Godhead – Goiim

Godhead

god'-hed: The word "Godhead" is a simple doublet of the less frequently occurring "Godhood." Both forms stand side by side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 AD), and both have survived until today, though not in equally common use. They are representatives of a large class of abstract substantives, formed with the suffix "-head" or "-hood", most of which formerly occurred in both forms almost indifferently, though the majority of them survive only, or very preponderatingly (except in Scottish speech), in the form -hood. The two suffixes appear in Middle English as "-hede" and "-hod", and presuppose in the Anglo-Saxon which lies behind them a feminine "haeda" (which is not actually known) by the side of the masculine had. The Anglo-Saxon word "was originally a distinct substantive, meaning `person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank' " (Bradley, in A New English Dict. on a Historical Basis, under the word "-hood"), but its use as a suffix early superseded its separate employment. At first "-hede" appears to have been appropriated to adjectives, "-hod" to substantives; but, this distinction breaking down and the forms coming into indiscriminate use, "-hede" grew obsolete, and remains in common use only in one or two special forms, such as "Godhead," "maidenhead" (Bradley, as cited, under the word "-head").

The general elimination of the forms in -head has been followed by a fading consciousness, in the case of the few surviving instances in this form, of the qualitative sense inherent in the suffix. The words accordingly show a tendency to become simple denotatives. Thus, "the Godhead" is frequently employed merely as a somewhat strong synonym of "God" although usually with more or less emphasis upon that in God which makes Him God. One of its established usages is to denote the Divine essence as such, in distinction from the three "hypostases" or "persons" which share its common possession in the doctrine of the Trinity. This usage is old: Bradley (op. cit.) is able to adduce instances from the 13th century. In this usage the word has long held the rank of a technical term, e.g. the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, 1571, Art. I: "And in the unity of this Godhead, there be three persons" (compare the Irish Articles of 1615, and the Westminster Confession, II, 3); Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 6: "There are three persons in the Godhead." Pursuant to the fading of the qualitative sense of the word, there has arisen a tendency, when the qualitative consciousness is vivid, to revive the obsolescent "Godhood," to take its place; and this tendency naturally shows itself especially when the contrast with humanity is expressed. Carlyle, for example (French Revolution, III, Book vi, chapter iv, section 1), speaking of the posthumous reaction against Marat, writes: "Shorter godhood had no divine man"; and Phillips Brooks (Sermons, XIII, 237) speaks of Christ bridging the gulf "between the Godhood and the manhood." "Godhood" seems, indeed, always to have had a tendency to appear in such contrasts, as if the qualitative consciousness were more active in it than in "Godhead." Thus, it seems formerly to have suggested itself almost as inevitably to designate the Divine nature of Christ, as "Godhead" did to designate the common Divine essence of the Trinity. Bradley cites instances from 1563 down. The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God. When we ascribe Godhead to a being, therefore, we affirm that all that enters into the idea of God belongs to Him. "Godhead" is thus the Saxon equivalent of the Latin "Divinity," or, as it is now becoming more usual to say, "Deity." Like these terms it is rendered concrete by prefixing the article to it. As "the Divinity," "the Deity," so also "the Godhead" is only another way of saying "God," except that when we say "the Divinity," "the Deity," "the Godhead," we are saying "God" more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call "God."

The word "Godhead" occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9), and oddly enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek words, to theion theiotes, theotes.

To theion means "that which is Divine," concretely, or, shortly, "the Deity." Among the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of "the Divine Being," and particularly as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by Paul (Acts 17:29) in an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in which it is flanked by the simple term "God" (ho Theos) on both sides. It is obviously deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of God; and this emphasis is still further heightened by the direct contrast into which it is brought with the term "man." "Being, then, the offspring of God, we ought not to think that it is to gold or silver or stone graven by art and device of man that the Godhead is like." In an effort to bring out this qualitative emphasis, the Revised Version, margin suggests that we might substitute for "the Godhead" here the periphrastic rendering, "that which is Divine." But this seems both clumsy and ineffective for its purpose. From the philological standpoint, "the Godhead" is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the simple "God" precisely by its qualitative emphasis. It may be doubted, however, whether in the partial loss by "Godhead" of its qualitative force in its current usage, one of its synonyms, "the Divinity" (which is the rendering here of the Rhemish version) or "the Deity," would not better convey Paul's emphasis to modern readers.

Neither of these terms, "Divinity," "Deity," occurs anywhere in the King James Version, and "Deity" does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) either; but the Revised Version (British and American) (following the Rhemish version) substitutes "Dignity" for "Godhead" in Romans 1:20. Of the two, "Dignity" was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. "Deity" was introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be emphasized. Perhaps "Divinity" retains even in its English usage something of its traditional weaker connotation, although, of course, in a monotheistic consciousness the two terms coalesce in meaning. There exists a tendency to insist, therefore, on the "Deity" of Christ, rather than his mere "Divinity," in the feeling that "Divinity" might lend itself to the notion that Christ possessed but a secondary or reduced grade of Divine quality. In Acts 17:29 Paul is not discriminating between grades of Divinity, but is preaching monotheism. In this context, then, to theion does not lump together "all that is called God or is worshipped," and declare that all that is in any sense Divine should be esteemed beyond the power of material things worthily to represent. Paul has the idea of God at its height before his mind, and having quickened his hearers' sense of God's exaltation by his elevated description of Him, he demands of them whether this Deity can be fitly represented by any art of man working in dead stuff. He uses the term to theion, rather than ho theos, not merely in courteous adoption of his hearers' own language, but because of its qualitative emphasis. On the whole, the best English translation of it would probably be "the Deity." "The Godhead" has ceased to be sufficiently qualitative: "the Godhood" is not sufficiently current: "the Divine" is not sufficiently personal: "the Divinity" is perhaps not sufficiently strong: "Deity" without the article loses too much of its personal reference to compensate for the gain in qualitativeness: "the Deity" alone seems fairly to reproduce the apostle's thought.

The Greek term in Romans 1:20 is theiotes, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by "Godhead." What Paul says here is that "the everlasting power and Godhead" of God "are clearly perceived by means of His works." By "Godhead" he clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by "God." By coupling the word with "power," Paul no doubt intimates that his mind is resting especially upon those qualities which enter most intimately into and constitute the exaltation of God; but we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term--all of God's attributes are glorious. The context shows that the thought of the apostle was moving on much the same lines as in Acts 17:29; here, too, the contrast which determines the emphasis is with "corruptible man," and along with him, with the lower creatures in general (Romans 1:23). How could man think of the Godhead under such similitudes--the Godhead, so clearly manifested in its glory by its works! The substitution for "Godhead" here of its synonym "Divinity" by the Revised Version (British and American) is doubtless due in part to a desire to give distinctive renderings to distinct terms, and in part to a wish to emphasize, more strongly than "Godhead" in its modern usage emphasizes, the qualitative implication which is so strong in theiotes. Perhaps, however, the substitution is not altogether felicitous. "Divinity," in its contrast with "Deity," may have a certain weakness of connotation clinging to it, which would unsuit it to represent theiotes here. It is quite true that the two terms, "Divinity" and "Deity," are the representatives in Latin Patristic writers respectively of the Greek theiotes and theotes. Augustine (The City of God, VII, 1; compare X, 1) tells us that "Deity" was coined by Christian writers as a more accurate rendering of the Greek theotes than the current "Divinity." But it does not follow that because "Deity" more accurately renders theotes, therefore "Divinity" is always the best rendering of theiotes. The stress laid by the Greek Fathers on the employment of theotes to express the "Deity" of the Persons of the Trinity was in sequence to attempts which were being made to ascribe to the Son and the Spirit a reduced "Divinity"; and it was the need the Latin Fathers felt in the same interests which led them to coin "Deity" as a more accurate rendering, as they say, of theotes. Meanwhile theiotes and "Divinity" had done service in the two languages, the former as practically, and the latter as absolutely, the only term in use to express the idea of "Deity." Theotes is very rare in classical Greek, "Deity" non- existent in classical Latin. To represent theiotes uniformly by "Divinity," if any reduced connotation at all clings to "Divinity," would therefore be to represent it often very inadequately. And that is the case in the present passage. What Paul says is clearly made known by God's works, is His everlasting power and all the other everlasting attributes which form His Godhead and constitute His glory.

It is theotes which occurs in Colossians 2:9. Here Paul declares that "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ "bodily." The phrase "fullness of the Godhead" is an especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ "bodily," that is after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism. This is the distinction of Christ: in the Father and in the Spirit the whole plenitude of the Godhead dwells also, but not "bodily"; in them it is not manifested in connection with a bodily life. It is the incarnation which Paul has in mind; and he tells us that in the incarnate Son, the fullness of the Godhead dwells. The term chosen to express the Godhead here is the strongest and the most unambiguously decisive which the language affords. Theiotes may mean all that theotes can mean; on monotheistic lips it does mean just what theotes means; but theotes must mean the utmost that either term can mean. The distinction is, not that theotes refers to the essence and theiotes to the attributes; we cannot separate the essence and the attributes. Where the essence is, there the attributes are; they are merely the determinants of the essence. And where the attributes are, there the essence is; it is merely the thing, of the kind of which they are the determinants. The distinction is that theotes emphasizes that it is the highest stretch of Divinity which is in question, while theiotes might possibly be taken as referring to Deity at a lower level. It it not merely such divinity as is shared by all the gods many and lords many of the heathen world, to which "heroes" might aspire, and "demons" attain, all the plenitude of which dwells in Christ as incarnate; but that Deity which is peculiar to the high gods; or, since Paul is writing out of a monotheistic consciousness, that Deity which is the Supreme God alone. All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ. Probably no better rendering of this idea is afforded by our modern English than the term "Godhead," in which the qualitative notion still lurks, though somewhat obscured behind the individualizing implication, and which in any event emphasizes precisely what Paul wishes here to assert--that all that enters into the conception of God, and makes God what we mean by the term "God," dwells in Christ, and is manifested in Him in connection with a bodily organism.

Benjamin B. Warfield

Godless

god'-les: This word is not found in the text of the King James Version. It is found, however, in Apocrypha (2 Macc 7:34, "O godless (the Revised Version (British and American) "unholy") man"). the Revised Version (British and American) substitutes the word "godless" for the word "hypocrite" in the following passages: Job 8:13; Job 13:16; Job 15:34; Job 17:8; Job 20:5; Job 27:8; Job 34:30; Job 36:13; Proverbs 11:9; Isaiah 33:14. the Revised Version (British and American) does not seem to be consistent in carrying out the idea of "godless" for "hypocrite," for in Isaiah 9:17; Isaiah 10:6; Psalms 35:16 this same Hebrew word chaneph is translated "profane." The principal idea lying at the root of the word is that of pollution and profanity; a condition of not merely being without God but assuming an attitude of open and blatant opposition toward God. The godless man is not merely the atheistic, unbelieving or even irreligious, but the openly impious, wicked and profane man. Indeed it can hardly be rightly claimed that the idea of hypocrisy is involved in the meaning of the word, for the "godless" man is not the one who professes one thing and lives another, but the one who openly avows not only his disbelief in, but his open opposition to, God. Doubtless the idea of pollution and defilement is also to be included in the definition of this word; see Jeremiah 3:9; Numbers 35:33; Daniel 11:31.

William Evans

Godliness; Godly

god'-li-nes, god'-li (eusebeia, eusebes, eusebos): In the Old Testament the word rendered "godly" in Psalms 4:3; Psalms 32:6 (chacidh) is literally, "kind," then "pious" (the Revised Version, margin renders it in the former passage, "one that he favoreth"). Sometimes in both the Old Testament and the New Testament a periphrasis is employed, "of God," "according to God" (e.g. "godly sorrow," 2 Corinthians 7:10). Godliness, as denoting character and conduct determined by the principle of love or fear of God in the heart, is the summing up of genuine religion. There can be no true religion without it: only a dead "form" (2 Timothy 3:5). The term is a favorite one in the Pastoral Epistles. The incarnation is "the mystery of godliness" (1 Timothy 3:16).

James Orr

Gods

('elohim; theoi):

I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

1. Superhuman Beings (God and Angels)

2. Judges, Rulers

3. Gods of the Nations

4. Superiority of Yahweh to Other Gods

5. Regulations Regarding the Gods of the Nations

6. Israel's Tendency to Idolatry

II. IN THE APOCRYPHA

III. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Hebrew plural 'elohim is generally known as the plural of "majesty" and is the ordinary name for God. The meaning of the plural seems to be "plenitude of powers." It denotes the fullness of those attributes of power which belonged to the Divine Being. Thus it is usually translated in the singular, "God," when referring to the God of Israel. When reference is made to the gods of the other nations the word is translated in the plural, "gods." The heathen nations usually had a plurality of gods. Among the Semites it was customary for one nation or tribe to have its own particular god. Often there were many tribes, or families, or communities, in one nation, each having a particular god. Thus, even among Semites a nation may have many gods and be polytheistic. Among the other nations, Iranian, Hamitic, etc., there were always a number of deities, sometimes a multitude. There are many references to these in the Old Testament. In a few cases where the plural is used, the singular would be better, e.g. Genesis 3:5 the King James Version; Exodus 32:4,Exodus 32:8,Exodus 32:23; Ruth 1:15 the King James Version; Judges 17:5; Revelation 18:6; 1 Samuel 17:43. This, however, might be disputed.

I. In the Old Testament.

1. Superhuman Beings (God and Angels):

The following are the more important usages of the word in the Old Testament: The translation of Psalms 8:5 is disputed. The Septuagint and the King James Version translate it "angels," the Revised Version (British and American) and the American Standard Revised Version, "God," with "angels" in the margin. The Epistle to the He has the word "angels." This seems to be more in keeping with the Old Testament ideas of the relation between God, men and angels. Genesis 1:26 has the plural "us," but it is not certain to whom it refers, most probably to the angels or mighty ones which surrounded the throne of God as servants or counselors; compare Job 38:7, and see SONS OF GOD. In Psalms 97:7 the expression "worship him, all ye gods," may possibly refer to the gods of the nations, but more probably to the angels or mighty ones.

2. Judges, Rulers:

Judges, rulers, are regarded "either as Divine representatives at sacred places, or as reflecting Divine majesty and power" (see BDB, under the word). Exodus 21:6 might better be translated as in the margin, "the judges." These were men appointed to represent God and adjudicate on important matters of law. Septuagint has "Criterion of God." In Exodus 22:8 the word is used in the same sense, and 22:9 would also be better translated "the judges"; 22:28 likewise. See also 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalms 82:1,Psalms 82:6, where the reference is to those who act as judges.

3. Gods of the Nations:

(1) The ancestors of Israel "beyond the River" had their gods (Joshua 24:14 f). While there is no mention of idolatry before the Deluge, the ancestors and kindred of Abraham were idolaters. Ur of the Chaldees was the center for the worship of Sin, the Moon-god. Many others were worshipped in the various cities of Babylon.

See BABYLONIA.

(2) The gods of Laban and his family (Genesis 31:30,Genesis 31:32; Genesis 35:2,Genesis 35:4) were household gods or teraphim, and were stolen by Rachel and carried off in her flight with Jacob.

See TERAPHIM.

(3) Gods of Egypt: For many centuries before the time of Abraham there had been numerous objects of worship in Egypt. Many of these were animals, birds and natural objects. Horus, the hawk, was one of the earliest of all. The cat, the bull, etc., were worshipped at times. The plagues of Egypt were specially directed against these wretched deities (Numbers 33:4; Exodus 12:12). Yahweh took vengeance on all the gods of Egypt. These terrible events showed that "Yahweh is greater than all gods" (Exodus 18:11). He redeemed His people from the nations and its gods (2 Samuel 7:23). Jeremiah predicted the time when Yahweh should destroy the gods of Egypt (Jeremiah 43:12 Jeremiah 46:25).

(4) Of the gods of the Amorites (Judges 6:10) no names are given, but they probably were the same as the gods of the Canaanites.

(5) The gods of the Canaanites were Nature-gods, and their worship was that of the productive and chiefly reproductive powers of Nature. Their service was perhaps the most immoral and degrading of all. The high places and altars of the different Baals, Ashtoreths, etc., were numerous throughout Canaan. These deities were always represented by images and Moses makes frequent reference to them with warnings against this seductive worship (Deuteronomy 7:25; Deuteronomy 12:3,Deuteronomy 12:10,Deuteronomy 12:31; Deuteronomy 13:7; Deuteronomy 20:18; Deuteronomy 29:18; Deuteronomy 32:16, etc.).

See also IDOLATRY; BAAL; ASHTORETH; ASHERAH, etc.

(6) Gods of the Philis: The champion Goliath cursed David by his gods (1 Samuel 17:43). Perhaps it would be better rendered "god." Saul's and his son's armor was put into the house of their gods (1 Chronicles 10:10).

See also DAGON; BAALZEBUB.

(7) The two golden calves erected by Jeroboam at Da and Bethel to keep the people from going to Jerusalem to worship are called gods (1 Kings 12:28; 2 Chronicles 13:8 f).

See CALF, GOLDEN.

(8) The gods of Damascus: Ben-hadad was accustomed to worship in the house of the god Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18). No other names are mentioned, but from 2 Chronicles 28:23 it is clear that there were many gods in Syria.

See RIMMON.

(9) Solomon's many wives worshipped their own gods, and he provided the means for their worship. Chief among these were Chemosh of Moab and Molech of Ammon (1 Kings 11:2,1 Kings 11:4,1 Kings 11:8).

See CHEMOSH; MOLECH.

(10) The mixed peoples transplanted into Samaria by Sargon had their various gods and mingled their service with that of Yahweh, after being taught by a priest of Yahweh. The names of some of these gods were Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz, Tartak, Adrammelech (2 Kings 17:29,2 Kings 17:30,2 Kings 17:31,2 Kings 17:33). See separate articles.

(11) Of the gods of Seir, which were brought to Jerusalem by Amaziah, the names are not given (2 Chronicles 25:14).

(12) The gods of the nations conquered by Sennacherib and his fathers, namely, Hamoth, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena, Ivvah (2 Kings 18:33–35; 2 Kings 19:13). Also those conquered by Sennacherib's fathers, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph, Eden or Telassar (2 Kings 19:12; Isaiah 36:18,Isaiah 36:19,Isaiah 36:20; 2 Chronicles 32:13 f).

(13) Gods of Moab are mentioned in Ruth 1:15; 1 Kings 11:1,1 Kings 11:7. Possibly Ruth 1:15 should be translated "god."

See CHEMOSH.

(14) Gods of Babylon: The graven images of her gods referred to in Isaiah 21:9; Isaiah 42:17; Bel and Nebo mentioned in Isaiah 46:1; other gods of silver and gold (Ezra 1:7; Daniel 4:8,Daniel 4:9,Daniel 4:18; Daniel 5:4,Daniel 5:11,Daniel 5:14,Daniel 5:23).

(15) Nineveh's gods are merely referred to in Nahum 1:14. Sennacherib was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god when slain by his sons (2 Kings 19:37).

(16) The coastlands or borders and peninsulas of the Aegean Sea had numerous idol gods, shrines and devotees. Isaiah challenges them to prove that they are gods (Isaiah 41:22 f).

Yahweh was "greater than all gods" (Exodus 15:11; Exodus 18:11); "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deuteronomy 10:14,Deuteronomy 10:17); "The Mighty One" (Joshua 22:22); "to be feared above all gods" (1 Chronicles 16:25; 2 Chronicles 2:5; Psalms 96:4 f);

4. Superiority of Yahweh to Other Gods:

"King above all gods" (Psalms 95:3; Psalms 97:7,Psalms 97:9; Psalms 86:8; Psalms 135:5; Psalms 136:2; Psalms 138:1; Jeremiah 10:11; Zechariah 2:11; Daniel 2:18,Daniel 2:47). Jeremiah advances so far toward a pure and well-defined monotheism that he speaks of all other gods as "not gods." They have no existence to him (Jeremiah 2:11; Jeremiah 5:7; Jeremiah 16:20). A similar position is taken in Isa 41; 43, etc.

5. Regulations Regarding the Gods of the Nations:

The laws of Moses give no uncertain sound concerning them. The Decalogue begins: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Whatever may be the exact meaning of this, it is perfectly clear that Israel was to have nothing to do with any God but Yahweh (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7). No images shall be made of them (Exodus 20:4,Exodus 20:23; Exodus 34:17; Leviticus 19:4; Deuteronomy 5:8 f). No mention shall be made of them (Exodus 23:13; Joshua 23:7). They are not to be worshipped but destroyed (Exodus 23:24). They are to make no covenant with the people or their gods would be a snare to them (Exodus 23:32; Deuteronomy 6:14; Deuteronomy 7:4,Deuteronomy 7:25). A curse will follow any defection from Yahweh to them (Deuteronomy 11:28; Deuteronomy 28:14 Deuteronomy 12:3,Deuteronomy 12:10; Deuteronomy 13:7; Deuteronomy 20:18; Deuteronomy 29:17). These gods are an abomination to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 12:31; Deuteronomy 20:18; Deuteronomy 29:17; Deuteronomy 32:37; Ezekiel 7:20; 1 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:13). They are to be as foreign gods to Israel (1 Samuel 7:3 Joshua 24:20,Joshua 24:23; Judges 10:16; 2 Chronicles 14:3; 2 Chronicles 33:15).

6. Israel's Tendency to Idolatry:

The constant tendency of Israel to go after other gods was first made manifest at Sinai (Exodus 32:1,Exodus 32:4,Exodus 32:8,Exodus 32:23,Exodus 32:11; Exodus 34:15). Hosea says (11:2), "The more the prophets called them, the more they went from them." Ezekiel declares (16:3), "The Amorite was thy father, and thy mother was a Hittite," referring doubtless to the idolatrous taint in the blood of Israel. The tendency manifested itself also at Baal-peor where Israel was led into the licentious rites of the Moabites (Numbers 25:2 f). Moses saw the taint in the blood, foresaw the danger and repeatedly warned them (Deuteronomy 17:3; Deuteronomy 18:20; Deuteronomy 29:26; Deuteronomy 30:17; Deuteronomy 31:18). Perhaps the most striking passages in De are chapters 13; 28; 30, where are pictured the consequences of going after other gods. Joshua also warns them (23:7), and the history of the period of the Judges is the story of their periodical defection from Yahweh and the punishment resulting therefrom (Judges 2:12,Revelation 1:17,Revelation 1:19; Revelation 4:8; Revelation 9:6 1 Samuel 8:8). Solomon himself gave an impetus in that direction (1 Kings 11:5–8). After the disruption, the religion of the Northern Kingdom became very corrupt (1 Kings 14:9; 2 Chronicles 13:8 f). The golden calves of Jeroboam opened the door for an inrush of idols and other gods. Ahab's marriage to Jezebel threatened to wipe out Yahweh-worship and substitute Baal-worship, and, but for the powerful ministry of Elijah and Elisha, might have effected such a result. Partly checked for a time, the evil broke out in other forms, and even the preaching of Amos and Hosea failed to turn the tide of idolatry. The result was the destruction of the kingdom (2 Kings 17:7 Jeremiah 3:6–8; 1 Chronicles 5:25). The Southern Kingdom fared better. Other gods were countenanced by Rehoboam, Abijah, Athaliah, Jehoram, Ahaz, Amon, Manasseh, Jehoiakim, etc. Reform movements were attempted by Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah, but did not wholly avail. In the reign of Manasseh the nation plunged into the worship of other gods. The ministries of Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., availed not to stop the tide (2 Chronicles 34:25; Jeremiah 11:13; Jeremiah 5:19; 2 Kings 22:17; Jeremiah 1:16; Jeremiah 19:4; Jeremiah 7:6; Jeremiah 13:10; Jeremiah 16:11; Jeremiah 44:5,Jeremiah 44:8). The nation was carried into exile because of its going after other gods (2 Kings 22:17; Deuteronomy 29:25 f). The captivity had its desired effect. The Israel that returned and perpetuated the nation never again lapsed into the worship of other gods.

II. In the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha reiterates much of the Old Testament teaching: the defection of Israel (2 Esdras 1:6); the gods of the nations (Judith 3:8; 8:18); the gods which their fathers worshipped (Judith 5:7 f); the sin of Israel (Additions to Esther 14:7). The Book of The Wisdom of Solomon refers to the "creatures which they supposed to be gods" (12:27; 13:2,3,10; 15:15). Mention is made of the gods of Babylon (Baruch 1:22; 6:6-57 passim; Bel and the Dragon 1:27).

III. In the New Testament.

The expression "gods" occurs in six places in the New Testament:

(1) Jesus, in reply to the Pharisees, who questioned His right to call Himself the son of God, quoted Psalms 82:6: "I said, Ye are gods." He argues from this that if God Himself called them gods to whom the word of God came, i.e. the judges who acted as representatives of God in a judicial capacity, could not He who had been sanctified and sent into the world justly call Himself the Son of God? It was an argumentum ad hominem (John 10:34–37).

(2) When Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel in Lystra they healed a certain man who had been a cripple from birth. The Lycaonians, seeing the miracle, cried out in their own dialect, "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercury" (Acts 14:11 f). Their ascription of deity to the apostles in such times shows their familiarity with the Greek pantheon.

(3) As Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection at Athens the people said he seemed to be a setter forth of strange gods. The conception of only one God seemed to be wholly foreign to them (Acts 17:18).

(4) In 1 Corinthians 8:5 Paul speaks of "gods many, and lords many," but the context shows that he did not believe in the existence of any god but one; "We know that no idol is anything in the world."

(5) While at Ephesus, Paul was said to have "persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they are no gods, that are made with hands" (Acts 19:26).

(6) The Galatians had been "in bondage to them that by nature are no gods" (Galatians 4:8). Indirect references are also found in Acts 17:16, where Paul observed the city full of idols. Likewise in Romans 1:22 f,25 ff. Paul refers to the numerous gods of the heathen world. These were idols, birds, four-footed beasts and creeping things. The results of this degrading worship are shown in the verse following.

See also IDOLATRY; GOD, NAMES OF.

J. J. Reeve

Godspeed

god'-sped (chairo): "Godspeed" occurs only in 2 John 1:10,John 1:11 the King James Version as the translation of chairein, the infin. of chairo, and is rendered in the Revised Version (British and American) "greeting." It means "rejoice," "be of good cheer," "be it well with thee"; chaire, chairete, chairein, were common forms of greeting, expressive of good-will and desire for the person's prosperity, translated in the Gospels, "Hail!" "All Hail!" (Matthew 26:49; Matthew 27:29; Matthew 28:9, etc.); chairein is the Septuagint for shalom (Isaiah 48:22; Isaiah 57:21; compare 2 Macc 1:10). "Godspeed" first appears in Tyndale's version; Wycliffe had "heil!" Rheims "God save you."

In the passage cited Christians are forbidden thus to salute false teachers who might come to them. The injunction does not imply any breach of charity, since it would not be right to wish anyone success in advocating what was believed to be false and harmful. We should be sincere in our greetings; formal courtesy must yield to truth, still courteously, however, and in the spirit of love.

W. L. Walker

Goel

go'-el (go'el, "redeemer"): Goel is the participle of the Hebrew word gal'al ("to deliver," "to redeem") which aside from its common usage is frequently employed in connection with Hebrew law, where it is the technical term applied to a person who as the nearest relative of another is placed under certain obligations to him.

(1) If a Jew because of poverty had been obliged to sell himself to a wealthy "stranger or sojourner," it became the duty of his relatives to redeem him. Compare Leviticus 25:47 ff and the article JUBILEE.

(2) The same duty fell upon the nearest kinsman, if his brother, being poor, had been forced to sell some of his property. Compare Leviticus 25:23 ff; Ruth 4:4 ff, and the article JUBILEE.

(3) It also devolved upon the nearest relative to marry the ú childless widow of his brother (Ruth 3:13; Tobit 3:17).

(4) In Numbers 5:5 ff a law is stated which demands that restitution be made to the nearest relative, and after him to the priest, if the injured party has died (Leviticus 6:1).

(5) The law of blood-revenge (Blut-Rache) made it the sacred duty of the nearest relative to avenge the blood of his kinsman. He was called the go'el ha-dam, "the avenger of blood." This law was based upon the command given in Genesis 9:5 f: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," and was carried out even if an animal had killed a man; in this case, however, the payment of a ransom was permitted (Exodus 21:28). A clear distinction was made between an accidental and a deliberate murder. In both cases the murderer could find refuge at the altar of the sanctuary; if, however, the investigation revealed presumptuous manslaughter, he was taken from the altar to be put to death (Exodus 21:12 1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28). In Numbers 35:9 ff definite regulations as to the duties of the Goel are given. Six cities were to be appointed as "cities of refuge," three on each side of the Jordan. The congregation has judgment over the murderer. There must be more than one witness to convict a man. If he is found guilty, he is delivered to the Goel; if murder was committed by accident he is permitted to live within the border of the city of refuge; in case the manslayer leaves this city before the death of the high priest, the avenger of blood has a right to slay him. After the death of the high priest the murderer may return to his own city. Ransom cannot be given for the life of a murderer; no expiation can be made for a murder but by the blood of the murderer (Deuteronomy 19:4 Joshua 20:1–9; 2 Samuel 14:6). According to the law the children of a murderer could not be held responsible for the crime of their father (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6), but see 2 Samuel 21:1 ff. The order in which the nearest relative was considered the Goel is given in Leviticus 25:48 f: first a brother, then an uncle or an uncle's son, and after them any other near relative. This order was observed in connection with (1) above, but probably also in the other cases except (4).

For the figurative use of Goel ("redeemer") see Psalms 119:154; Proverbs 23:11; Job 19:25; Isaiah 41:14. See also AVENGE; MURDER; REFUGE, CITIES OF.

Arthur L. Breslich

Gog

gog (gogh; Goug):

(1) A son of Joel, and descendant of the tribe of Reuben (1 Chronicles 5:4).

(2) The prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:2 Ezekiel 39:1–16). His territory was known as the land of Magog, and he was the chief of those northern hordes who were to make a final onslaught upon Israel while enjoying the blessings of the Messianic age. He has been identified with Gagi, ruler of Sakhi, mentioned by Ashurbanipal, but Professor Sayce thinks the Hebrew name corresponds more closely to Gyges, the Lydian king, the Gugu of the cuneiform inscriptions. According to Ezekiel's account Gog's army included in its numbers Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer or the Cimmerians, and Togarmah, from the extreme North. They are represented as a vast mixed horde from the far-off parts of the North, the limits of the horizon, completely armed and equipped for war. They were to come upon the mountains of Israel and cover the land like a cloud. Their purpose is plunder, for the people of Israel are rich and dwell in towns and villages without walls. His coming, which had been prophesied by the seers of Israel, shall be accompanied by a theophany and great convulsions in Nature. A panic shall seize the hosts of Gog, rain, hailstones, pestilence, fire and brimstone shall consume them. Their bodies shall be food for the birds, their weapons shall serve as firewood for seven years and their bones shall be buried East of the Jordan in Hamon-gog and thus not defile the holy land. The fulfillment of this strange prophecy can never be literal. In general it seems to refer to the last and desperate attempts of a dying heathenism to overturn the true religion of Yahweh, or make capital out of it, profiting by its great advantages.

(3) In Revelation 20:7 Satan is let loose and goes to the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to muster his hosts for the final struggle against God. In Ezekiel the invasion of Gog occurs during the Messianic age, while in Revelation it occurs just at the close of the millennium. In Ezekiel, Gog and Magog are gathered by Yahweh for their destruction; in Re they are gathered by Satan. In both cases the number is vast, the destruction is by supernatural means, and is complete and final.

See MAGOG.

J. J. Reeve

Goiim

goi'-yim (goyim): This word, rendered in the King James Version "nations," "heathen," "Gentiles," is commonly translated simply "nations" in the Revised Version (British and American). In Genesis 14:1 where the King James Version has "Tidal, king of nations," the Revised Version (British and American) retains in the text the Hebrew "Goiim" as a proper name. Some identify with Gutium. The Hebrew word is similarly retained in Joshua 12:23.