.  One explanation is “I am here, 

        really present, ready to help.”  Yahweh’s being is not passive or abstract, 

        but is God’s being present.  The other explanation is: I cause to be what 

        comes to be, i.e. Yahweh, the Creator of all.

                   In either case, Exodus 3 does not give a philosophical definition 

        of God in terms of eternal, changeless, passive Being.  The passage’s 

        context sets forth the conviction that Yahweh is the active God.  Yahweh 

        is the God who manifests himself as Israel’s redeemer, whose power 

        humiliates the mightiest ruler of the day, and who calls nature’s forces 

        into the service of God’s historical purpose.  It is rather striking that the 

        Yahweh etymology is not mentioned again, nor is it referred to anywhere

        else in the OT.

                   The best argument is that the passage is intentionally evasive and 

        cryptic, because knowledge of the name, it was feared, would give one 

        power over the deity.  Moses’ query was rebuked with a cryptic reply, for

        he was summoned to serve the God who is free to act as he will, and 

        promised that he would know who God is by the mighty acts that God 

        would perform.  Whatever it meant once, it acquired concrete content 

        through the historical experiences of Israel.  The witness of Israel’s faith is

        based on the historical evidence that Yahweh reveals Yahweh’s name 

        through Yahweh’s mighty deeds.  

                  4. Names of God Borrowed by Israel—While personal names com-

        pounded with “Yahweh” appear from Moses' time on, the biblical tradition 

        indicates that they were lacking in the pre-Mosaic period.  The religion de-

        signated by the expression “the God of the fathers” was undoubtedly poly-

        theistic.  This is implied by the Priestly writer’s statement that Yahweh 

        made himself known as El Shaddai, & perhaps also by the Elohist practice 

        of using the Semitic name Elohim.  Israel’s ancestors transmitted general 

        Semitic divine names from a time when there were many gods.

                   El (אל) is the Semitic name for “God” or “deity”; apparently its root 

        meaning is “power.”  Basically the word designates the divine power that 

        fills men with awe and dread.  During the patriarchal period El was wor-

        shipped as a high God, the Canaanite pantheon’s chief god. Personal 

        names in the book of Genesis with the word “God” in them, contain the ele-

        ment “El,” and none have Yahweh.”  This is strong evidence of depen-

        dence of Israel’s faith upon a Semitic heritage as transmitted through 

        Canaanite cult centers.

                   After Moses' time, the name El continued in use within Israelite cir-

        cles.  The use of “El” in Job reflects the sage’s concern for God’s relation to

        humans as human, rather than for the particular historical revelation asso-

        ciated with the name Yahweh.  This name doesn't always refer to the Cana-

        anite father of the gods, but is used as an indefinite reference to deity.

                   El Shaddai (אל שדי)  This probably meant “God, the one of the 

        mountain(s);” he was the patriarchs' chief El, probably the god of the moun-

        tains.  In the time of Abraham the deity was identified with the heavenly 

        storm-god, who was often known as Baal among the Canaanites. Thus the 

        name attests to the northwest Mesopotamian (Amorite) background of the 

        patriarchs. 

                   Patriarchal religion was based on a close personal, contractual rela-

        tionship between the leader of a family and the God (El) who manifested 

        himself in a special personal appearance.  The patriarchal god was bound 

        to a family whose leader had chosen him in response to a special visita-

        tion.  The god protects the leader’s family, upholding its social life, and 

        guiding its historical pilgrimage.  After the patriarchal period, “Shaddai” 

        was used as a synonym for “Yahweh.”  Excluding the book of Genesis and 

        Exodus 6, the name occurs elsewhere in the OT 35 times, 29 of which are 

        in the book of Job. 

G-44

            El Elyon  (אל עליון)  This name, or simply Elyon, which means 

        “Exalted One,” “Most High,” in Canaanite usage was a title for the Exal-

        ted One, the highest god of the pantheon, El; it was used in the Jerusalem 

        cult before it became an Israelite city.  The polytheistic associations of the

        name have been refined from the biblical story, for Abraham hastens to 

        identify El Elyon with Yahweh.  Likewise in Balaam's oracles, 3 Canaa-

        nite words for “deity,” “El,” “Shaddai,” & “Elyon”- are grouped together. 

        During the major part of the OT period, however, the name Elyon fell into

        disuse.  In the late postexilic period when there was a strong tendency to

        stress the exalted & transcendent majesty of God, it enjoyed new favor.   

                   El Olam  (אל עולם)  This means “God Everlasting,” “God of 

        Eternity.”  The word ’olam means “everlasting time,” “time whose boun-

        daries are hidden from view.”  It was used in connection with the Beer-

        sheba shrine.  It is perhaps the source of the verse “From everlasting to 

        everlasting thou art God (Psalm 90 and 93).

                   El Bethel (אל בת־אל) Literally, it means “God of the House of 

        God”.  Bethel could be a name for God or God could be identified with 

        the particular shrine at Bethel.

                   El Roi  (אל ראי) It perhaps means “God who sees me,” the name 

        of the spring of Beer-lahai-roi's deity, who protected Hagar in the desert. 

                   El Berith  (אל ברית)  The name “God of the Covenant,” appears 

        in Judges 9, as the Shechem covenant alliance's God.  Presumably the 

        Shechem covenant tradition precedes the covenant alliance which 

        Joshua made at the place.  The Shechem tradition, then, is eloquent 

        witness to incorporation of earlier Canaanite religious conceptions 

        into the Israelite faith. 

                   El Elohe-Israel  (אל אלהי ישראל)  As another name connec-

        ted with the Shechem covenant tradition, this word means,  “El, God of 

        Israel.”  Jacob purchased a plot of land by the city of Shechem & there 

        built an altar to the El identified as the “God of Israel.”  Israel as a peo-

        ple came into being with the formation of the 12- tribe confederacy in 

        the time of Joshua. 

                   In summary, all these El names were originally pre-Israelite in 

        their meaning. When the Israelites came into Canaan, they took over 

        these shrines, together with the religious traditions associated with them. 

                   Elohim (אלהים) This word appears frequently in the OT as a 

        name for deity(“God,” “gods”).  Being plural in form, it echoes ancient 

        polytheism.  In the great majority of instances, however, “Elohim” is used 

        in a singular sense, even when the verb is in the plural as in Genesis and

        Exodus.  Elohim includes all gods; the fullness of deity is comprehended 

        in him.  The passage presupposes the conception of the heavenly council.  

        Elsewhere in the priestly account the divine name is accompanied by verbs

        in the singular.

                   The “plural of majesty” was employed in Babylonia and Canaan, in-

        cluding the use of a singular verb.  It is sometimes applied in the OT to the 

        god of another people.  For Israel, Yahweh is not one El among many; he 

        is God absolutely, the Lord of history and nature.  The conviction that Yah-

        weh is Elohim, God in the absolute sense, is emphasized in the Elohistic 

        narratives of the OT's 1st 5 books, so designated because the narrator pre-

        fers to use the divine name Elohim. 

                   Elohim’s use in the priestly creation story is explained by an avoi-

        dance of the special name “Yahweh” before the Mosaic period, and especi-

        ally the author’s avoidance of any hint of polytheism.  In the priestly first 

        chapter of Genesis, Elohim is none other than the God whose personal 

        name, Yahweh, was later revealed. 

                   Eloah  (אלוה)  This is thought to be a singular form related to 

        “Elohim”; it is used mostly in the book of Job.  The name is apparently 

        favored in Job because it is not necessarily laden with the historical conno-

        tations of the “God of Israel.”

                   Baal  (בעל)  Although this word, meaning “lord, owner,” could  

        be used of human leaders,  it is primarily a designation of the Canaanite 

        god of storm and fertility.  In ancient religious usage, the names Baal & 

        El could be used alternatively.  This fact leads one to expect that Baal, like

        El, would have been appropriated by Israel and identified with Yahweh. In 

        the early period of the settlement parents named children after the land-

        god Baal.  Saul and David, named children in this manner.  However, the 

        worship of Baal was based on a religious outlook basically incompatible 

        with the Yahweh faith.

G-45

            Adonai  (ﬢניא, lord)  This title is closely related in meaning to 

        “Baal” and is also of foreign origin.  “Adon” is basically an honorific title.

        It was appropriately used by a subject when speaking to the king.  Thus 

        the title refers to one’s position of authority & prestige, and in this sense 

        could be used as a title in addressing God.  

                   In Israel’s faith, the title belongs to Yahweh. In the postexilic period

        increasing reverence for the name of God made it expedient to safeguard 

        the religious use of “Adon.”  Therefore, the title when used in place of 

        “Yahweh” was written in a distinctive way.  The divine title Adonai was 

        vocalized in a slightly different way than the similar form meaning “my 

        lord’s.”  In the late postexilic period, when Jewish religion emphasized the 

        transcendence & holiness of God, Adonai came to be not just an expres-

        sion of honor & respect, but an expression of God’s absolute lordship (See 

        Lord entry).

                   5. Titles Used to Describe God: Rock (צור (tsur))  It is quite pro-

        bable that the primary meaning was given in the pre-Mosaic period when 

        the patriarchal deity Shaddai, was invested with mountain imagery. Thus 

        the mountain or rock imagery suggested by Tsur has its source in the 

        northwestern Mesopotamian locale, which the patriarchs are connected 

        with.  Israel affirmed that Yahweh is Israel’s Rock.  An important passage 

        in this connection is the so-called Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32).  In 

        Isaiah  26 Yahweh is called an “everlasting rock.”  The King James Ver-

        sion’s translation “Rock of Ages” was the basis of a famous hymn.  In the 

        NT God isn't called “Rock.”

                   Father (אב (ab)), Brother (אח (akh)), Kinfolk (עם (awm))  

        These 3 were used in antiquity to express the very close family relation be-

        tween the deity and his worshipers.  The ancient Semitic background of 

        these words is the view that the god was a blood relative of the clan or 

        family.  It is worth noting that the conception of God as Father is much 

        older than the NT or the rabbinic period.  In Babylonia, worshipers ad-

        dressed the deity as “Father of the Land.”  During the period of the monar-

        chy, father-son imagery was avoided, evidently because it suggested the 

        pagan notion of a physical relationship between the god and the people.  

                   King (מלך (me lech)), Judge (שפט (she fat)), Shepherd 

        (רעה (raw ‘aw))   Out of a political ideology came 3 related terms.  The 

        widespread practice of addressing the deity as King provided metaphorical

        language to express the relation between Yahweh, the Lord and  Israel, 

        whose covenant responsibility was that of servants obeying their sove- 

        reign. The title provides the key to understanding the OT doctrine of 

        God’s Kingdom.

                   The title “Judge,” refers to the function of the ruler.  Moreover, the 

        word “judge” was used for the early leaders of the Israelite confederacy, 

        whose task wasn't just to arbitrate legal disputes (as in the English mea-

        ning) but to get justice for Israel by acting in military crises when the con-

        federacy was threatened.  In the highest sense, Yahweh is Judge, for Yah-

        weh’s actions in history set things right.

                  The title “Shepherd” is also related to the office of kingship.  In the 

        ancient Orient the king was often styled as the shepherd of his people; the 

        term was applied to Yahweh throughout the OT period. In the NT period 

        the same thought appears in the parable of the Shepherd (Luke 15).

                   6. Descriptive Expressions for God: Besides the titles & symbolic 

        names for God, there are a number of descriptive expressions for particu-

        lar traits of God.  “The Living God” (אלהים היים (el oh heem hay  

        yeem)) implies a contrast between Yahweh & other gods, who are power-

        less to save.  Yahweh is the living Lord of history & nature.  At the time of 

        covenant history's fulfillment, Israel will be known as “sons of the living 

        God.”  The same implication is in the oath formula “as Yahweh lives,” or 

        “as I live (when spoken by God).” 

                   “I am First & I am Last” (אני ראשון ואני אחﬧון (‘ah nee  ree 

        shone vah nee  akh ah rone) is an expression used by the writer of the 

        second part of Isaiah to convey the idea of Yahweh’s eternal sovereignty 

        over the whole sweep of time.  The Hebrew word ’olam or “everlasting” 

        suggests time whose boundaries are hidden from human view.  God is the 

        everlasting God who acts within history to accomplish God’s purpose.

                   “The Ancient of Days” (יומין עתיק (at teek  yaw meen) is used in

        a highly symbolic passage (Daniel 7) and is not meant to suggest a literal 

        portrait of God.  The writer means to say that God’s sovereignty extends 

        over all the ages, and that the greatness of God is beyond human compre-

        hension.

                   Unlike other ancient religions and philosophies, which either saw 

        eternity & time in mutual opposition or affirmed that the gods were bound

        within the processes of nature, Israel affirmed that Yahweh, the everlasting 

        God, is dynamically active in the temporal sphere, giving to history its 

        meaning and direction.

G-46

GOD,  OLD TESTAMENT (OT) VIEW OF.  The God of the OT isn't the object of

        human thought but is the Subject, who wills to be the Lord of all human 

        thinking and living.  All of the OT is theology or thinking in relation to the

        God who has revealed God’s self in history.  Israel’s historians knew that 

        to write history is to proclaim God’s deeds rather than to write the people’s

        chronicles.  In the OT, the world is God’s creation in which everything 

        serves God’s purpose; in it humans aren't autonomous beings.  

                   Ethics isn't based on moral principle or human values, but upon obe-

        dience to God whose deeds of justice & mercy have shown humans what 

        is good.  All things and relationships find their meaning in the God who has 

        chosen to reveal God’s self through Israel’s history, from Abraham’s call to,

        from the NT’s perspective, Jesus Christ’s career.

                    List of Topics—1. Israel’s Knowledge of God;     2. Reve-      lation of God;       3. Presence of Yahweh with Yahweh’s People;     4. Revelation, Wisdom, and Human View of God;      5.  Traits of        Yahweh: Holiness;     6. God's Khesed  (Steadfast Love);      

       7. God's Wrath & Righteousness;      8. Purpose of God: Esta-   

       blishing Sovereignty Over a Chosen People;       9. Offering 

       Salvation for God's People & All Humankind           

             1. Israel’s Knowledge of God —The ancient world assumes God’s

        existence and asks the question: who is our God; what is God’s name? In 

        the OT, the Lord of history and creation revealed the Lord’s self to Israel 

        in their history and made a covenant with them; even so, there was ample 

        room for religious doubt.  Such doubts were intense at times precisely be-

        cause they were based upon a sense of the sovereignty of God.

                   The OT has no systematic doctrine of God.  It is therefore wrong to 

        expect an answer to the question of God’s nature, or attributes of God’s 

        being.  God’s self is revealed in God’s historical relations with God’s peo-

        ple.  God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of specu-

        lative thought. OT theology, then is fundamentally historical theology.  

        The vitality of Israel’s faith is lost when the dramatic story of God’s actions

        and the human response is converted into abstractions.  

                   Israel’s faith stands in contrast, not only to speculative thought, but 

        also to the nature religions of antiquity.  People believed that their lives 

        were dependent upon natural powers for the soil’s successful cultivation, 

        fertility of womb and flock, and the blessing of long life and well-being.  

        Nature’s powers were personified as male and female deities & organized 

        into a hierarchy or pantheon.  Humankind’s religious task was to swing into

        the natural rhythm thereby finding harmony, security, and salvation, and 

        ensuring that the balance of power would not be upset. 

                   The incompatibility of this religious outlook with Israel’s historical 

        faith is indicated by the vehement protest against Baalism.  Israel dared to 

        affirm that divine reality isn't encountered in the sphere of nature but in the 

        sphere of historical experience.  The God of Israel was also the Lord of na-

        ture, but first and foremost, Israel’s God was the Lord of history, calling 

        God’s people to decision, faithfulness, and responsible action. It is highly 

        significant that the central motif of the OT is the Covenant, relational term 

        that was drawn from the historical experience of jurisprudence and politics. 

                   The OT is a literary deposit of Israel’s historical experience during a

        period of more than a millennium. It isn't secular, but rather theological his-

        tory, the history of God in action to lead his people toward the fulfillment 

        of God’s purpose.  A succession of prophets arose to interpret the meaning 

        of their contemporary situation in the light of what God had done.  Israel’s 

        worship was a praise of God for God’s majestic power to deliver, protect, 

        & lead God’s people.  The history in the OT didn't show the emergence of

        theological ideas.  Rather, this history is essentially theological in character,

        the medium of God’s self-revelation.

                   2. Revelation of God—That God reveals God’s self is the consis-

        tent  theme of the Bible.  The OT is not the record of human initiative in 

        seeking for & discovering God, since God would elude humankind unless 

        God on God’s own initiative were to reveal God’s self. Revelation means 

        “self-disclosure” by God, rather than data which people discover by 

        investigation.  

                   The presupposition of revelation is that God is hidden from human 

        sight. In part, God’s hiddenness is the expression of God’s transcendence, 

        which is often expressed as God’s true dwelling place not being on earth 

        but in heaven.  Israel affirms that God is not a phenomenon of the human’s

        historical world.  God is invisible to humans.  The hiddenness of God, how-

        ever, isn't just due to God’s exaltation far above the human world; it is also 

        a characteristic of God’s presence in the world.  

                   Even in God’s self-disclosure God remains partially hidden from hu-

        man sight. Prophetic teaching deepened the notion of God’s hiddenness by

        connecting it with the blindness of sin.  In a faithless generation God “hides

        his face,” leaving humans in despair about God’s absence from their world. 

        It is perhaps against this background that we should understand the promi-

        ses made for the end of this age & beginning of the next, in that the “pure

        in Heart’ shall then see God.
             In the OT no limitations are placed on the the God of Israel's sove- 

        reignty.  With increasing clarity humans came to realize that the historical 

        God was actually the Creator and Lord of all humankind.  The OT does not

        face the question of a general revelation to the world as does the New 

        Testament.

G-47

             The central concern of the J(Y)ahwist and Priestly stories is to testify

        how God has chosen to reveal God’s self in order that all may know God. 

        It's doubtful that so-called nature psalms mean to say that nature reveals 

        God clearly to all reasonable people.  Israel knew that “nature” does not in 

        itself clearly and unambiguously reveal God but deludes people into wor-

        shiping the nature gods of storm and fertility.  God speaks in history; the 

        forces of nature are used to bless or judge.  Only from the standpoint of 

        historical revelation could Israel affirm that the Lord of Israel’s history is 

        actually the Creator of the ends of the earth.

                   If God’s primary sphere of revelation is history rather than nature, 

        the question arises as to whether God reveals God’s self in the histories of 

        other peoples.  The Yahwist writer understands the call of Israel within the

        context of an all-embracing divine sovereignty.  Amos insists that Israel’s 

        God brought up the Philistines and the Syrians from their places of origin.  

        Amos insists strongly that Yahweh had known Israel only, and since Israel 

        could not plead ignorance of God’s historical revelation, a great burden of 

        responsibility was placed upon this people.  

                   The writer of the second part of Isaiah understands that divine reve-

        lation is mediated to the nations through Israel.  Other OT passages indi-

        cate that God reveals God’s self to the nations primarily through God’s 

        dealings with Israel. History's goal will be realized when the nations go up

        to Jerusalem in order that they may learn the Torah of the God of Israel. 

                   Thus the OT testifies that God's revelation is bound up with the his-

        tory of the people Israel.  This conviction is underscored by the theological 

        significance of God's special name.  Many ancient religious conceptions 

        were purged and transformed by being brought into the context of Israel’s 

        historical faith; they were identified with the one special name, Yahweh.  

        The name of God signifies the personal relationship between God & Gods’

        people.  God had graciously revealed God’s self personally & concretely to

        1 people, binding them to God’s self in a special relationship. 

                   In a profound sense, the doctrine of Israel’s election lies at the heart 

        of Israel’s faith.  The people were prone to believe that Yahweh was merely

        a national God, whose sovereignty was contingent upon the fortunes of Is-

        rael.  Against this view the prophets raised a mighty protest. They insisted 

        that Israel belonged to Yahweh, not vice versa.  Yahweh could cast them 

        off.  Why Yahweh chose to set Yahweh’s affection upon Israel is left unex-

        plained.  In Israel’s deepest moments of faith, consciousness of election

        wasn't the occasion for boasting,  but for wonder, gratitude, & faith.  Elec-

        tion, like revelation, stresses God’s initiative in making God’s self known 

        within the history of a particular people. 

                   The meaning of Yahweh’s choice of Israel is expressed by an ana-

        logy using the covenant.  The covenant was influenced by treaties between

        greater kings with lesser kings and their subjects in the ancient Near East.  

        The covenant with Israel is a covenant of grace.  The covenant-making 

        story is preceded by the story of what Yahweh had done for God’s people.  

        Even the concise summary of Israel’s covenant responsibilities found in 

        the Decalogue is preceded by a historical prologue.  The covenant, being a

        term of relationship, provides the basis for the knowledge of God, perso-

        nal knowledge given within an I-and-Thou relation, to which the OT bears

        witness.  This knowledge of God involves trust, loyalty, & faithfulness.

                   3. Presence of Yahweh with Yahweh’s People—To tell the story 

        of Yahweh with Yahweh’s people, one would have to review the whole pil-

        grimage and study the various ways in which prophets, priests, and narra-

        tors interpreted the divine action.  Throughout the years, one conviction 

        remained constant:  “Yahweh is with us”; Yahweh is here—not as a mysti-

        cal presence, but as the Leader who goes before Yahweh’s people.

                   The sense of the immediate nearness of Yahweh finds expression in

        various personal appearances that God made to the humans mentioned

        in the OT.  The traditional storm imagery serves to emphasize the holiness

        & majesty of Yahweh’s appearing.  God’s nearness excites the greatest 

        wonder and dread.  Israel’s faith expresses a religious polarity:  Yahweh is

        above and beyond the human’s historical world of time and space; and yet

        Yahweh visits humans and makes Yahweh’s personal presence known.  In 

        Israel’s faith, these 2 emphases are not contradictory; both are experiential 

        elements in the human knowledge of God.

                   Yahweh’s presence was given concrete expression in various ways.

        Early traditions gathered around the Ark of the Covenant, a wooden chest 

        which was regarded as the throne where Yahweh was seated invisibly.  

        Enthroned upon the ark, Yahweh acted as their guide during the wilder-

        ness wandering.  When the ark was captured by the Philistine, this was a 

        dismal crisis; it was believed that “the glory has departed from Israel.”

                   According to a different type of tradition, Yahweh came down from

        heaven now and then in a cloud to the tent of meeting in order to meet 

        Moses & to speak with him “face to face.”  While the ark signified God’s 

        abiding presence, the tent symbolized God’s holy distance from God’s peo-

        ple.  Priestly tradition combines both views by saying that the ark was 

        housed in the tabernacle.

G-48

             The notion that Yahweh is surrounded by a council of heavenly be-

        ings who do his bidding is found throughout the OT.  Of particular interest

        are a number of passages which identify the messenger with Yahweh.  The

        angel appears in human guise, but not in a genuine incarnation.  In this 

        way the tradition attempts to express both Yahweh’s heavenly lordship and

        Yahweh’s personal presence in the world.

                   The ultimate background of the conception of God’s face is the prac-

        tice of beholding a deity’s statue in the temple.  The expression “to see the 

        face of God” came to mean in a general sense appearing at the sanctuary 

        or having communion with God.  Yahweh’s face came to signify Yahweh’s 

        gracious help and presence.  Though Yahweh’s heavenly lordship is main-

        tained, Yahweh’s presence leads and saves Yahweh’s people.

                   In priestly circles, Yahweh's glory is a characteristic theme.  Yah-

        weh’s glory is not only his honor and majesty as disclosed in Yahweh’s 

        mighty deeds and kingly rule; it is a fiery envelope of light which shields 

        Yahweh from sight.  In Deuteronomic circles the ancient notion of Yah-

        weh’s enthronement upon the ark was replaced by the theology of the 

        name. Yahweh causes the name to dwell in Yahweh’s sanctuary.  Since in 

        ancient psychology, the name was the bearer of a person’s self, this was 

        tantamount to saying that Yahweh, without being localized or limited to a 

        particular space, was truly present with Yahweh’s people.

                   4. Revelation, Wisdom, & Human View of God—The revelation 

        of God in the world is expressed in other ways.  Yahweh acts in the world 

        through his Word.  In ancient psychology, the spoken word was an out-

        going expression of the person of the speaker, a kind of extension of the 

        speaker’s self.  God’s word isn't only the expression of God’s personal pre-

        sence, it is also the agency of God's creation.  The Spirit isn't identical 

        with God but is the agency of God’s historical activity in the world.  Yah-

        weh’s holy Spirit has been the saving power within Israel’s history from 

        the first, it is the sign of his presence from which no one can escape. 

                   Wisdom has its major source in the ancient traditions of the East.  

        The sage was an agent of Yahweh.  Israel’s sages came to emphasize the 

        cosmic status of wisdom, and to personify it as the agent of God’s creation.

        In all these ways Israel’s faith attempts to reckon with Yahweh’s heavenly

        lordship & Yahweh’s active presence in the world.  The central conviction

        of Israel’s faith is that the eternal, ever-present God enters into and acts in

        the temporal sphere of human experience.

                   As we have seen in the above discussion, Israel’s faith sought to 

        avoid either removing God from the world into a heavenly sphere, or ma-

        king God so much a part of the world that God’s deity is limited.  That 

        Yahweh cannot be likened to anyone or anything, but is incomparable in 

        majesty, wisdom, & power, is the proclamation of the second part of Isaiah.

        Yahweh is not pure Spirit, for Yahweh’s Spirit is the agency of Yahweh’s 

        activity. 

                    Israel speaks of Yahweh in highly personal terms, attributing to 

        Yahweh human form and human feelings.  Parts of the OT describe God in 

        very human terms and form, & other parts do not.  The Yahwistic writer de-

        lights in this kind of description.  Many of these features were inherited 

        from the ancient tradition which the Yahwistic writer received.  The Elohis-

        tic writer tends to avoid bold statements about God’s “human” form by put-

        ting Yahweh (or Elohim) in touch with humans through dreams and visions.

        In priestly circles, there is a more consistent and self-conscious effort to 

        stress God’s unapproachable majesty and transcendence, but not even the

        priestly theologians could entirely escape humanlike descriptions of God. 

                   To some degree or other, descriptions of God in human terms ap-

        pears in all circles and periods of the OT tradition, however metaphorical 

        the meaning of those descriptions might be.  The OT consistently views 

        Yahweh as a distinct person.  He is always spoken of as a man; but sexual

        characteristics are excluded, for “he” has no female counterpart.  Human-

        like descriptions are indigenous to a faith which views God in terms of his-

        torical actions & relationships rather than in terms of natural power or im-

        personal being. According to Isaiah's second part, Yahweh is Israel’s Re-

        deemer; this term is derived from ancient family law, in which the kinsman

        had the obligation to vindicate the right of another member of the family.

                   Hosea’s description of Yahweh’s heart-broken fatherly anguish over

        Israel as the prodigal son, & other humanlike descriptions are an anticipa-

        tion of the humanlike descriptions we find in the NT, which declares that 

        God has revealed God’s self in the form of a person.  Any attempt to deper-

        sonalize God would violate the biblical message.  God is the divine Thou 

        who enters into fellowship with us and deals with us personally.  

                   5.  Traits of Yahweh: Holiness—The OT does not try to tell what 

        God is, for the central concern is God’s relation to humans & humans to 

        God.  The Bible enables humans to know themselves and what is required 

        of them in the light of God’s dealings.  Just as the self discloses certain 

        traits, so God’s relations with God’s people provide the basis for theologi-

        cal understanding of who God is and of God’s character.

 G-49

             The experience of the holy was not peculiar to Israel.  The holy is 

        the wholly other, not just in the sense of an overwhelming mystery, but in 

        the sense of divine power, impersonal & amoral in character.  Holiness is

        fundamentally a mysterious energy which fills people with fear, rather 

        than confidence, precisely because it is otherworldly.  The ancient cult 

        separated the holy realm from the profane, the earthly, in that a person 

        might be able to deal with and even control the holy.

                   In Israel’s experience, however, the holy was identified with Yah-

        weh’s dynamic will.  Ancient popular conception persisted, but no longer 

        was holiness regarded as an impersonal force. In priestly theology, holi-

        ness is the essential deity of God, which distinguishes God infinitely from

        creaturely & sinful humans.  But it is also emphasized that God, through 

        God’s revelation, has made Israel holy by separating her unto God’s self. 

        Israel’s holiness is based on her relation to the Holy God, rather than on 

        any intrinsic qualities of her life.  

                   Yahweh claims objects, institutions, seasons, places, & special per-

        sons for God’s self, thus making them holy.  The ethical dimension of holi-

        ness was given special prominence by the prophets, sometimes with such 

        radical fervor that apparently the whole existing cult stood under condem-

        nation.  Access to God is not on the basis of cultic performance, but on the 

        basis of concern for the social responsibilities of the covenant community. 

        For Isaiah, holiness is not the infinite gulf between God and humans; it is 

        the contrast between God’s purity and human sin.  Yahweh’s activity in his-

        tory is a manifestation of God’s holiness.  In the last analysis, the holiness 

        which distinguishes the divine from the human is manifest in God’s power 

        to deliver. 

                    Yahweh’s holiness & Yahweh’s jealousy are so closely related that

        the latter is only the expression of the former.  The Hebrew word qinah can

        be translated both by “jealousy” & by “zeal.”  Divine Jealousy is frequently

        associated with the first commandment of the Decalogue.  Any deviation 

        from loyalty is a violation of Yahweh’s holiness, which God’s zeal breaks 

        forth to punish the offenders.  Thus jealousy or zeal overlaps in meaning 

        with wrath.  

                   “Jealousy" is the nearest human analogy to God’s response to Isra-

        el’s actions.  Israel had to reckon with the energetic, personal will of the 

        God who had revealed God’s self in her history by benevolent deeds.  

        God’s jealousy was the expression of God’s zealous will to be Lord and to 

        uphold the covenant, lest Israel sink into paganism.  In crisis, men like 

        Elijah rose up to display a corresponding zeal for Yahweh’s covenant. 

                   It is wrong to suppose that jealousy is a primitive idea which was 

        gradually sloughed off in the refinement of Israel’s faith.  This passionate, 

        exclusive claim to Israel, based upon Yahweh’s claim to be the Lord alone,

        was the dynamic that led from a practical monotheism to a full-blown affir-

        mation of Yahweh’s sovereignty over all history and creation.

                   6. God's Khesed  (Steadfast Love)—Within the covenant commu-

        nity Yahweh was known as the God of khesed, a word which is often trans-

        lated “loving-kindness” in the King James Version or “steadfast love” in 

        the Revised Standard Version.  Yahweh’s name or self is distinguished by 

        this trait above all.  When applied to Yahweh, khesed refers especially to 

        Yahweh’s steadfast love for the weak & the helpless.  The Sinai covenant, 

        like the treaties ancient rulers made, was based on the sovereign’s benevo-

        lent deeds of which evoked the people’s gratitude and sense of obligation.  

        In some OT passages, khesed and berith (covenant) are used in close 

        association.  

                   Since Yahweh’s khesed is a demonstration of marvelous generosity, 

        Israel confessed that only upon Yahweh could the people rely for strength 

        and welfare.  Yahweh’s power isn't governed by caprice, but by constancy

        & trustworthiness.  Yahweh’s love is steadfast; Yahweh’s will could be 

        trusted, even when it was difficult to understand.  The righteous person 

        could live in dark days by faithfulness.  To be sure, Yahweh’s jealousy de-

        manded exclusive worship;  Yahweh’s wrath visited judgment upon the 

        people’s sins.  But Yahweh’s steadfast love toward Yahweh’s people was 

        steady and consistent. 

                   In doing khesed, Yahweh is not bound by a legal responsibility; the 

        inner incentive lies hidden with Yahweh’s holiness and freedom.  Hosea’s 

        statement “I am God and not human, the Holy One in your midst (Chapter

        11)” is based on the conviction that Yahweh’s khesed is greater and deeper

        than Israel’s fickle infidelity.  It exceeds what anyone has a right to expect

        or claim.  Hosea’s message is based upon the ancient conception of khe-

        sed as a generous action, unilateral in character, which is directed toward 

        one in need regardless of condition or merit.  And by universalizing Isra-

        el’s covenant history, psalmists affirmed that Yahweh’s khesed fills the 

        whole earth, and that creation itself is the work of Yahweh‘s khesed.

G-50

             7. God's Wrath & Righteousness—Just as anger and love are 

        closely related psychologically, so theologically the 2 must be considered

        together.  The wrath of God is not a naïve way of saying that people bring

        inexorable disaster upon themselves when they break a system of laws or

        defy an impersonal fate.  The human counterpart of God’s wrath is the ex-

        perience of guilt over wrongdoing.  It may also be occasioned by a sense 

        of the absence of God, that God is hiding God’s face and is leaving people

        to suffer the consequences of their own folly.  

                   Wrath is not the basic disposition of God toward God’s people.  It 

        is not a wild outbreak of rage, or a demonic impulse; it is a temporary reac-

        tion evoked by specific violations of covenant responsibilities.  Further-

        more, divine wrath is directed toward upholding the welfare of the cove-

        nant community.  It is within and limited by God's redemptive intention. 

                   The prophets believed that God in God’s wrath would bring upon 

        them a terrible day of judgment, but that it was the prelude to the purifica-

        tion and renewal of the people.  Under the influence of Hosea, Israel came 

        to realize that the deepest dimension of God’s wrath is love, the expres-

        sion of a deep & holy love which ardently seeks to correct, discipline, and 

        ultimately make possible a new relationship.  The day of wrath would be 

        superseded by a time when God in love would make all things new.

                   To understand the righteousness of God, we must go beyond legal 

        principles and ideal norms.  Righteousness is a characteristic of Yahweh’s 

        activity on behalf of Yahweh’s people.  Yahweh’s role is to obtain justice 

        for Israel in times of crisis and perhaps to help individuals to receive jus-

        tice.  The term “righteousness” has a dynamic, personal meaning within 

        the covenant community.  Righteousness is the characteristic of one who 

        re-establishes someone in their rightful place within the community, or 

        vindicates and upholds the community when outside powers threaten it.  

        Yahweh demands that righteousness characterize all of the community’s 

        relationships.  When people fail, Yahweh intervenes to end the oppressive 

        order and set things right.   

                   The writer of the 2nd part of Isaiah announces that Yahweh’s righ-

        teousness is equivalent to Yahweh’s salvation or deliverance.  Moreover, 

        Yahweh’s saving activity, revealed in the Righteous One, the Servant, isn't 

        only on behalf of Israel but extends also to the nations.  Through the Ser-

        vant’s life & witness the nations are restored to a new relationship to God.

                   8. Purpose of God: Establishing Sovereignty Over a Chosen 

        People—Israel’s ancient confession of faith was made in a setting with 

        many gods.  The question then arises as to whether Israel’s faith unlike 

        nature religions was essentially centered on one god.  Since Yahweh had 

        rescued Yahweh’s people from Egyptian oppression, Israel was beholden 

        to Yahweh alone.  The first of the Ten Commandments clearly means that 

        within Israel's, cultic community, Yahweh wills to be the only God.  But it

        is highly doubtful whether Israel’s faith in the Mosaic period should be 

        seen as centering on one god as we think of it today.  But from the very 

        first it was realized that Yahweh was unique, in the sense that Yahweh’s 

        historical power is incomparable to any other God. 

                   The power of “other gods” to seduce Israel from the covenant loy-

        alty was demonstrated from the time of the entrance into Canaan.  During 

        the early monarchy, perhaps in the reign of Solomon, the Yahwistic writer,

        who was also a prophetic writer, interpreted the whole of human history, 

        beginning with the Creation, as being under the sovereign control and pur-

        pose of Yahweh.  

                   In the 800s B.C., Elijah threw down the challenge by asking “Who 

        is God—Baal or Yahweh?  Amos maintained an eloquent silence about 

        other gods, while insisting that Yahweh’s sovereignty controls the affairs 

        of nations other than Israel.  Isaiah scorned the gods, and a century later 

        Jeremiah denounced the gods as “vapor.”  Beginning with the time of Jere-

        miah, Israel’s faith seems to have become more self-consciously centered 

        on one god.  The Shema affirms that Yahweh can't be divided into several 

        Yahweh manifestations.  Yahweh is the only & the unique God. 

                   Israelite belief in one god comes to its finest expression in the pro-

        phecy of Isaiah's second part.  Yahweh is God alone, the Lord of all human

        history & the Creator of heaven and earth.  The writer reaches this conclu-

        sion by expounding a history of a lone God.  The divine will behind and 

        within all history is precisely that of the God who chose to reveal God’s 

        self historically to Israel.  The prophet ridicules the gods of the nations as 

        human-made constructs because they have no power to act.  They are as 

        pitifully weak as humans, for they too are at the mercy of the changes and 

        fortunes of the passing years.  God’s inexhaustible power not only supports

        the whole creation but is mighty to deliver Israel from despair and guilt & 

        to bring all humankind into the sphere of God’s redeeming work.

                   Israel, during the period between Moses and the 2nd part of Isaiah, 

        came to a clear and deeper awareness of Yahweh’s sovereignty.  But belief

        in one God is not the heart of Israel’s faith.  Job’s problem, for example, 

        was not that of belief in one God, but was that of his relation to God and 

        God’s relation to him.  His wild protests were not silenced until, in faith 

        he came to know that the Sovereign of the universe spoke to him with 

        compassion and concern.  The poem of Job is a forceful reminder that bib-

        lical faith isn't equivalent to a rationally unified structure of thought.  

        Israel’s religious history is not an ascending intellectual development 

        from crude levels of Mosaic faith to the heights of a sophisticated belief 

        in one God. 

G-51

             There is a vast difference between Akh-en-aton’s belief in one God 

        and the practical belief of the Mosaic period’s one God.  For Moses, the 

        emphasis falls upon God’s action in Israel’s history.  The only God Israel 

        knows is the God who had “known” them by bringing them out of Egypt.

        God wills to be absolutely sovereign over their lives, and through Israel 

        to manifest God’s sovereignty over all of human history from beginning to

        end.

                   Israel’s faith affirms that the human’s historical life is a dramatic 

        story  which presses toward the fulfillment of purpose.  God is present in 

        the historical struggle, directing the course of human affairs toward God’s 

        own end.  The last things' doctrine was elaborated during the postexilic 

        period into a vision of the historical conflict's final resolution.  From the 

        first, Israel knew Yahweh as the God who was actively leading the people 

        into future. History was the narration of God’s actions; therefore events had

         a holy character. 

                   An early expression of the voluntary character of Yahweh’s histori-

        cal revelation was the divine Promise them.  For the Yahwistic writer, Isra-

        el’s sacred history opens with the call of Abraham and Yahweh’s threefold 

        promise to him.  The patriarchs’ careers were a pilgrimage under the pro-

        mise's sign of the .  It may be that this writer, writing in the dazzling light 

        of the achievements of David & Solomon, thought that this promise was on

        the verge of being realized.  Later prophets affirmed that Yahweh intended 

        something more for God’s people than possessing Canaan or the prestige 

        of being a great nation.  Only by going through the valley of suffering and 

        death could Yahweh’s people inherit the promise God held before them. 

                   In many ways the OT testifies that Yahweh’s will is that Israel should

        be a special people, bound together by covenant of loyalty to their God.  

        The covenant implies that God wills to enter into relationship with God’s 

        people and that God wills for those people to live in fellowship with God.  

        The prophets saw that the community was impaired by Israel’s sins; the 

        people preferred to go their own way, serving the attractive gods of the 

        world.  Yahweh’s zeal to uphold the covenant expressed itself in wrath. 

                   9. Offering Salvation for God's People & All Humankind—But 

        God’s purpose for God’s people was Salvation.  God willed the restoration 

        of the health, wholeness, & welfare of the community.  God’s action then, 

        was directed toward reconciliation through sacrifice, which was a means of 

        atonement with God, rather than a way to placate God and change God’s 

        disposition.  The sacrificial atonement doctrine reaches its high point in the 

        OT in the Suffering Servant portrait. His vicarious suffering, humiliation, 

        and death are interpreted as God’s means of reconciling God’s people to 

        Gods’ self.  

                   At the deepest levels of prophecy it was understood that Yahweh’s 

        saving purpose was not confined to Israel but that it included all human-

        kind.  Although humans in history attempt to live in such a way as to frus-

        trate or deny God’s intention, humankind’s restlessness and confusion tes-

        tify to the truth that they can't find true life outside community:  fellowship 

        with God and with fellow humans in the bond of the covenant.  Thus the 

        deepest insight into Israel’s election or special calling is that God has cho-

        sen Israel to be the historical agent of worldwide blessing.  God’s redee-

        ming activity is not confined to God’s people, even though it begins there, 

        but God’s salvation reaches to the ends of the earth.  

                   Admittedly, Israel did not always understand her calling in this uni-

        versal perspective.  In some literature dealing with the end of this and the 

        beginning of a new age, the nations are brought under such severe divine 

        judgment that seemingly they have no place in God’s purpose.  But the 

        more authentic strain of prophecy stresses that Yahweh is the saving Lord 

        of the nations.

                   Still, the OT was never able to remove completely the taint of 

        nationalism. The messianic hope came with a passionate longing for the 

        restoration of the national kingdom of David.  The NT, however, identifies

        Jesus with the Suffering Servant, by whose sacrifice the kingdom's doors 

        have been thrown open to all. 

GOD, NEW TESTAMENT (NT).  The NT concentrates on Jesus Christ, and

        therefore is less explicit than the Old Testament (OT) about the great, 

        basic characteristics of God.  It is not that Christ is worshiped instead of 

        God; rather, God is worshiped through Jesus Christ.  Impersonal terms are

        avoided in favor of personal, and an active, dynamic conception of God 

        pervades the NT.  Most important of all, God is designated as Father.  

        This old conception was evidently enormously deepened & enriched by 

        the life and words of Jesus & has ever since dominated Christian thinking.

        This deepened intimacy reduces the human reverence and awe before 

        God.  The fatherhood of God, potentially universal, is an actuality in the 

        lives of those who are able to cry, “Abba, Father.”

G-52

           The Trinity doctrine isn’t explicit in the NT, but its seeds are there.  

        Particularly striking is the NT evidence of a God who achieves God’s limit-

        less designs by a self-limitation.  God is self-limited in the Incarnation.  In 

        keeping with this idea of God as personal and distinct from God’s creation, 

        the NT sees human contact with God in terms of personal relationship, fel-

        lowship, and communion.

                  The Greek word theos almost always in the NT denotes the one God

        of monotheistic faith. The use or non-use of the definite article is not neces-

        sarily an index of meaning.  If a mortal must try to find words for an infi-

        nite theme, the writer on the NT conception of God has at least this advan-

        tage, namely that the NT definition of God is to be found in Jesus Christ.  It

        needs to be said that in no way does this emphasis on Christ as God's su-

        preme revelation involve the NT writers in worship of Christ instead of God.

        The regular formula is “God through Christ.”  Expressions of worship, ado-

        ration, & prayer are generally offered through Christ to God.  The vision in 

        Revelation 4 represents the only attempt in the NT to portray God. 

                   The belief that God is one is an established assumption in the gos-

        pels.  He is recognized as Creator.  Everything has been created by him, 

        through him, and for him.  References to God’s revelation through “nature”

        are notoriously rare the whole weight being thrown on God’s dealings with 

        humans, &, in the Incarnation.  The transcendence of God is explicitly allu-

        ded to, & God is the one who wields absolute authority. 

                  These affirmations of the supremacy of God aren't made so that the 

        evil rampant in the world is minimized and ignored.  It is described in very 

        definite, personal, demonic terms.  God is described in terms of personality.

        In keeping with this is the very frequent reference to God’s grace.  Corre-

        spondingly, his arch-enemy is portrayed in terms of personal disobedience

        —the rejection of God’s grace and of opposition to everything God does.  

        The conquest of evil by God is assured: it is no evenly balanced conflict.  It

        is achieved by reconciliation and this means redemptive suffering. 

                   The NT tends to avoid metaphysical definitions & abstract terms.  

        “God is light” means that God, being the very source of light acts with abso-

        lute consistency and dazzling integrity, and that God cannot tolerate false-

        hood in any shape or form.  “God is love” is an essentially active and dyna-

        mic statement—anything but abstract or static.  Similarly, the frequent 

        phrase “the glory of God,” except where it describes God’s glorious plan 

        for humans mostly means “God showing God’s self among humans.” 

                   The NT interprets God as being almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, 

        but in the light of God’s self-limitation in the Incarnation.  God’s character 

        is revealed in human history; the mighty deeds of Jesus are the “finger of 

        God” at work.  God’s “oath,” God’s promise, is a recurrent theme, and it 

        binds God.  Christians see this oath as taking shape in Christ.  In keeping 

        with this active conception of God in both Hebrew and Christian thought 

        is the designation of God as the living God and the God who speaks—

        through creation, through history, and, most clearly, through Christ. 

                   God as Father—Jesus gave a new depth to the conception of God

        as Father, but the conception itself was nothing new; outside Judaism the 

        idea was common enough. For generations Jews had declared their close 

        relationship to God.  It was not that they were descended from God physi-

        cally, but rather spiritually, morally, and by God‘s choice of them to be 

        God‘s people, that God became their Father.  And Jesus appears to have 

        exhibited, through his life as well as through his words, a new attitude of 

        sonship.  Further, Jesus teaches constantly about the kingdom of God; but

        the one who exercises this kingly sway is referred to as Father. 

                   The name “Father” does not appear in all gospel traditions with the 

        same frequency that it appears in Matthew and John, but the designation 

        “Father” is found on the lips of Jesus in all the gospel traditions. More than 

        this, the baptism of Jesus marked him as Son of God in a special sense.  

        The Aramaic Abba in the gospels occurs only in Mark 14, & is echoed in 

        Romans 8 & Galatians 4, so there is no need to doubt that it is a genuine 

        word of Jesus. 

                    But did Jesus teach his disciples to share precisely the same ap-

        proach to God as his own?  It is sometimes said that he deliberately distin-

        guished between his own unique closeness to the Father & their secon-

        dary relationship.  Actually, it may be questioned whether he did teach his 

        disciples to use a different mode of address to God from that which he him-

        self adopted.  The only instance of fully explicit contrast between Christ’s 

        use for himself and his intention as to his disciples’ use(“my Father & your 

        Father”) may imply the disciples are receive a derived sonship (See the 

        Teachings of Jesus entry).

                   While it is true that only Jesus is represented in the NT as using the 

        phrase “my Father,” this doesn't alter the conclusion that Jesus' mission 

        seems to have been to reveal & impart his sonship, that it might be entered

        into and shared by all.  Moreover, if the “Son of Man” is a collective, or 

        even a representative, concept, then the relationship is intended to shared 

        by the “saints of the Most High.” 

 G-53

            Whatever is implied by the new intimacy Christ gave to the name Fa-

        ther, it is an intimacy which deepens, rather than detracts from, the sense 

        of God’s majesty.  The Lord’s Prayer is a model of reverence coupled with

        simple trust.  God’s Holiness is not so frequently alluded to in the NT as in

        the OT, but the idea is assumed as axiomatic. It may be that Christ’s accep-

        tance of the role of the Son of man implied this sense of adoration com-

        bined with intimacy toward the Almighty (See the Lord‘s Prayer entry).

                   The cry “Abba,” then, is first & foremost a profession of absolute 

        obedience.  In short fatherhood, applied to God, epitomizes his sovereignty

        as voluntarily acknowledged, and only adds to the awe of God’s judgments.

        There is nothing “soft” about this fatherhood.  It is because of the severity 

        of God’s fatherhood that God is also the God of mercy,  God of hope, 

        peace, comfort, and graciousness.  

                   There are very few passages in the NT where it isn't clear that the 

        estrangement between humans and God is on the human side, not God’s.  

        And whatever is implied by the Wrath of God it doesn't mean what is meant

        by “anger” in ordinary parlance.  It is the white heat of a love which cares 

        too much for the sinner to treat God’s sin as indifferent. 

                   In Ephesians 3 is the phrase, “the Father, from whom every family 

        in heaven and on earth is named.”  “Family” isn't the same as “fatherhood,”

        but the Greek words are from the same root.  So God is the origin of “pater-

        nity” & of family life everywhere.  It may be that God is seen as the origin 

        of all the “families” of beings, not only human but supra- or subhuman.  

        The NT says “you have one Father, who is in heaven,” and it sometimes 

        uses “the Father,” absolutely, in reference to God.

                  But is God the Father of all humankind indiscriminately?  Potentially, 

        yes; in actuality not yet.  Just as, in the OT, God is universal Creator, but is 

        a Father in a special sense to Israel, so in the NT, “children of God” is a 

        term for Christians, not for all as such. But because the relationship is thus 

        defined as moral and religious, not racial or national, it has the potential of 

        becoming universal.  

                   The same principle comes into focus in the Incarnation itself, namely

        that God’s Son, born into a particular race & family at a given date in such

        a way as to be God’s universal & all-time salvation.  It is significant that re-

        demption is closely associated with creation, suggesting the universal 

        scope of the one as of the other.  The combination of the words “God” and 

        “Father” presents considerable variety:  “God the father” “the God and Fa-

        ther,” etc.

                   Trinity, etc.—In keeping with the conception of God as Father is 

        the discovery that God’s unity isn't a simple unity.  Father & Son are reci-

        procal.  Moreover, after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy 

        Spirit becomes available and intelligible as the presence of God among 

        God’s people through Jesus Christ with and among them.  Although a doc-

        trine of the Trinity is nowhere in the NT made explicit, the seeds of a Trini-

        tarian understanding of God are undoubtedly sown. There are several im-

        pressive instances of 3-fold expressions (I Corinthians 12; II Corinthians 

        13; Ephesians 4).

                   One of the most striking consequences arising from the conception 

        of God thus far outlined is God’s voluntary self-limitation.  God is self-limi-

        ted by Gods’ own consistency of character. God's faithfulness implies    

        God’s inability to be inconsistent or faithless.  The Christian knows God 

        through God’s essentially personal presence which only sin can exclude.  

        Correspondingly, too, his omniscience is expressed mostly in terms of cha-

        racter & in actively dealing with persons.

                   The NT, in other words, constantly represents God as content to 

        achieve God’s purposes by self-limitation, by specialization, by selection, 

        & by contraction in order to expand.  The very meaning of Holiness is af-

        firmed in the NT as no segregating, but as an inclusive, redemptive quality.

        The Old Testament  promise to Israel: “I will  live in them  and  move 

        among them, and I will be  their  God” is applied to the Christian church as

        whole.  In one man, of a given race, at a certain time in history, at a particu-

        lar spot on this planet, the eternal word of God became flesh. 

                   It is in order to save the whole world that God limits God’s self.  

        God’s almighty power and wisdom express themselves most characteristi-

        cally in the acceptance of what the world calls weakness or foolishness.  A 

        God who enters into the sufferings caused by sin is certainly implied by the

        close association of the Father with the Son throughout the NT thought.  

        The Cross is God’s own act & in it God enters into redemptive suffering.  

        The NT presents a picture of a God with those qualities which we recognize

        as best in human character, and which are seen, perfectly exemplified in 

        Jesus.

G-54 

                     The NT never presents the human’s true end in terms of deifica-

        tion, but rather as perfect fellowship with God.  Eternal life isn't an endow-

        ment independent of character, but is the realization of a true relationship 

        with the good God. The NT offers no room for a mysticism of absorption 

        or merging in God; it speaks rather of communion, participation, fellow-

        ship.  The relationship is of the “I-thou,” separate type.  The believer 

        “dwells,” “acts,” or “is” in God.  But this is still a matter of a fully personal 

        relationship which has obedience as its one condition.  The last word, as 

        the first, is Christ.  It is “in Christ,” that the Christian is enabled by adop-

        tion, to utter that same cry, “Abba! Father!” which epitomizes the relation-

        ship on earth between the unique Son and his Father.  

                

GOD, SON OF.  (See Son of God)

GODLESS  (חנף (khaw naf), profane; רשע (raw shaw), wickedness;     

         בליעל (bel e yah ‘al), worthlessness; חל (khole), profane, common; 

        ασεβης (as eh bes), ungodliness; βεβηλος (beb eh los), unholy) 

GODLY  (חסיד (khaw seed), pious; θεοσεβεια (the oh seb i ah); See also the 

        entries for Fear, Hasidim, Saint)

GOG & MAGOG  (גוג ומגוג,  both are from the Arabic root meaning “to cut”) 

        Gog, chief prince of Meshech & Tubal, came from the land of Magog; in 

        Ezekiel 38-39 he leads the evil forces against Yahweh.  In Revelation 

        Magog becomes not a country but a fellow culprit.

                   Many have attempted to identify Gog with some historical mon-

        arch, but no certainty on this point has been found.  We may be sure that 

        the picture portrays the “ends of the earth” as contemporaries understood 

        them, rising against Yahweh. These countries included Persia, Cush, Put,

        Gomer, Togarmah, Sheba,  Dedan 7 Tarshish, but the attack was doomed 

        to failure. 

                   Much misunderstanding has clustered around the Gog-Magog cycle 

        among people who look for an exact fulfillment for every prophecy.  The 

        Hebrew word rosh (chief) has no relationship to Russia, nor does Meshech 

        refer to Moscow.

GOIIM  (גוים, people, nation)    1.  A people led by King Tidal and 3 Eastern 

        kings in attacking the Cities of the Valley in Genesis 14.      2.  A people 

        mentioned in Joshua 12 among those defeated by Joshua. 

GOLAN  (גולן, captivity)  A city of Manasseh in Bashan & a district of the same 

        name.  It was one of the three cities of refuge east of the Jordan and was 

        one of the Levitical cities.  If it is the same as the modern Jaulan, it is boun-

        ded by the Jordan on the west, the Yarmuk on the south & Mount Hermon

        to the northeast.

GOLD  (זחב (zaw hawb); דהב (deh hab); χρυsος (crew sos))  Probably the

        first metal known to man, because it is found in nature in a pure state and 

        thus requires only refining.  Gold occurs in the Bible hundreds of times, 

        more frequently than any other metal.  It is often mentioned together with 

        silver, and it is noteworthy that in the majority of cases silver comes first, 

        reflecting the memory of the oldest period, when gold was less valued than

        silver.  There are other names for “gold”, but the exact meanings are un-

        known to us. 

                   In the New Testament “gold” was among the gifts offered by the 

        Wise Men.  The traditional source of gold is the Land of Ophir. This is con-

        firmed by a pottery fragment from the 700s B.C. found near Jaffa-Tel Aviv.

        Although the Bible mentions a great variety of gold objects, sometimes 

        large ones, they must have been melted down anciently for their value.

GOLDEN RULE, THE.  A modern designation for Jesus’ command to do to 

        others as you wish them to do to you (Matthew 7; Luke 6).  The origin of 

        this title is obscure.

                   In Matthew & Luke the saying appears in a discourse by Jesus in a 

        summarizing position.  Jesus’ formulation of the Golden Rule is his own 

        original wording of older Jewish precepts.  Its universal scope covers all 

        dealings with others.  Its simplicity pierces the dark complexities of human 

        relationships and it needs to seen in the context of the rest of his teaching 

        & with his own example in conduct. 

                   It can't properly be taken alone as an adequate guide for Chris-

        tian living.  Christians prefer the positive form and Jews the negative form

       of the rule, although positive forms of it are found in Jewish literature.  In 

        early Christian writings the negative form of the rule probably underlies 

        Paul’s statement that love does no wrong to a neighbor. 

                  Though Jesus gave his own wording to the Golden Rule, the thought

        in it is widespread in ethical and religious teaching of many peoples.  Simi-

        lar ideals are found the literature of the early Greeks & Romans & in Hindu-

        ism, Buddhism, and Islam.

 G-55

GOLDSMITH  (צורף (tso raf), refiner) Gold smiths are referred to frequently

        in the Old Testament.  They made jewelry, idols, etc.  The art of the gold-

        smith was very high during the Middle of the Bronze Age, when a special 

        technique “granulation” was developed using tiny drops of gold.  

GOLGOTHA  (גלגלתא, skull; Γολγοθa, spelling of the Hebrew word using 

        Greek letters)  The Jerusalem site of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth 

        and two others condemned under the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate.   

                   The term appears twice in the Old Testament, in the literal sense, re-

        ferring to Sisera's skull and Jezebel's skull.  It appears in the New Testa-

        ment only in the story of the Crucifixion.  The Vulgate (Latin) form of the 

        word for “skull” is calvaria, which may be written as “Calvary” in Eng-

        lish, or translated as “skull.”  Hence, an English version may give the name 

        of the site as Golgotha, Cranium, Calvary, or Skull. 

                   It is not known why the place was so called.  The simplest conjec-

        ture is that the skull symbolized death as meted out in this place of execu-

        tion.  The suggestion that a certain hill has the form of a skull wasn't made

        until the 1800s.  Where was Golgotha?  All that can be said with confidence

        is that the execution would have occurred outside the city wall, near a   

        road.  Eusebius places Golgotha north of Mount Zion, a direction in accord 

        with two sites now.

                   Prior to the 300s A.D., Christians showed no interest in identifying 

        the place of the Crucifixion.  Emperor Constantine directed Bishop Maca-

        rius to locate the sites of the Crucifixion and the entombment & the Resur-

        rection.  Constantine erected there the 2 churches: Golgotha & Anasta-

        sis, the traditional site of the tomb, where stands today the Church of the 

        Holy Sepulcher, inside the present walls.  Although the Holy Sepulcher 

        complex has been destroyed and  rebuilt many times, these two neighbo-

        ring sites have remained fixed since the 300s. Part of the problem is that 

        archaeologists have not yet succeeded in establishing the course of the 

        Second North Wall that existed from 1-100 A.D., which in turns establishes 

        Golgotha.

                   In 1842 Otto Thenius of Dresden proposed that a rocky hill less than

        270 meters NE of the Damascus Gate was Golgotha. General Charles  

        Gordon agreed with the site, and became known as Gordon’s Calvary.  No

        other proposed sites have been taken seriously. 

GOLIATH  (גלית (gol eh yath), exile, captive) The Philistine champion who was

        slain in combat by David in the Valley of Elah.  Goliath is included among 

        the descendants of the giants, who, probably as foreign mercenaries ser-

        ving with the Philistines took up their residence in Gath.

                   The youthful David arrived with provisions from home for his bro-

        thers at the theater of war in time to hear Goliath hurl his defiant challenge.

        However motivated, David offered himself as a combatant.  David slung a

        stone that felled the giant, & quickly decapitated the champion of the Phili-

        stines.  Although some sources credit David with the slaying of Goliath, 

        this feat is elsewhere attributed to Elhanan.

GOMER  (גמר, complete)  1.  Eldest son of Japheth and father of a people we 

        know as Cimmerians.  In the 700s B.C., the Cimmerians, Indo-European 

        nomads invaded Asia Minor via the Caucasus. During the reign of Sargon

        the Cimmerians attacked Uratu.  They wound up in western Asia Minor, 

        where their raids destroyed the Phrygian kingdom.  Esarhaddon (681-669 

        B.C.) had to cope with the Cimmerians, and the threat was still serious 

        during the reign of Ashurbanipal (669-626).  No settlements or fortresses 

        have been identified as Cimmerian in character.

                 2.  The wife of the prophet Hosea.  Her unfaithfulness in marriage 

        was used as a dramatic parable of Israel’s unfaithfulness to God.

GOMORRAH (עמרה (am o rah), from the root “to bind (as a slave))  One of 

        the “cities of the Valley,” which was destroyed by the Lord in the Lord’s 

        wrath over its wickedness.  Birsha king of Gomorrah along with the kings

        of the four other cities, was attacked by, and later joined battle with Che-

        dorlaomer and his 3 eastern allies.  Usually Gomorrah is mentioned along

        with Sodom alone, but it is mentioned twice with all the cities of the Val-

        ley.  Gomorrah is probably to be located under the waters of the Dead 

        Sea's southern part.

G-56

GONG  ( χaλκος, copper)  A percussion instrument making a loud noise, pro-

        bably used in the temple worship.  

     

GOOD (טוב (tov), agreeable, pleasant, fair)  The translation of a Hebrew word

        with a very wide range of meanings.  In Hebrew, tov means that a person 

        or a thing is in accordance with the acknowledged practical, moral or reli-

        gious standards.  The standards are based on the joyful or hard happe-

        nings of daily life without moral or religious reflections, but these experi-

        ences themselves may include moral factors.  To exhibit them is a main 

        concern of the old oriental & Israelite Wisdom literature which moralizes

        the good. 

                  It isn't good to be without knowledge. For the Israelite wisdom, such 

        knowledge and understanding includes precepts of Yahweh delivered by 

        Moses and the prophets.  Yahweh has shown his goodness in Israel’s his- 

        tory.  Yahweh’s goodness is mainly his grace and care for the humble-min-

        ded and the poor.  As a reward for championing the cause of justice & the

        powerless, God gives to his people the good land, victory, & other goods.  

        The pious has the experience that all these goods are nothing in compari-

        son with God.  It is humankind’s tragedy that they learn what is good by 

        contrast, by acting evil. 

GOPHER WOOD (עצי גפר (as eh  go fer))  The material from which Noah      

        was instructed to make the ark.  It seems like the Priestly writer had in 

        mind conifers, specifically cypresses, commonly used in shipbuilding. 

GOSHEN ( גשן)  1.  The area of Egypt, probably in the northeastern part of the 

        Delta, occupied by the Israelites from the time of Joseph to the Exodus.  

        Goshen designated a region in the eastern part of the Nile Delta, and was 

        reckoned as a part of Egypt; it was an area specifically for grazing.  Go-

        shen's location depends on the route of the Exodus.  If we assume that 

        the Rameses mentioned in the leg of the journey from Rameses to Suc-

        coth refers to the Delta residence of the pharaoh, Goshen is the land 

        around it.  Goshen's precise location depends on identifying Rameses,

        but there are many Delta places-names which contained the element 

        “Rameses.”  In one Hebrew text, “Goshen” is replaced by “Arabian 

        “Gesem.”  Because Goshen isn't Gesem, however, one must assume that 

        the primary Greek Old Testament is an interpretation by the translators.  

                   2.  A place name in the phrase “land of Goshen,” which appears in 

        the general description of territory occupied by Joshua’s forces, appa-

        rently in the hill-country region between Hebron and the Negeb. 

                   3.  A city of Judah located in Debir's hill-country district, and pos-

        sibly once the chief city of a region bearing the same name.  

GOSPELS.  The sole literary form that is peculiar to Christianity.  The oldest is

        the Gospel According to Mark. Mark's anonymous compiler unwittingly 

        invented a genre of literature--unwittingly because he shows himself an 

        unliterary man unacquainted with high literature, either Semitic or Greek,  

        and ambitious for no literary glory but only to record the message of salva-

        tion.  The present title, "Gospel According to Mark,” is a by-product of the 

        compiling of the New Testament (NT) into one collection; its original title 

        is “Origin of the Jesus-Christ-Son-of-God Evangel. 

                   To ask what gospel is, is really to ask what Mark is. Mark is the folk 

        book of the folk called Christians.  As such, it is primarily a mirror of the 

        life of this folk during the two generations until the book was written down.

        Mark, as the folk book of the church, is its cult legend.  In it the church is 

        assuring itself of its own existence, its possibility of existing, its reason for

        existing, and its ways of existing.  The writer is more editor-compiler than 

        author.  The writer takes some 90 mostly unconnected anecdotes, & puts 

        them together almost at random. 

                   Just as it makes no difference for preaching today when Jesus 

        healed the blind man but only that he did so, neither did it matter to prea-

        ching before Mark, nor does it matter in Mark itself.  Matthew has been 

        aptly called an expanded edition of Mark; it shows some will toward a 

        more literary & more historical product.  Luke has more polish than Mark, 

        but its character is basically predetermined by Mark.  Only John shows a 

        decided development beyond the type established in Mark. 

G-57

            The gospels have no literary ancestors.  They do have analogies, al-

        beit not close ones.  A good analogy would have a solid basis in folk tradi-

        tion, a character associated with continuing religious use, and content of 

        both word and deeds.  The gospel’s canonization halted the further deve-

        lopment of this literary form.  Works about Jesus’ life, written in the 1700s

        and 1800s may be viewed as the gospel form’s modern mutation. 

GOSSIP  (דבה (dib baw), slander; רכיל (raw keel), scandal-monger;   

        ψιθυριsμος (psith ur is mos), whispering; φλυaρος (flu ah ros), tattler) 

        The conversation or light talk of a newsmonger and a tattler.  Gossips are 

        likely to be idlers according to I Timothy 5, either lazy or careless in their 

        use of time and energy.  In II Corinthians, Paul ranked gossip with quar-

        reling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, conceit, and disorder. 

GOUGING EYES  (נקר (naw kar))  In Samuel 11, the men of Jabesh sued 

        Nahash the Ammonite for peace. The Ammonite king accepted their re-

        quest on condition that the right eyes of all the men of Jabesh be gouged 

        out; he probably intended no more than an insult.  The custom of gouging

        out the eyes of captives was widespread.  The Assyrians commonly blin-

        ded their captives with sharp instruments.  Philistines put out Samson’s 

        eyes. When the Babylonians captured Jerusalem in 586, they slew Zede-

        kiah's sons before his eyes, & then they put out his eyes.  

GOURD  (קיקיון (ki kay on))  The King James Version identification of the plant

        in Jonah 4.  The Revised Standard Version avoids identifying this plant.  

        The castor bean has been the usual identification. The Egyptian name, kiki

        and other evidence have led to this conclusion.  The evidence is inconclu-

        sive. 

GOURDS, WILD  (פקעות (pak koo owth))  Wild vines with a poisonous fruit.

        One of the “sons of the prophets,” during a famine, gathered the fruit from

        these vines for food.  The men were made ill, and they appealed to Elisha 

        for help.  

                   Peqaim is used to describe the shape of the carved decorations on 

        the cedar paneling of the nave of Solomon’s temple.  The exact signifi-

        cance of these decorations is not clear. 

GOVERNMENT.  Biblical data on the various forms and procedures of Israelite-

        Jewish government is part of the writers’ and editors’ presentation of the 

        historical experience of their people, an experience extending over a peri-

        od of some 1500 years.  Whether interpretation or facts, the data bears 

        the stamp of a revolutionary conviction that harks back to Israel’s earliest 

        consciousness of being a people. 

              List of Topics—1. Introduction;      2. Nomadic Israel;  3. Lea-    dership and Institutions of Israel and its Tribes;      4. Israel:  Tri-     

        bal Confederacy;      5. Joint Tribal Actions and Charismatic    

        Leadership;      6. Judges, Samuel, and 1st King;      7. Israelite 

        Monarchies;      8. King’s Duties and Responsibilities;       9. Royal Offices & Military Posts;     10. Israel and Judah Under             Oriental Imperialism.

                   1. Introduction—The conviction was that man stands apart from 

        nature in a special relationship with the sole creative source of all reality.

        This conviction marked Israel off from the other cultures & civilizations 

        of the ancient Near East, and must be regarded as fundamental for the 

        Bible’s account of Israelite-Jewish political norms and institutions.  It 

        helps constitute a people’s choice and development of its political forms

        and institutions.  While Israel inherited, shared, absorbed, or was influ-

        enced by the conceptions of these matters which appear elsewhere in the

        Near East, they appear in the Bible under the “sign of the covenant.”  

                   2. Nomadic Israel—The Israelites’ own traditions of their remo-

        test origins and of their history shows an acquaintance with the social, 

        economic, and political institutions of nomadic shepherds and town-

        dwelling farmers.  The Book of Genesis still occasionally reflects the 

        early Israelite nomad’s aversion to the urban life.  In Chapter 4 Cain, the

        first murderer, was a “tiller of the ground” & the first builder of a city.  

                   In Genesis 14 and 19, Lot experiences misfortune when he quit the 

        nomadic life and took up settled residence in the city of Sodom.  Such 

        steppe-born criticism of urban life persisted beyond the conquest and set-

        tlement of Canaan to influence all later Israelite social & political thought

        & institutions.  These same attitudes underlie the prophets’ denunciations 

        of the blending of Canaanite and Israelite culture. 

                   Among both the town-dwelling peasants and the pastoral nomads, 

        the earliest forms of political life were democratic.  Autocratic institutions

        were developed in the cities as responses to needs which an earlier “primi-

        tive democracy” couldn't successfully meet.  Ultimate sovereign power, in

        this “primitive democracy” was vested in an assembly of all free men.  

        Important decisions of legislative or judicial character were arrived at by 

        consensus.  

                   Executive authority, normally left to the elders, was in time of war  

        or other emergency delegated to the man or men deemed most capable of 

        achieving a favorable outcome.  The earlier democracy’s provision for 

        delegated, short-term executive authority was extended and permanently 

        institutionalized, while the popular assembly’s & the elders’ authority was 

        subordinated to that of the executive.  

 G-58

                   The institutions of various nomad invaders passed through a parallel

        process.   In Israel's case, the covenant-consciousness of her people con-

        stituted a further decisive difference which prevented her monarchical in-

        stitutions from functioning as they did in Mesopotamia or even nearby 

        Canaanite kingdoms. 

                   As with many other nomadic peoples, common descent, rather than

        common residence constituted the primary criterion of affiliation.  Even 

        after Canaan’s conquest, this genealogical principle was never fully tran-

        scended.  The Israelite was born into a “household” which was part of a 

        “clan” or “family” belonging to a tribe; in early Israelite consciousness 

        these terms were not precise.  Dan, generally called a tribe, is sometimes 

        referred to as a clan.

                   If the terms overlap & merge into one another, this is because all 

        basically refer to kinship circles radiating out from the “father” which 

        was seen as including everything pertaining to him, as well as whatever 

        larger whole of which he was a part.  All these terms go beyond a mecha-

        nically applied notion of kinship.  The terms refer to collectives or com-

        munities which are homogenous, not only those of a shared ancestry, but 

        also those of a shared religious, moral, social, economic, and political 

        background.  A “son of Israel” meant one who shared the characteristics 

        of history, way of life, and destiny that constituted the “people” of Israel. 

                   3. Leadership & Institutions of Israel and its Tribes—The most

        politically important of these focuses of affiliation were the tribe and the 

        people as a whole.  The nomadic tribes are shown as being united through

        the Sinaitic covenant and under a charismatic leader; the political institu-

        tions are those of the people as a whole, but the same or very similar insti-

        tutions prevailed in the individual tribe.  The most important difference be-

        tween a single tribe and a group of tribes lies in the altered responsibilities 

        of the tribal chief.  Many leadership functions would pass to the leader of 

        the whole people, who would then assign the new duties that arose out of 

        linking the tribes.

                   Nomadic Israel's primary political institution was the public assem-

        bly or congregation.  Both these terms mean all the adult males.  This as-

        sembly was the main source of all authority over the people. Its important

        members were the “elders.” They were neither a separate body, nor the of-

        ficial representatives of the assembly; they were the assembly itself.  

        Whenever the assembly was required, yet could not all be present, the 

        elders would act as the entire body.  Mention is also made of the “leaders 

        of the congregation,” who were able and influential men whose presence 

        was considered indispensable.

                   The assembly functioned both deliberatively, as with the reports of 

        the ten spies and judicially, as in the case of the sabbath.  They participa-

        ted in the making of covenants, human and divine.  The assembly’s role in

        the initiation and execution of policies and laws was essentially passive, 

        being consultative and permissive.  The acceptance and confirmation of a 

        leader even if divinely commissioned, was the assembly’s prerogative; & 

        they had the power to depose  him and to appoint another in his stead.  

        This democratic motif was strong to survive and to reassert itself under  

        the monarchies. 

                   Regarded politically, each of the numerous “murmurings” of the 

        people was a threat to depose Moses from the leadership.  Although com-

        missioned by God, he could be secure in his role only so long as success 

        and prosperity were the results of his efforts.  Lack of prosperity was attri-

        butable to a withdrawal of the divine power.  Failure of a succession of 

        such leaders would inevitably have meant dissolution of the tribal confe-

        deracy.  To aid him in the carrying out of his responsibilities, a supreme 

        leader like Moses could and did delegate his authority to others.  It was in

        his capacity as supreme leader that Moses installed Aaron, & his sons in 

        the priesthood.  Not the least tribute to Moses’ skill as the supreme politi-

        cal leader was that he was able to ordain his own war adjutant, Joshua.

                   4. Israel: Tribal Confederacy—Only as a covenanted tribal con-

        federacy under skillful and experienced leadership could Israel have 

        planned & carried out the military operations which weakened the Canaa-

        nite city-state feudalisms enough to permit a precarious grasp on portions

        of Transjordan and the central Palestinian hill country.  During the next two

        centuries the Israelite tribes had to fight to maintain these positions.  From 

        these positions they accomplished the transition to sedentary life in towns 

        & villages, settling by clans and “fathers’ houses.”  Such of the native popu-

        lation as the Israelite tribes were unable or found inexpedient to drive out 

        continued to “dwell among them.”

 G-59

                   Passage to sedentary life would have led to a far greater degree of 

        assimilation to Canaanite political institutions, had it been a haphazard 

        process & not the deliberately intended enterprise of a covenanted confe-

        deracy of tribes.  In sharp contrast to feudal city-kingdoms, the centralized 

        monarchies & the warrior-caste “tyrannies,” Israel’s political organization at

        this time continued to be that of a loosely articulated tribal confederation.  

        The terms of the covenant marked a revolutionary break with the myth-cen-

        tered and nature-centered cults of the surrounding cultures provided a ratio

        nale which enabled Israelite tribes to withstand fundamental revisions until

        the time of David.

                   Early Israelite thinking could not create a democracy functioning on 

        the national level.  The characteristic older political forms were refocused &

        scaled down for use on the local and regional levels.  When necessity com-

        pelled the Israelites again to unite their forces under supreme political lea-

        dership, the process could only be influenced, not fundamentally deter-

        mined, by their covenant-derived ideas.

                   As Israel settled down in the areas which bore the tribal names, the 

        tribes themselves retained importance as territorial groups, and until the 

        eve of the monarchy, defense against foreign enemies was left to the 

        several tribes rather than the whole confederacy.  Every Israelite now lived 

        in an urban community & was at least theoretically a member of its public 

        assembly, with the elders, the heads of households and scions of impor-

        tant clans, making the actual decisions.  

                   One of these men might gain such prestige that the rest would ge-

        nerally defer to him.  In many cases the ruling elders all derived from a 

        single, dominant family or clan.  The elder-controlled city briefly outlined 

        above remained the central core of Israelite political life to the exilic peri-

        od, with the law being administered at the gates of such communities.

                   5. Joint Tribal Actions and Charismatic Leadership—Jealous of 

        their independent sovereignty though they were, the communities of the 

        several tribal territories recognized the need or desirability of concerted ac-

        tion for certain purposes and in certain circumstances, namely defense 

        against aggression & the need to protect the confederacy’s own principle 

        of cohesion.  Thus, there were joint undertakings and interests which the 

        clans & tribes felt duty-bound to share; loss of honor and reproach were 

        the usual penalties for failure to participate, though harsher sanctions might

        be imposed.  An unsummoned tribe might resent to the point of hostility an

        omitted invitation.

                   The conditioned anarchy of the Israelite tribal confederacy depicted 

        above could neither brook nor produce a supreme leadership such as 

        Moses and Joshua.  The unbroken series of successes which would have 

        been demanded of this sort of leadership was simply not possible at this 

        time in history.  Hence emerged the figures whom we, not quite correctly, 

        call the judges.  All of them were regarded as having God-given strength &

        favor, which differed from that of Moses and Joshua only in degree. 

                   6. Judges, Samuel,  and 1st King—There were 3 types of leaders 

        in the Book of Judges: those who “delivered”; those who “delivered and 

        judged”; those who simply “judged.”  Examples of “deliverers” are Ehud

        & Shamgar (ch. 3), and Gideon (ch. 6). Examples of “deliverer-judges” 

        are Othniel (ch. 3), Tola (ch.10), Japheth (ch 11), and Samson (chs. 13, 

        15, 20).  Examples of “judges” are Jair (ch. 10), Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon 

        (ch. 12).  

                   We are also told of the prophetess Deborah (ch. 4), the prophet 

        Samuel (ch. 4), and the priest Eli, who also “judged Israel,” i.e.  they 

        administered the laws rather than governed the tribes.  The “deliverer” 

        was primarily a military leader; in Hebrew the term means one who also 

        opens them up to profound development to the utmost of their capacities.

        As such a deliverer Gideon was offered the rulership of Israel rather than 

        kingship.

                   For some 200 years the Israelite tribal confederacy sought through

        temporary charismatic leaders, to meet the obvious need of a central poli-

        tical authority.  These temporary devices proved to be completely inade-

        quate, especially when Philistine victories threatened the confederacy's 

        extinction and enslavement of its population.  After a long delay, Israel 

        finally instituted a monarchy around 1020 B.C.  Israel’s delay was be-

        cause their society’s cohesion centered in a divine covenant and their 

        major units were jealous of their covenant-sanctioned autonomy.

                   Charismatic leadership was not always available when needed & 

        could not be depended upon to outlast the crisis which evoked it.  The 

        offer to make Gideon; his son, and his grandson “ruler” must be under-

        stood as an effort to solve leadership problem.  Gideon’s refusal of the of-

        fer represents a conservative Israelite’s denial that change was necessary.

                   The attempt of Samuel to solve the problem through a continuing 

        judiciary failed to provide for the sustained military leadership & execu-

        tive authority required to contain the Philistine threat.  Samuel was op-

        posed to setting up the “deliverer,” the military leader, rather than the 

        “judge,” as the supreme political officer in Israel.  However, the people’s 

        insistence upon a king who could fight their battles was not to be denied.  

        Samuel, as priest-prophet-judge and the prime representative of Israel’s 

        sacred covenant tradition, designated Saul, son of Kish, as king.  Saul first

        proved his God-given gift by a victory over the Ammonites, and was made 

        Israel’s first king by the people “before the Lord, in Gilgal.”

G-60

                   Saul’s kingship was still far more an Israelite charismatic leadership

        than a genuine monarchy.  He made no real effort to reign over Israel be-

        yond constituting an entourage of Abner, son Jonathan, David, & Doeg the

        Edomite.  Saul’s leadership brought at least two new features into Israel’s 

        political life.  1st, he bore a title, “king.”  2nd, he was “anointed” king—a 

        ceremony reserved in Israel only for persons & objects functioning within 

        the cult.  The anointment signified public recognition & acknowledgment 

        that the anointed one was divinely designated & charismatically endowed. 

                   7. Israelite Monarchies—Saul lacked the political skill necessary 

        to mitigate the contradiction of a central authority and the covenant-cen-

        tered autonomy of the confederacy.  The true founder of a united Israelite 

        kingdom was David of Judean Bethlehem, who was a superb military lea-

        der and a consummate politician.  David’s exploits attested to his leader-

        ship's charismatic character, and soon earned him Saul's jealous enmity.  

        Even as a fugitive, David astutely managed to add a dimension to the king-

        ship:  by sparing Saul’s life he proclaimed the anointed king’s inviolability.

        The same combination of military ability and political sagacity enabled 

        David to create a Palestinian-Syrian empire.

                   This empire, however, was united only in David’s own person; even

        its Judean-Israelite core was not an indivisible unity. David became 

        king first over Judah and then over northern Israel in 2 separate political 

        actions.  These 2 kingdoms were separated by a third kingdom, David’s 

        personal city-kingdom of Jerusalem.  The opportunity presented by the 

        repression of Absalom’s rebellion to blur if not obliterate the division was 

        lost in a quarrel between Judeans & Israelites over the king’s restoration. 

                   This separateness could not be overcome by Solomon’s administra-

        tive measures, & the northern kingdom of Israel, & the southern kingdom 

        of Judah went their separate ways upon the death of Solomon.  They alter-

        nated between fighting each other and acting in concert.  The chief consti-

        tutional difference between the 2 kingdoms lay in their respective succes-

        sion principles.  In Judah the principle of hereditary succession became  

        firmly entrenched.  

                   In northern Israel, on the other hand, hereditary succession had 

        gained no real foothold in the brief and unhappy reign of Ishbaal.  The 

        disruption caused by his death and Solomon’s death led to a public assem-

        bly, which made Jeroboam son of Nebat “king over all Israel.”  Just as 

        Saul was designated by Samuel, Jeroboam was chosen by the prophet 

        Ahijah the Shilonite.  The custom of prophetic designation continued until

        the time of Jehu.  The prophetically designated Jehu was the founder of a

        dynasty that lasted for about a century.

                   In Judah and northern Israel the king was neither himself a god, 

        nor a divinely chosen means of integrating human life with that of the gods.

        Only secondarily, in virtue of the fact that they were heir to the priest-king-

        ship of Jerusalem could the Davidides be regarded as priests. It was a typi-

        cally astute political maneuver on David’s part to bring the ark of the cove-

        nant, the sacred symbol of the cohesion of the old Israelite tribal confede-

        racy, up to Jerusalem. The same act also permitted Solomon to build the 

        temple and the royal palace next to each other.  “Divine-king” conceptions 

        never became fully integral to the human institution, but were ultimately 

        absorbed into the Hebrew-Jewish conception of God.

                   8. King’s Duties and Responsibilities—The  King’s duties and 

        responsibilities were those of the charismatic “deliverer-judge”; his 

        powers & privileges were similar to that of other ancient Near East rulers,

        but they were limited by vested local and regional interests.  Like the deli-

        verer-judge, the king succored his people; even individuals might appeal 

        to him for aid.  Unlike the older charismatic leader, who was a rallying 

        point and personalized center for the forces of the entire community, the 

        king was elevated to a position above the people.  His entire entourage 

        was merely an extension of the king’s own person; the monarchy was a 

        man doing everything possible to enhance his personal greatness and 

        glory. 

                   There were limits, however, to a king’s arbitrary self-glorification.  

        David’s purchase of Araunah’s threshing floor at full price shows his re-

        spect for tradition, and Ahab did not himself dare to force expropriation 

        of Naboth’s vineyard but allowed his Phoenician queen to obtain the pro-

        perty for him through having Naboth judicially murdered.

                   The Deuteronomy “law of the king” voices some typical grievances 

        which historic experience with the monarchy produced among covenant-

        loyal Israelites. Within the bounds imposed by Israel’s age and covenant-

        sanctioned custom, the king did as he thought best with and for a people 

        whose destiny was scarcely distinguishable from his own.

G-61

                   The relationship between the king and  the people was, on a larger 

        scale, that between a charismatic leader & those who recognized his chief-

        tainship.  His relationship, however, was personal and psychological, and 

        not one that expressed itself in a stable series of impersonal political and

        administrative forms.  The monarchy could never organize this relation-

        ship into an all-embracing and coherent administrative system.  The king’s 

        administrative devices served primarily his own purposes, rather than ser-

        ving to promote the general welfare.

                   Local government under the monarchy, therefore, wasn't much dif-

        ferent from what it had been under the tribal confederacy, where authority 

        was exercised by the elders and other leading men.  In some of the larger 

        towns there was also a royal deputy, who did not always get along with the

        elders.  But so long as the king’s requirements were fulfilled, there would 

        be little occasion for interference by a deputy in a town’s internal affairs.  

        The most important effect of the monarchy upon the local communities 

        was social rather than political.  The king’s service created a small army of

        officials who constituted a new quasi-feudal aristocracy in Judah and Jeru-

        salem they were distinguished from “the people” as “princes.”

                   The king “reigned . . . and . . . administered  justice and equity to all

        his people”; these functions he either carried out directly or delegated to 

        his “servants,” which included those serving diplomatic, intelligence, inves-

        tigative, and merchant marine functions.  From the reigns of David & Solo-

        mon, however, most departments were staffed by officers who are specifi-

        cally or technically, termed in our sources.

                   9. Royal Offices & Military Posts—For internal affairs the most 

        important officer-ships were the following:  

                      “One who is over the house”: This office subsequently be-   

              came next in importance to that of the king himself; the person hol-

              ding it was not merely a palace majordomo or steward, but the 

              king’s vizier or prime minister. 

                      Recorder:  It was an Israelite adaptation of the Egyptian royal 

              herald.  His duties would include:  The reporting of news to the 

              king, announcement & interpretation to others of the sovereign’s 

              will, regulation of royal audiences, court protocol, & supervision 

              of the monarch’s travel arrangements.

                      Secretary:  Wherever writing, recording, or tabulation or an 

              official character had to be done, it was done by a trained professio-

              nal.  Solomon had 2 chief secretaries, sons of a father who held the 

              same office under David.  The name of the father seems to have 

              been Egyptian, and he may have been imported by David.

                      “One in charge of forced labor”:  The superintendent of the 

              corvee, the man who raised and organized the compulsory labor 

              gangs employed in the king’s heavy work projects.  He could hardly

              be a popular figure, & it isn't surprising that Rehoboam’s superin-

              tendent was stoned to death.

                      “One over the district officers”:  This was the king’s chief 

              collector of internal revenue. Solomon divided northern Israel into

              12 administrative districts, each with its officer.  Each officer as 

              required to supply the king and his household with enough food 

              for one month of the year.  The tax system was the best-organized 

              administrative device of the monarchic period.  His revenue sys-

              tem's productivity was a main factor in Solomon’s extraordinarily 

              successful foreign trade.

                      “Judges and officers”:  These appeared in the towns during 

              the monarchic period & began to replace the earlier, rather freer 

              methods of obtaining & dispensing justice.  The town judge’s func-

              tion grew out of the older Israelite custom whereby the weak 

              sought the help of the strong in vindication of their covenant-sanc-

              tioned right & claims.  This officer marshaled and directed the 

              townspeople whenever they had any role to play in the execution 

              of a sentence.

                      “The Counselor”:  This person may not always have had 

              official status, but his function was filled during every reign. The 

              king had to have an “understanding mind to . . . Discern between 

              good and evil”.  To achieve this, he availed himself of counsel, 

              both superhuman (diviner) and human (counselor).

G-62

                    The king’s army was at once his means of fulfilling his function as a

        “deliverer” and the foundation of his power.  Nearly every king participated

        in warfare, & some died in battle.  The king did his utmost to maintain the 

        army at maximum possible efficiency.  David made the army into a profes-

        sional one.  He didn't have many chariots and horsemen, but Solomon in-

        troduced them on a grand scale.  Under the king himself, the highest mili-

        tary post was that of “commander of the army.”  Abner held this office 

        under Saul; Joab under David, Benaiah under Solomon, and Omri under 

        Elah.  The infantry had the “commanders of thousands ... hundreds ... & 

        fifties ...”

                   Diplomacy, always closely associated with war, was another chief 

        preoccupation of the Israelite and Judean kings.  It was used:  to effect 

        coalitions; to avert or procure relief from attack; to negotiate the terms of 

        cessation of hostilities; to provoke hostilities; & to establish covenant & 

        peace.  Other uses include: arrangement of royal marriages; negotiation of 

        trade-&-service agreements; to exchange felicitations & condolences; re-

        ception of visiting royalties or their envoys; and during royal visits abroad.  

        Most frequently foreign affairs were negotiated through oral or written 

        diplomatic correspondence conveyed by “messengers.”  

                   10. Israel and Judah Under Oriental Imperialism—From Assyrian

        king Tiglath-pileser III's (745-727) reign to the defeat inflicted by Alexander 

        the Great upon Darius (333 B.C.), the Near East was dominated by the As-

        syrians (745-609), Neo-Babylonian (609-539), and Persian empires (539-

        333).  The Assyrians extinguished the northern Israelite state (721) and 

        Judah was destroyed by the Babylonians (587).  Judah was allowed to be-

        come a provincial seat where semi-autonomous political authority passed 

        into the hands of the high priests of the restored temple at Jerusalem.

                   The Assyrian policy of exchanging the ruling classes of territories 

        incorporated into their empire resulted in the transfer of many northern Isra-

        elites to Mesopotamia and Media.  They were replaced by a considerable 

        body of foreigners, including Babylonians & Syrians.  The former northern

        Israelite kingdom was reorganized into the Assyrian provinces of Megiddo, 

        Dor, Gilead, and Samaria, each under an Assyrian governor.  Judea was 

        ruled through such puppet kings as Manasseh.  Josiah (640-609) asserted 

        his independence of a weakened Assyrian control, but couldn't achieve 

        independence from the rising might of the Chaldean heirs. 

                   Similar attempts by Jehoiakim & Zedekiah only convinced the Chal-

        deans that a Judean vassal king was altogether too dangerous to tolerate.  

        Accordingly, they broke down Jerusalem's walls, thus rendering it incapa-

        ble of defense.  In this way Judea was added to the provincial organization 

        which the Chaldeans had taken over from their Assyrian predecessors. Un-

        like the Assyrians, however, the Chaldeans didn't replace the people whom 

        they deported to Babylon with colonists. 

                   With Egypt’s conquest by Cambyses in 525, the Persian imperial 

        power became the greatest yet seen in the ancient world.  Its rulers fos-

        tered the subject peoples’ religious & cultural tradition, while maintaining 

        a firm grip on the real political & military power.  But Judea's disturbed 

        condition allowed Sheshbazaar scarcely to commence the laying of the 

        temple’s foundations before the work was halted.  By the time it could be 

        resumed, a descendent of David, was “governor of Judah.”  He isn't ex-

        pressly named as governor in the official correspondence about resumption

        of work on the sanctuary.  According to Ezra, it was the “elders of the 

        Jews,” rather than a governor, who presided over the completion and dedi-

        cation of the “house of God.”

                   Shortly after the middle of the 400s B.C., Nehemiah the son of Ha-

        caliah,  was appointed Governor of the province of Judah & officially per-

        mitted to rebuild Jerusalem.  Judah thus became a province in its own  

        right.  Despite the opposition of other provincial governors, and of Geshem,

        the powerful and influential king of the Qedarite Arabs, Nehemiah succee-

        ded in making Jerusalem the capital of a flourishing province.  He institu-

        ted a security system, made provision for a genealogical registry, corrected 

        various economic and religious abuses and re-covenanted the people “to 

        walk in God’s law.”

                   In addition to the governor and the Zadokite high priest of the tem-

        ple, a third official achieved great importance under Persian imperial rule:

        the scribe.  Since it was Persian policy to encourage subject peoples to live

        by their own religious traditions & laws, the need arose for trained experts

        who could interpret and transmit such materials.  It was the governor’s 

        duty to place this “law” into effect, as it was the high priest’s duty to pre-

        side over the temple cult prescribed by the same law.  

                   (For government in place after Nehemiah to New Testament times 

        see the entry in the Old Testament Apocrypha/Influences outside the Bible 

        section of the Appendix.)

                   (For New Testament Roman government See Procurator, Roman

        Empire,  Sanhedrin, and Tetrarch entries in both the biblical entries and 

        the entries in the Old Testament Apocrypha/Influences Outside the Bible 

        section of the Appendix.)

G-63

GOVERNMENTS (κυβερνηsεις (koo ber nay sies), steering, piloting) The King 

        James Version translation of a term used by Paul to describe one of God’s 

        spiritual gifts.  Some scholars see in these terms an allusion to ministries 

        performed by bishops, elders, and deacons.

GOVERNOR (פקיד (peh kad), deputy; שר (sar), noble; ηγεμων (eg em own) 

        guide, chieftain)  The ruler set up by kings to be over a specific territory or 

        province.  He governs by authority of the supreme monarch, not in his own 

        right. Joseph was governor in Egypt; Daniel was governor of the wise men 

        in Babylon.  Persian governors mentioned in the Bible include Tattenai, 

        Zerubbabel, and Nehemiah.

                   In the King James Version, the “governor” of the temple was the 

        chief officer, who had authority over the temple area.  The “governor of 

        the army” was the commander of a unit (“commander” is used in the 

        Revised Standard Version). The leading prince or sar of a city was some-

        times called the “governor.”

                   In the New Testament the word egemon appears for the Roman 

        legates, procurators & proconsuls.  They were administrators of a terri-

        tory or province for the Roman emperor.  Some had the Roman legion 

        under them, while others were dependent on a general for army support.  

        Tenure was generally 1 year, but many reappointments occurred.  Simi-

        larly, one who is less than a king, but who serves as his deputy is the eth-

        narch.  The ruler or governor of the feast perhaps could be considered the

        deputy of the householder.  

GOZAN  (גוזן, cut off)  A city and district on or near the Euphrates, through 

        which the Habor River flowed.  In the ninth year of Hosea king of (nor-

        thern) Israel, the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser exiled some Israelites to

        Assyrian territory including the region of the Habor. 

GRACE  (cariς (khar ees).  In the specifically Christian sense of the word, 

        God’s unmerited free, spontaneous love for sinful man, revealed & made 

        effective in Jesus Christ.  Some anticipations of “grace” occur in the Old 

        Testament (OT). In some books the use of “grace” hardly differs from 

        how it was used in secular Greek.  It is to Paul above all others that we 

        owe the word's current, special significance.  By his letters, he esta-

        blished it in the language of the church.  In secular Greek, one common 

        meaning of “charis” is “pleasantness.”  The word may also mean a kindly

        attitude, and so approval or favor.  The word could also mean apprecia-

        tion of an act of kindness, and so came to mean “thanks.” 

                   Grace in Paul’s Letters—The Pauline phrase about grace which is

        most familiar to us is that which occurs in the commonly used benediction 

        “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”  In fact, the phrases “the grace of 

        God” & “grace from God” occur even more frequently than “the grace of 

        Christ.”  Since it is true that the means by which the grace of God is medi-

        ated to men is pre-eminently Jesus Christ, his grace is not to be thought of

        as other than the grace of God, but rather as an expression of it.  God is 

        the source from which grace comes to humankind.  Jesus Christ is the 

        means by which this grace reaches people in their need.

                   For the believer, God's grace is actualized and made effective for 

        human need in Jesus Christ.  The context where the “grace of Christ” most

        frequently occurs is the closing benediction of the letters.  The grace of 

        Christ is seen in his obedient fulfillment of his Father’s gracious purpose, 

        first, by becoming human at all, by the humble courtesy of his lowly birth,

        by the compassion & dauntless courage of his life & ministry, by the stead-

        fast faithfulness which led him to the Cross, and by the mighty power of 

        his resurrection and ascension, though there was nothing in humans that 

        was even faintly worthy of it.

                   Grace is offered by God to humans with the special purpose of ac-

        complishing for humans good things which they cannot achieve for them-

        selves.  By the grace of God sinful people may be forgiven, and in spite of 

        their obvious wrongdoing, treated by God as if they were innocent. 

                   In contemporary Judaism, it was normally believed that one gained 

        acceptance with God by sustained obedience to God’s commands.  Paul, 

        however, had proved the futility of this.  For Paul the Jew, the guilt of past 

        sin had become an unendurable, & yet an irremovable burden.  Its remo-

        val wasn't due to anything that he or any other person had done or could 

        do.  It was all God’s doing through Christ. God did so because it must be 

        God’s nature to do so. 

G-64

            All that God had done for humans in Christ was brought to a sharp 

        focus in Christ’s death upon the cross. The blessing which God confers on

        humans through Christ is called “salvation,” rather than justification.  Sal-

        vation is ascribed solely to the action of God‘s grace:  “By grace you have

        been saved through faith.”  Election also is ascribed to the grace of God.  

        God’s choice of the people of Israel is the act of God’s grace, based solely

        on God’s generous act and not at all on any merit in them. 

                   In Paul’s letters “grace” is sharply contrasted with words which 

        were commonly used to describe the human’s own endeavors to achieve 

        status with God.  Grace is the antithesis of law since a devout Jew was 

        used to assuming that it was through obedience to the law that he could 

        gain acceptance with God.  Paul declares that it is the believer’s privilege 

        to accept grace as an undeserved gift from God.  Successful obedience to 

        the commands of the law came to be known as “works.”  What makes 

        humans unacceptable with God is their disobedience to God’s will, their 

        sin; grace and sin are also set in sharp contrast with each other. 

                   The grace of God in Christ not only brings salvation to sinful hu-

        also assigns to those who are saved special tasks in the service of God.  

        Paul was appointed an apostle; there was nothing in him which made him

        suitable for it or deserving of it. The spiritual & moral equipment which he 

        needed for the fulfillment of the task was supplied as the gift of God’s 

        grace.  All the various endowments which believers are enabled to bring

        to the corporate life of the church are called charismata (gifts of grace).

                   Grace is, first, a free gift.  It is never humankind’s due, nor is it con-

        ferred as a reward.  Grace is abundant.  Grace is frequently associated 

        with faith, that response in humans which accepts the offer of God’s grace. 

        Believers are utterly sure that “it is all God’s doing”; they also know that 

        at some point they have had to say “yes” when they might have said “no.”  

                   Paul’s writings contain significant warnings that there is that in hu-

        man which can accept and which can refuse & withstand God’s proffered 

        grace.  There is also the suggestion that God determines the destiny of in-

        dividuals before their birth, but against this must be set the words in which 

        Paul explicitly acknowledges that grace may be resisted and thwarted by 

        humankind.  Grace, therefore, does not override human will and violate 

        their responsibility.

                   Finally, God’s grace is an active and effective power from God.  It 

        signifies the energetic initiative which God takes in Christ to heal the 

        breach between humans and God, and repair the ruins in the human soul.  

        Indeed it is probably an error to think of grace as something dispensed by 

        God.  The “grace of God” means “God in God’s graciousness.”  Grace is 

        also a quality of Christian character.  It is a divine activity which can repro-

        duce itself in the lives of those who receive it. 

                    “Grace” is primarily the characteristic of God’s dealings with hu-

        mankind but can also be used of the relationship of human to human.  

        Going further along these lines, it is applied to the generous contribution 

        which Christians make for the relief of their less fortunate fellows.  In addi-

        tion, Paul uses charis as the normal greeting with which he begins his let-

        ters; “grace be with you” is his farewell greeting.  Paul, indeed, may have 

        been the originator of this use of charis as a Christian greeting. 

                   “Grace” Outside of Paul’s Writings—The word charis is not used 

        at all in Matthew and Mark.  In Luke there are six instances of it, but it is 

        used in the sense of “pleasantness,” “kindliness,”  “favor,” or “thanks.”  In 

        John the word occurs only 4 times in the beginning of the gospel.  “Grace” 

        is combined with “truth,” as if they are complementary to each other.  It 

        seems probable that some of Paul’s meaning is to be recognized here.  In 

        Acts, charis is used both as it was in the primary Greek Old Testament and 

        means “favor,” and it is used so that it carries something of the Pauline em-

        phasis.  The grace of God is the content of the gospel message, the expla-

        nation of missionary success, and the status of the believers in their depen-

        dence on God. 

                   The three short, pastoral letters that were traditionally regarded as 

        written by Paul contain 13 occurrences of “grace,” six of them as the nor-

        mal Pauline greetings and farewells. The characteristic Pauline use of 

        “grace” is not clearly present in Hebrews.  In this letter, grace is descrip-

        tive of God’s loving concern & readiness to aid all who turn to God in 

        need, but it isn't specifically related to Christ & salvation.  In James, 

        “grace” is used twice in connection with a quotation from Proverbs 3.  

                   In I Peter, “grace” is used more frequently, in proportion to its 

        length, than in any other non-Pauline writing, & it comes near in its use 

        of “grace” to the distinctive Pauline meaning of the word.  It is related to 

        God’s action in Christ; it is bestowed on believers in order to equip them 

        with a “gracious gift.” In II Peter,  the only use of “grace” is in chapter 3, 

        “grow in grace,” which probably means “grow in Christian character and

        goodness.”  In Jude, verse 4, certain men are condemned because they 

        “pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness,” There is no use of 

        “grace” in Revelation except in the opening and closing greetings.

G-65

            It is important to remember that the truth about God, which the word

         “grace” is intended to represent, appears far more in the Bible than the 

         word itself.  The developed Christian meaning of grace is more akin to the

        OT uses of the Hebrew word chesed.    Originally translated as “mercy,” 

        this word is more accurately translated as “loyal devotion, grounded in 

        love which goes beyond legal obligation.”  This clearly has much in com-

        mon with what Paul meant by “grace.”  Apart from the use of any particular

        word, we find sometimes in the OT a wondering awareness of God’s wil-

        lingness to forgive those who are utterly undeserving of it.  Further, the 

        fact that God chose Israel to be God’s people must be attributed entirely to

        God’s “grace.”

                   In the gospels the word “grace” hardly appears at all in the full Pau-

        line sense, but God’s gracious dealings with God’s children are the gos-

        pels' theme.  Jesus’ teaching also expounds what his life illustrates.  The 

        father who welcomes home a worthless son with a generosity which bears 

        no relation to the boy’s merits reflects grace.  In the parable of the workers, 

        it is their need and the master’s most unusual generosity which determine 

        the master’s action, not their achievements.

                  For Paul everything about Jesus speaks of God’s grace.  His coming

        to earth at all is grace’s  supreme act.   Nor is it only what Christ did for us, 

        but what he still does through his risen presence & the Spirit’s gift which 

        proclaims Christ’s grace.  In the New Testament, the meaning of “grace” is

        undeserved kindness.  In Paul’s letters it is applied particularly to God’s 

        uncovenanted, undeserving, mercy toward humankind in Jesus, in his in-

        carnation, death, and risen life.  From this grace comes to humankind the 

        blessing of forgiveness, peace with God, salvation, strength for obedience 

        to God, and gifts for service in God’s church. 

GRAFT  (εγκεntrizw (eg ken tree zo))  A slip of a cultivated plant is inserted 

        into the stock of a common one.  Paul used it to illustrate how Gentiles 

        were grafted onto Israel. 

GRAIN (בר (bar); דגן (dah gan); שבר (seb her))  The edible seeds of certain 

        cultivated grasses which provide a staple food for humans, especially bar-

        ley & wheat  (See specific grain entry). The King James Version (KJV) 

        uses the Old English “corn” to translate these words, but the predominant 

        use of “corn” for maize in America has made necessary a change in the 

        American versions.  KJV uses “corn” occasionally for other related He-

        brew words.  Grain-growing supplied frequent metaphors for prophet & 

        apostle.  Jesus’ parables of the sower, the weeds among the wheat, the

        rich man and his barns, and other references to grain are still forceful 

        vehicles of his message.  

                   The principal kinds of grain used for food in biblical times hitta 

        (wheat); kussemeth (emmer or spelt); & seora (barley).  The broad Plain 

        of Esdraelon is the “breadbasket” of Israel today, much as it was in bibli-

        cal times.  Many of the broad valleys in Galilee provide fertile fields for 

        grain.  The ancient Philistine Plain, much of the Plain of Sharon, and the 

        valleys of Sorek and Elah in the Shephelah are still main grain-producing 

        areas in Israel in the present day.

                   The vital importance of grain crops to the people of the ancient 

        Near East led to elaborate fertility cults (See entry).  The adoptions of 

        these cults from the Canaanites by the Hebrew peasants brought forth the

        invective of the Old Testament prophets. Several excavations of biblical 

        cities have yielded remains of grain and storage jars. 

GRANARY  (אסם (‘aw sawm); מאבוס (mah ab oose), storehouse; aπο-

      θηκην (ah poth ek en), storehouse)  A storage place for winnowed grain

         ranging from large jars to large pits.  Excavations of Palestinian sites 

         have revealed various methods of storing grain.  At Tell es-Sultan (Jeri-

        cho), storage jars from the Middle Bronze Age (2100-1600 B.C.) were 

        found with grain still in them.  At Tell Jemmeh a large number of grain pits,

        some as large as 7.6 meters in diameter, were excavated.  Cave and dry 

        cisterns may also have been used for storage.  It was probably in the Late 

        Bronze and Early Iron ages (1400-1000 B.C.) that large central granaries 

        first became widespread in Palestine. 

GRAPES (See Vine, Vineyard)

G-66

GRASS (דשא (deh sheh), tender grass; חציר (khaw tseer), leeks; עשב (eh 

        seb), green herb; χορτος (kor tos), pasture)  It is unlikely that the Hebrew 

        distinguished carefully between various grasses and grass-like herbs.

                  Grass' short-lived character is used to symbolize the temporary na-

        ture of human life.  God’s provision of grass for humans and animals is one

        example of God’s providential care, its failure in time of drought a sign 

        of God’s displeasure.  In the New Testament, chortos is likewise used to 

        illustrate both God’s providential care and the brevity of human life. 

GRASSHOPPER  (ארבה (‘ar beh); גוב (gobe), locust)  Even today “grass-

        hopper” and “locust” are often used interchangeably. “Locust” is more cor-

        rectly used to designate the short-horned grasshoppers; swarming phase.  

        The grasshopper is either a member of the long-horned family, or is from 

        the short-horned species in its solitary phase. It is 1 of the 4 species from

        the cricket/grasshopper family listed as clean and edible. 

GRATING  (מכבר (mak bar), lattice-work)  A bronze network or lattice on the 

        altar of burnt offering.  The grating was to be placed under a ledge of the

        altar, halfway down the side.  The grating was to have rings at each of its 

        4 corners, through which carrying poles were inserted. 

GRATITUDE.  No motif more adequately reveals the nature of biblical faith than 

        does gratitude or thanksgiving.  It occurs only with the context of the 

        covenant relationship.

                   In the Old Testament (OT), thanksgiving forms the Psalter’s special 

        note.  Yet Israel’s gratitude rings throughout her history; thanksgiving 

        played an integral part in Israel’s cult.  Israel thanked Yahweh because 

        Yahweh remained ever faithful to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel.  Israel’s 

        response to Yahweh’s mighty works was one of gratitude for Yahweh’s 

        covenant love.  Indeed, such gratitude was, on Israel’s part, the condition 

        for the proper fulfillment of her covenantal duties, for out of such gratitude

        was born the willingness to obey the covenant’s laws.

                   The New Testament (NT) differs little from the OT.  Perhaps be-

        cause Jesus often prayed alone, few of his thanksgivings are preserved in 

        the tradition.  Those who knew Jesus in the flesh thanked God for his work

        and for his person.  Those following after thanked God continually for that

        which was wrought by God’s power.  The pious prayers set down by bibli-

        cal writers were heartfelt thanksgivings poured out to God for the concrete

        action that God, through Christ and God’s spirit, was taking in the early 

        church.

                   Hence, NT writers urged their fellow Christians to be also thus grate-

        ful, to recognize that which God has done to receive the benefits of God’s 

        actions.   Only where gratitude was present was there true faith.  Gratitude 

        lay at the heart of biblical faith because it formed the only proper response 

        to that which had happened in history—namely, God’s salvation of God’s 

        people. 

GRAVE  (שאול (sheh ole); קבר (kib raw); mnhmeion (meh neh ee on))  An 

        excavated place for the deceased's burial.  The context of biblical passa-

        ges seldom makes clear whether the place was a trench in the soil or a 

        cave cut in stone. 

GRAVEL  (חצץ (khaw tsats))  The word is used figuratively with reference to 

        the consequences of deceitfulness. 

GRAVEN IMAGE  (פסל (peh sel), idol)  One type of image carved from stone, 

        metal, or wood, mentioned in the Old Testament with the other type, the

        molten image, both of which were forbidden to the Hebrews.  The graven

        image differed from the molten in that the latter was cast in a mold, 

        whereas the former was sculptured.  Graven images were widely used in

        the ancient Near East for the purpose of representing the various deities.

        According to Deuteronomy 7 and 12, they were used by the Canaanites.  

        King Manasseh is condemned for having made graven images.  They 

        were destroyed during the reformation of Josiah. 

GRAVING TOOL  (חרט (khaw reet), writing style)  A cutting implement with 

        which the sculptor shaped his statue from the rough cast form.  Aaron used

        one to form the golden calf. 

GRAY (שיב (say bah), gray hair, old age) 

G-67

GREAT  (μεγaς (meg as))  A title which, along with “Power” should probably be 

        interpreted against the background of the Simon Magus legend, according 

        to which he claimed the title as one who possessed divine power.  During 

        Claudius' reign, Simon Magus had gone to Rome, where he had been ho-

        nored as a god; and all the Samaritans and others, regarded him as the 

        first god.

                   The New Testament is familiar with dynamis or “power,” as an an-

        gelic or demonic being.  There are at least 4 distinct ways of interpreting 

        “Power” and “Great with reference to Simon.  He might consider himself 

        as God's power of; like the moon as God's great power; as an angel or 

        demon; or as God.  At present, one can do no more than to point out the 

        possibilities. 

GREAT LIZARD  (צב (tsab))  The lizard in question is probably 18 inches 

        long. 

GREAT OWL (ינשוף (yan shof), ibis, heron) The term often applied to the 

        great horned or eagle owls, the largest & most powerful owl. It is uncer-

        tain that the owl is being referred to in the Bible, but translating yanshoph 

        as ibis does not make sense in Leviticus 11, as wading birds do not make 

        their home in the ruins of a city. 

GREAT SEA (הים הגדול (ha yawm  ha gaw dole))  The name by which the 

        Mediterranean Sea was known by Near Eastern people.  Hebrews doubt-

        less referred to the Mediterranean as the Great Sea, because it was larger

        than the other seas with which they were acquainted.  It was also called 

        the “western sea.”  In Exodus it is referred to as the “sea of the Phili-

        stines.”  The Mediterranean is an inland ocean about 2,200 miles or 3,500

        km long from Gibraltar to the Lebanon coast, varying in width from 100 

        to 600 miles (160 to 960 km). 

                   Unlike their neighbors the Phoenicians, who were famous for their 

        fleets, which sailed most of the Mediterranean, the Hebrews were not a 

        sea-faring people.  In the time of Solomon a fleet of ships was built on the

        Red Sea.  The Hebrew attitude toward the Mediterranean is probably to be

        explained by the absence of good harbors.  The Palestinian coast line of 

        less than 160 km between Phoenicia and Philistia had no natural harbors 

        from which fleets could operate.  And as an agricultural people, the He-

        brews tended to look inland rather than to the sea in the development of 

        their culture. 

                   When the Hebrews described the territory of Canaan they referred 

        to the Great Sea as its western border.  In a similar way the records of the 

        military exploits of such Assyrian and Babylonian kings as Ashurnasirpal 

        II, Shalmaneser III, and Nebuchadnezzar refer to advances that were made

        to the Great Sea.  Although the Hebrews often referred to Yahweh’s power

        over the Red Sea, they do not mention or imply very frequently a similar 

        power over the Mediterranean. 

                   The  Phoenicians' & Greeks' extensive use of the Mediterranean 

        was continued by the Romans, who referred to it as “Our Sea.”  Follo-

        wing the conquest of Palestine by Pompey in 63 B.C., traffic on the Medi-

        terranean increased as merchants, envoys, soldiers, and teachers made 

        their way back and forth from Rome.  The development of traffic on Medi-

        terranean during New Testament times helped to make possible the missio-

        nary activity of Paul, Silas, Barnabas, and others. 

GREECE  In the Old Testament (OT) a number of obscure geographical and 

        ethnographical references have been interpreted to mean Greece or the 

        Greeks, especially Javan, the 4th son of Japheth, & perhaps also Dodanim.

        The name Greece occurs explicitly in Daniel 8, 10, and 11, Zechariah 9, 

        13, and Greeks are mentioned in Joel 3.  In the New Testament (NT), the 

        Greek language is referred to in the Gospel of John, Acts, and several of 

        the letters, which is in fact the language of the NT itself.  In the first 100 

        years A.D. “Greek” was a cultural term, not ethnographic, & meant any-

        one who spoke the language. 

                   The obscurity of the earlier OT references suggests the wide gulf 

        which separated the 2 civilizations.  Yet in the end both contributed to the

        civilization which followed, and to the rise of the Christian religion.  

        Many modern scholars believe that their contributions were equally impor-

        tant.  The Aegean basin’s original population was already settled there by 

        3000 B.C.  These were the “Aegeans.” The ancient Greek homeland com-

        prised the Balkan peninsula’s southern end.  In reality the ancient Greek 

        world included the Balkan Peninsula’s southern end, western Asia Minor, 

        the Aegean Sea islands, South Italy, and Sicily. 

G-68

            Settlement of the Homeland—The Greeks were a branch of the 

        Indo-Europeans who immigrated into the area.  The Achaean Greeks 

        came first in 2000-1900 B.C., overland from the north and east. They set-

        tled chiefly in the central Peloponnesus, Thessaly, Boeotia, and the north-

        eastern Aegean.  The Dorian Greeks came next in 1500-1200 B.C., and 

        settled in the eastern Peloponnesus, the Isthmus, Crete, and the islands of 

        the southern Aegean, including Rhodes.  

                   Next came the Ionian Greeks, who occupied Attica, Euboea, the is-

        lands of the middle Aegean, and the mainland of western Asia Minor.  

        Lastly, the Aetolian Greeks occupied west central Greece, the northern 

        Peloponnese, Elis, Aetolia, and the islands offshore.  It is possible that in 

        the early period some stocks occupied areas from which they were later 

        dislodged; the division of territory just outlined is that of the ultimate set-

        tlement in historical times.  

                   Another as yet unsolved problem is the relation of the invading 

        Greeks to the older inhabitants and the Minoans.  The character of the 

        Minoans and their customs reflect a stage of development far beyond that

        of the invaders from the north, & have ties with Egypt, the East, & Anato-

        lia.  Life about the Mediterranean was hazardous around 2000 B.C., and 

        the invading Greeks from the north were desperate for food & for land.  

        The early Greeks destroyed, absorbed, salvaged, or transformed whatever

        stood in their way.  What survived was in many cases only a name. 

                   Around 1200-1100 B.C. a Greek expedition conquered & destroyed

        the prosperous city of Illium, or Troy, on Asia Minor's northwest coast.  

        Earlier still, around 1400 B.C., the Greek invaders had sacked & destroyed

        Cnossus in Crete; the survivors were scattered all over the eastern Medi-

        terranean, some of them eventually settling on a strip of seacoast in south-

        ern Palestine—the people later known as the Philistines.  

                   Colonization Era—Eventually the Greeks settled down, built ci-

        ties, cultivated the land, absorbed the survivors of the earlier cultures, 

        and made the Greek language the common tongue.  The earliest Greeks 

        were not a maritime people, but it was not long before the necessities of 

        their new situation compelled them to become seafarers.  In time they be-

        came the best sailors in the ancient world.  Another factor which turned 

        them to the sea was their own increasing population.

                   By the 700s B.C., a tide of colonization was in full course.  The 

        areas settled included the Black Sea Coast, Sicily, southern Italy, Naples, 

        Corsica, southern Gaul, North Africa, the Nile Delta, and even parts of 

        Spain.  In every case the dialect, religion, customs, and institutions of the

        founding city & its ancestral stock were maintained.  No colony was per-

        mitted to infringe upon the political or economic rights of the mother city.

        This led in time to great friction, & perpetuated the disunity which preven-

        ted the Greeks from making a common stand against Carthage and Rome. 

                   The earliest social structure was the nomadic tribe with its council 

        of elders, but this was replaced by the city king and the “city-state.”  The 

        age of the kings was a period of slow development of the arts & of com-

        merce, but the Greeks soon learned from the Phoenicians the building & 

        navigation of ships, the manufacture of potteries & fabrics, & the alphabet.

        The Greeks perfected the Semitic alphabet by adding vowels. 

                   The “literature” of the age was the oral tradition of ballads & popular

         epics of wars, battles, horsemanship, adventure at sea & in distant lands. 

        These provided  the subject matter of the Iliad & the Odyssey, which were 

        given final form by Homer around 800-700 B.C., as the tale of the last 

        days of the conquest of Troy & the story of Odysseus’ oft-delayed and far-

        wandering journey homeward to Ithaca. 

                   Homer’s gods are personal beings, very human in character—far 

        too human according to the later Greek philosophers & the early Christian

        fathers.  Supreme among the gods was Zeus, the thunderer, the rain-brin-

        ger, the avenging god whose lightning stroke could blast & destroy.  The 

        goddess Demeter was the ancient earth-mother.  Apollo, already the sun-

        god, became the deadly archer; his sister Artemis, the huntress, the swift 

        and painless slayer of women, and eventually the guardian of women 

        giving birth.  

                   Athena was patroness of the arts of peace, inventress of the car-

        ding, spinning, and weaving of wool, of pottery-making, & of the olive's

        cultivation.  Dionysus was originally a tree god and became the patron 

        god of the vine.  Hermes was the gods' messenger.  Aphrodite, was the 

        goddess of love.  Ares was the god of war.  Poseidon, was the “earth-

        shaker” and the ruler of the seas.  Hera was the wife of Zeus.  Hades was 

        the god of the underworld.  Some of the above were pre-Greek deities, 

        some of them purely Greek, and some of them imported from the area 

        of Anatolia or Cyprus.

                   Homer’s influence was far-reaching & long-lasting.  The gods 

        enshrined in Homer’s verse remained the norm for the Greek idea of 

        deity and for all thought about the gods.  Hesiod accounted for the origin 

        and birth of the gods, and their relationship with one another.  It was 

        Homer & Hesiod who invented the “theology” of the Greeks. What they 

        really did was only arrange & systematize a body of traditional lore. 

G-69

            Age of King & Nobles—Following the age of the kings came that of

        the nobles, who were too full of energy to live quiet lives as landowners, 

        magistrates, or priests.  The mountains of Greece, & also the Aegean Sea 

        with its many islands and archipelagoes, prevented the establishment of 

        any lasting political unity or permanent cultural solidarity.  The 4 main 

        divisions, from early times,  were Argos and Sparta in the Peloponnese, 

        Athens and Thebes in the north.  Nothing like the great empires of the East

        was ever achieved, except for the brief Athenian sea empire following the 

        repulse of the Persians early in the 400s B.C. 

                   This geographical handicap is the background of the rise of the 

        nobles and their unhindered advance in power.  These noblemen enjoyed 

        their wealth and luxury, their vast lands and overseas trade, all at the ex-

        pense of the poverty and misery of the peasants.  This period, like the clas-

        sical period of the Old Testament history, set the norm for all later religion 

        in the Greek world. 

                    By 650 B.C. kingship had become unknown; by 600 B.C. the no-

        bles also were on the wane—their place was taken by local tyrants, who by

        sheer force of arms, strategy, cleverness, or terrorism seized power in the 

        cities & administered them for their own benefit.  They promised all good 

        things to the landless and hungry, freedom to the oppressed, restoration to 

        the exiled; but, once securely in power, they forgot all these earlier commit-

        ments.  Within a hundred years a capitalist class was in evidence—men 

        whose wealth was in money, and who were in a position to lend capital at 

        rates as high as 18%. 

                   Rise of Democracy—It was against this background of middle-

        class capitalism, rural poverty, and irresponsible government by the local 

        nobility & tyrants, that the democratic movement got underway.  Laws 

        were passed to check the power of individuals, but often without success.  

        However, the irresistible drive and energy of Greek culture surmounted all 

        obstacles, political and economic, and the advancement of Greek culture 

        went steadily forward, hand in hand with the demand for democratic self-

        rule.  

                   The great lyric poets like Sappho, Tyrtaeus, and Pindar set forth the 

        varying moods of their age.  Architecture and sculpture were developing 

        rapidly in new directions, towards the ethereal Greek style we see today.  

        The buildings were graced with majestic, permanent works in marble.  The

        rise of Greek law was paralleled by nobler religious conceptions, with 

        purer and higher ethical ideas which were applied not only to human rela-

        tions but also to the gods.  Even the gods must do justly, if they were to 

        deserve to be called gods. There was also a marked development in physi-

        cal sciences, philosophy, music, mathematics, and geography.  

                   (See also entry in the Old Testament Apocrypha/ Influences Outside

        the Bible section of the Appendix.) 

                   The Greek language and literature, Greek philosophy, Greek religi-

        ous thought and terminology permeated the whole East.  As a result, the 

        world was prepared, as the Greek church fathers insisted, for the coming of

        Christ and the preaching of the gospel; in Alexandria, the Hebrew Bible 

        was translated into Greek. Even Greek tragedies, epics, & books of philo-

        sophy were written there by Greco-Jewish authors.  Out of it all arose a 

        whole religious vocabulary, centered in the primary Greek Old Testament, 

        which the early Christians took over and used.  The influence of Hebrew 

        and Greek culture were such that both “died to live” and to pass on to the 

        future the best they had achieved in the moral, intellectual, and spiritual ad-

        venture of ancient people. 

GREED  (בצע (beh tsah), plunder; πλεονεξιa, (pleh on ex ee ah)) Greed-

        iness often signifies an excessive longing for food and drink or the over-

        consumption of them.  It is regarded as a serious sin in both the Old Testa-

        ment and the New Testament & intolerable in both the Israelite priesthood,

        & in a Christian bishop or churchman.  Jeremiah regarded his people’s 

        greediness as a principle cause of their decline & impending subjugation to

        Babylon.  Jesus warned against the danger of greediness.  Greediness is 

        one of the identifying characteristics of those false teachers who would 

        mislead the members of the Christian community. 

GREEK LANGUAGE (See introduction to the Old Testament Apocrypha/ 

        Influences Outside the Bible section of the Appendix.) 

GREEK RELIGION (See the entry in the Old Testament Apocrypha/ Influen-

        ces Outside the Bible section of the Appendix.)

GREEN  (ירק (yaw rawk); רענן (rah ‘an nan), flourishing)  The Hebrew 

        word yarak generally refers to vegetation.  The word  ra’anan refers to 

        the greenness of trees. 

G-70

GRIDDLE  (מחבת (makh ab eth), frying pan)  A thick pottery plate with small 

        depression like a waffle iron; when iron became common, it was also 

        used for griddles. 

GRINDING.  The process by which grain was made into flour by being rubbed 

        between two rough stones, which were either operated by hand or turned 

        by an animal. 

GUARD  (טבח (tab bakh), cook; רץ (roots), couriers; στρaτπεδaρχς (strat

        op ed ar khes), captain of the guard; κυστοδιa (koo sto dee ah),  

        watchman; σπεχυλaτορ (spek yoo la tor), bodyguard, executioner)  

         A man or body of troops assigned to protect a person or thing.  

                   The word tabbach is derived from the root-word which means “to

        slaughter” and designates the special troops of an Egyptian or Babylo-

        nian king.  The Israelite royal guard was called ruts.  They kept watch at 

        the palace doors, over the king’s treasures and accompanied the royal 

        chariot.       

                   The word “guard” is seldom found in the New Testament.  The 

        Greek koustodia is borrowed from the Latin and is used of the Roman 

        guard set over Jesus’ grave.  Speculatores were the body guard attached 

        to the emperor’s person. 

GUARD, COURT OF THE  (חצר המטרה (khaw tsar  ha mat tar rah), court

        of the jail)  Apparently an open court in the palace complex which was 

        reserved for detention of prisoners, at least during the time of the siege 

        of Jerusalem.  Here Jeremiah was confined, but he could continue his 

        prophesying. 

GUARD, GATE OF THE (שער המטרה (sha ‘ar  ha mat tar rah), gate of the

        jail)  Possibly a gate of the palace compound in Jerusalem, although the  

        context would favor its identification with the city gate. 

GUARDIAN (επιτροπος  (eh pih tro pos))  The adult legally responsible for the

        person and property of a minor.  In a general sense the Greek means 

        “manager” or “agent”; but in specific legal usage it is the regular term for

        the guardian of a minor.  In the New Testament, Paul uses it in presenting 

        his argument that the Jewish law was an instrument of temporary validity

        until the appearance of Christ.  The Revised Standard Version uses “guar-

        dian” in II Kings 10.  The Hebrew has the general sense of “support,” 

        “nourish,” “confirm,” etc. 

GUESTS (קראים (kaw raw eem); κaτaλυοw (ka ta  loo oh)) One invited to a 

        feast or provided with lodging. 

GUEST ROOM  (κaτaλυμa (kat ah loo ma))  The room in which Jesus and the 

        disciples celebrated the Last Supper.  The guest room would be a single 

        room where travelers could sleep.  As used in Mark 14 and Luke 22, it is 

        the room specifically for the eating of the Passover meal, by pilgrims to 

        the Passover. 

GUIDEPOSTS  (תמרורים (tam roo reem), column, pillar)  A word which is 

        used figuratively in Jeremiah 31 to encourage Israel to seek guidance in 

        life. 

GUILE  (מרמה (mir mah), deceit)  Crafty or deceitful cunning; treachery; dupli-

        city.  In Romans 16 Paul urges Roman Christians to learn to distinguish 

        between right and wrong and thus maintain their moral integrity.  Jesus is 

        commended as one who committed no sin & whose lips were free of guile.

        In Genesis 27, Isaac readily admitted to Esau that Jacob had come with 

        guile in order to steal his brother’s birthright. 

GUILT. See Sin. 

GUILT OFFERING.  See Sacrifice and Offerings. 

GULF.  See Chasm. 

G-71

GULL.  See Sea Gull. 

GUM  (נכאת (neh koth), spice)  A product of trade gathered from the resin of 

        an herb or shrub.  It was carried down to Egypt by Ishmaelites, and was 

        sent by Jacob to Joseph in Egypt as one of the “choice fruits of the land.”

        Many plants in the Near East exude resins which became important items

        of ancient trade. 

           See also Balm; Flora; Mastic; Myrrh; Spice; Stacte.  

GUNI  (גוני , colored)  1.  The second son of Naphtali.  2. A Gadite. 

GUR, ASCENT OF (מעלה גור (mah ‘ah leh  gur), ascent of lion cubs)  An

        ascent near Ibleam where the men of Israel’s King Jehu wounded Aha-

        ziah king of Judah. 

GUR-BAAL (גור בﬠל, dwelling of Baal) A city occupied by Arabs, possi-

        bly in the neighborhood of Edom.  Uzziah numbered it among his con-

        quests, & perhaps changed its name to the more pleasing one of Jagur. 

GUTTERS (רהטים (ra ha teem), (water) channel;צנור (tsin noor); water-

        fall) Used in Genesis 30 and II Samuel 5. 

GYMNASIUM  (gumnasion (jum na ze on))  A place of physical exercise 

        of Greek youths; a school of training, sometimes used in a wider sense

        —e.g., of a philosophical school.  Paul and the Christians in general do 

        not appear to have felt as much resentment against the gymnasium’s 

        activities as did the Jews in the 100s B.C.  See also the entry in the Old

        Testament Apocrypha/Influences Outside the Bible section of the

        Appendix.).

G-72