God - Dictionary of the Apostolic Church1. General aspects of the apostolic doctrine.-The object of this article is to investigate the doctrine of God as it is presented in the Christian writings of the apostolic period; but, in view of the scope of this Dictionary, the teaching of our Lord Himself and the witness of the Gospel records will be somewhat lightly passed over.
The existence of God is universally assumed in the NT. The arguments that can be adduced, e.g. from the consent of mankind and from the existence of the world, are only intended to show that the belief that God is is reasonable, not to prove it as a mathematical proposition. But undoubtedly the fact that the doctrine is by such arguments shown to be probable will lead man to receive with more readiness the revealed doctrine of God’s existence. The biblical writers, however, did not, in either dispensation, concern themselves to prove a fact which no one doubted. Psa 10:4; Psa 14:1; Psa 53:1 are no exceptions to this general consent. The ungodly man (the ‘fool’) who said in his heart ‘There is no God,’ did not deny God’s existence, but His interfering in the affairs of men. ‘The wicked … saith, He will not require it. All his thoughts are, There is no God.’
The apostolic doctrine of God as we have it in Acts, Revelation, and the Epistles does not come direct from the OT. It presupposes a teaching of our Lord. At first this teaching was in the main handed down by the oral method, and the Epistles, or at least most of them, do not defend on any of our four Gospels, though it is quite likely that there were some written evangelic records in existence even when the earliest of the Epistles were written (Luk 1:1). St. Paul, writing on certain points of Christian teaching, tells us that he handed on what he himself had received (1Co 11:2; 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίον in 1Co 11:23 probably does not mean ‘from the Lord without human mediation’: it was tradition handed on from Christ).
In approaching the apostolic writings we must bear in mind two points. (a) The NT was not intended to be a compendium of theology. The Epistles, for example, were written for the immediate needs of the time and place, doubtless without any thought arising in their writers’ minds of their being in the future canonical writings of a new volume of the Scriptures. We should not, therefore, a priori expect to find in them any formulated statement of doctrine. (b) There is a considerable difference between the Epistles on the one hand and the Gospels on the other in the presentation of doctrine. The Gospels are narratives of historical events, and in them, therefore, the gradual unfolding of Jesus’ teaching, as in fact it was given, is duly set forth. This is especially the ease with the Synoptics, though even in the Fourth Gospel there is a certain amount of progress of doctrine. At the first the doctrines taught by oar Lord are set forth, so to speak, in their infancy, adapted to the comprehension of beginners; and they are gradually unfolded as the Gospel story proceeds. In the Epistles, on the other hand, the writer treats his correspondents as convinced Christians, and therefore, though he instructs them, he plunges at once in medias res. There is no progress of doctrine from the first chapter of an Epistle to the last.
The question we have to ask ourselves is, What did the apostles teach about God? Or rather, in order not to beg any question (since it is obviously impossible in this article to discuss problems of date and authorship), we must ask, What do the books of the NT teach about God?
2. Christian development of the OT doctrine of God.-It is an essential doctrine of the NT writers that a new and fuller revelation was given by the Incarnation and by the fresh outpouring of the Holy Ghost.
(a) The revelation by the Incarnate.-That the Son had made a revelation of old by the part which He took in creation (see below, 6 (e)) is not explicitly stated, but is implied by Rom 1:20, which says that creation is a revelation of God’s everlasting power and Divinity (θειότης, ‘Divine nature and properties,’ whereas θεότης is ‘Divine Personality’ [see Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , 1902, in loc.]). But the Incarnate reveals God in a fuller sense than ever before: ‘God … hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in [his] Son’ (Heb 1:1 f.). The revelation by the Incarnation is a conception specially emphasized in the Johannine writings, not only in the Gospel, but also in the First Epistle and the Apocalypse. The Prologue of the Gospel says that ‘God only begotten’ (or ‘the only begotten Son’ [see below, 6 (c)]) ‘which is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared him’ (Joh 1:18). ‘What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth witness’ (Joh 3:32). The revelation of the Son is the revelation of the Father (Joh 14:7-11). The ‘life which was with the Father’ was manifested and gave a message about God (1Jn 1:2-5). The revelation of eternal life which is in the Son was made when God bore witness concerning His Son (1Jn 5:10 f.). This new and fuller revelation is that with which the Apocalyptist begins his book (Rev 1:1): ‘the revelation (apocalypse) of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants’ (see Swete, Com. in loc., who gives good reasons fox thinking that the revelation mode by Jesus, rather than that made about Jesus, is meant; cf. Gal 1:12).
We find the same teaching, though in a somewhat less explicit form, in the Pauline Epistles. Christ is ‘the power of God and the wisdom of God … made unto us wisdom from God’ (1Co 1:24; 1Co 1:30). In Him ‘are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden’ (Col 2:3). In the new ‘dispensation of the fulness of the times’ God has ‘made known unto us the mystery of his will’ (Eph 1:9 f., a passage where ‘mystery’ specially conveys the idea of a hidden thing revealed, rather than one kept secret). To St. Paul personally Jesus made a revelation (Gal 1:12; see above). That our Lord made a new revelation is also stated in the Synoptics: ‘Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal [him]’ (Mat 11:27; cf. Luk 10:22). So in Acts, Jesus bids the disciples ‘wait for the promise of the Father, which [said he] ye heard from me’ (Act 1:4); and St. Peter (Act 10:36) calls the new revelation ‘the word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all).’ Sanday (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii. 212) points out that the passages about our Lord being the ‘image’ of God, and ‘in the form of God’ (see below, 6 (c)), express the fact that He brings to men’s minds the essential nature of God.
(b) The revelation by the Holy Ghost.-The new revelation of the nature of God by the full outpouring of the Spirit, in a manner unknown even in the old days of prophetical inspiration, is also, as far as the promise is concerned, a favourite Johannine conception (see especially John 14-16). The promise is, however, alluded to by St. Luke (Luk 24:49, Act 1:4), and its fulfilment is dwelt on at great length in Acts, which may be called the ‘Gospel of the Holy Spirit,’ and in which the action of the Third Person in guiding the disciples into all the truth (Joh 16:13) is described very fully. Jesus gave commandment to the apostles ‘through the Holy Ghost’ (Act 1:2). The guidance of the Spirit is described, e.g., in Act 2:17 f.; Act 8:9; Act 10:19; Act 11:12; Act 13:2; Act 16:6 f.; Act 20:23; Act 21:11, though these passages speak rather of the practical loading of the disciples in the conduct of life rather than of the teaching of the truth. St. Paul says that ‘the things which eye saw not’ (he seems to be paraphrasing Isa 64:4) have been revealed by God ‘unto us’ (ἡμῖν is emphatic here) ‘through the Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God’ (1Co 2:9 f.; so 1Co 2:13). It is the Holy Spirit only who can teach us that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (1Co 12:3).
3. Attributes of God in the NT.-Before considering the great advance on the OT ideas made by the Christian doctrine of God, we may notice certain Divine attributes which are emphasized in the NT, but which are also found in the OT.
(a) God is Almighty.-The word used in the NT (as in the Eastern creeds) for this attribute is παντοκράτωρ, chiefly in the Apocalypse (Rev 1:8; Rev 4:8; Rev 11:17; Rev 15:3; Rev 16:7; Rev 16:14; Rev 19:6; Rev 19:15; Rev 21:22), but also in 2Co 6:18, as it is used in the Septuagint , where it renders ṣebhâ’ôth and Shaddai. We notice in each instance in Rev. how emphatically it stands at the end: ‘the Lord God, which is and which was … the Almighty,’ ‘the Lord God, the Almighty’; not ‘Lord God Almighty’ as Authorized Version (the Authorized Version translates the word by ‘omnipotent’ in Rev 19:6 only). The word omnipotens occurs in the earliest Roman creed.-But what does ‘Almighty’ imply? To the modern reader it is apt to convey the idea of omnipotence, as if it were παντοδύναμος, i.e. ‘able to do everything,’ on account of the Latin translation omnipotens. So Augustine understands the word in the Creed (de Symbolo ad Catechumenos, 2 [ed. Ben. vi. 547]), explaining it, ‘He does whatever He wills’ (Swete, Apostles’ Creed, p. 22). Undoubtedly God is omnipotent, though this does not mean that He can act against the conditions which He Himself makes-He cannot sin, He cannot lie (Tit 1:2, Heb 6:18; so 2Ti 2:13 of our Lord). As Augustine says (loc. cit.), if He could do these things He would not be omnipotent. But this is not the meaning of ‘Almighty.’ As we see from the form of the Greek word (παντοκράτωρ), and as is suggested by the Hebrew words which it renders, it denotes sovereignty over the world. It is equivalent to the ‘Lord of heaven and earth’ of Act 17:24, Mat 11:25. Everything is under God’s sway (see Pearson, Expos. of the Creed, article i., especially notes 37-43). The Syriac bears out this interpretation by rendering the word aḥîdh kûl, i.e. ‘holding (or governing) all.’
(b) God is ‘living.’-He has ‘life in himself’ (Joh 5:26). He is ‘the living God’ (Rev 7:2), ‘that liveth for ever and ever’ (Rev 10:6); and therefore is eternal, the ‘Alpha and Omega, which is and which was and which is to come’ (ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος), ‘the beginning and the end’ (Rev 1:8; Rev 21:6; cf. Rev 16:5)-these words are here (but not in Rev 22:13; see below, 6 (e)) rightly ascribed by Swete to the Eternal Father. ‘One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2Pe 3:8; cf. Psa 90:4; see also Rom 1:20).
(c) God is omniscient.-He knows the hearts of all men (καρδιογνῶστα πάντων, Act 1:24; Act 15:8.; The prayer in Act 1:24 is perhaps addressed to our Lord); He knows all things (1Jn 3:20). St. Paul eloquently exclaims: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God!’ (Rom 11:33), and ascribes glory ‘to the only wise God,’ i.e. to God who alone is wise (Rom 16:27; the same phrase occurs in some Manuscripts of 1Ti 1:17, but ‘wise’ is there an interpolation). Even the uninstructed Cornelius recognizes that we are in God’s sight (Act 10:33). Such sayings cannot but be a reminiscence of our Lord’s teaching that ‘not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God’ (Luk 12:6). They are summed up in the expressions ‘God is light’ (1Jn 1:5) and ‘God is true’ (‘This is the true God,’ 1Jn 5:20; for the reference here see A. E. Brooke’s note in International Critical Commentary , 1912, in loc.), God ‘cannot lie’; see above (a).
(d) God is transcendent.-This Divine attribute had been exaggerated by the Jews just before the Christian era, but it is nevertheless dwelt on in the apostolic writings. The ‘things of God’ are indeed ‘deep,’ so that man cannot, though the Spirit can, ‘search them out’ (1Co 2:10 f.; cf. Job 11:7). God, who ‘only hath-immortality,’ dwells ‘in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see’ (1Ti 6:16; cf. Joh 1:18, 1Jn 4:12; 1Jn 4:20). He is spirit (Joh 4:24 Revised Version margin) and invisible (Col 1:15, 1Ti 1:17, Heb 11:27), unchangeable (Heb 6:17 f.,; cf. Mal 3:6, Psa 102:27), infinite, omnipresent (Act 7:48; Act 17:24; Act 17:27; cf. Psa 139:7 ff.) These statements do not mean, however, that God is altogether unknowable by men; for God in His condescension reveals Himself to man (see above, 2).
(e) God is immanent.-That God dwells in man is stated several times. ‘God is in you indeed,’ says St. Paul (1Co 14:25 Authorized Version and Revised Version margin; Revised Version text has ‘among’; the Gr. is ἐν ὑμῖν). ‘There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all’ (Eph 4:8). ‘God abideth in us’ (1Jn 4:12). His ‘tabernacle is with men’ and He ‘shall dwell with them … and be with them’ (Rev 21:3). For the immanence of the Son and the Spirit in man see below, 6 (e) and 7.
(f) Moral attributes.-God is love (1Jn 4:8; 1Jn 4:16); love is His very nature and being, and therefore love is the foundation of all true religion; love is of God (v. 7; see Brooke’s notes on these verses [op. cit.]). The love of God is specially emphasized by Christianity; cf. also Joh 3:16 (the kernel of the gospel message), Rom 5:5; Rom 5:8; Rom 8:31-39, 2Co 13:14, Col 1:13 (‘the Son of his love’), 2Th 3:5, 1Ti 2:4 (desire of universal salvation), 1Jn 2:5; 1Jn 3:1. The ‘love of God’ may be God’s love for us, or our love for God; but the latter, as St. John teaches (see above), comes from the former.
God is holy. This attribute is emphasized both in the OT (Lev 11:44) and in the NT (1Pe 1:15 f.). The four living creatures cry ‘Holy (ἄγιος), holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty’ (Rev 4:8; cf. Isa 6:3). ‘Thou only art holy’ (ὅσιος)* [Note: The word ὅσιος (equivalent to the Latin pius) ‘represents God as fulfilling His relation to His creatures, even as He requires them to fulfil theirs towards Himself’ (Swete, Com. in loc.).] cry the conquerors (Rev 15:4; cf. Rev 16:5)-a striking comment on the ascription of holiness to our Lord and to the Spirit (below, 6 (e), 7). Brooke (op. cit.) thinks it unnecessary to determine whether ‘the Holy One’ in 1Jn 2:20 is the Father or the Son.
God is just; He has no respect of persons (Act 10:34, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:8, 1Pe 1:17; cf. Deu 10:17).
He is righteous (for the meaning of this see below, 6 (e)); St. Paul not only speaks of the ‘righteous judgment’ (δικαιοκρισία, Rom 2:5; cf. 2Th 1:5), but of the ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη), of God (Rom 1:17; Rom 3:22; Rom 10:3). On this phrase, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, see an elaborate investigation by Sanday in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) ii. 209-212; it was familiar to the Jews, and to them meant the personal righteousness of God. Many commentators take it, as used in the NT, to mean the righteous state of man, of which God is the giver. But in either case it predicates righteousness of God. In Php 3:9 we find τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην, ‘the righteousness which is of God.’ The Apocalyptist also emphasizes this attribute (Rev 15:3; Rev 16:5; Rev 16:7).
God is merciful (Rom 11:32; Rom 15:9, etc,). This is really the same attribute as love; but it is not the same as the Musulman idea of the mercy of God, which can scarcely be distinguished from indifference. Love and justice combined produce the true Divine mercy.
He is the God of hope (Rom 15:13). A despairing pessimism is rebellion against the good God who makes us to hope, and who promises to overthrow Satan.
He is the God of peace (Rom 15:33; Rom 16:20, 1Th 5:23, 2Th 3:16, Heb 13:20).
(g) God is Creator and Saviour.-That God the Father is the Maker of the world is again and again insisted on (Act 14:15-17; Act 17:25-29, Rom 1:20-25; Rom 11:36, 1Co 3:9, Eph 2:10; Eph 3:9 [cf. Eph 3:14 f.] Col 1:15 f, Heb 1:2; Heb 4:4; Heb 12:9 [the spirits of men], Jam 1:17 f. [‘the lights,’ the heavenly bodies], Rev 4:11; Rev 10:6). Man was made in God’s likeness (1Co 11:7, Jam 3:9). That God made the world was also much emphasized by the sub-apostolic writers (Swete, Apostles’ Creed, p. 20), in opposition to the Gnostic conception of a Demiurge, an inferior God who was Creator, and who was more or less in opposition to the supreme God. (For God the Father as Saviour, see below, 6 (e); for the part of the Son and of the Spirit in creation see below, 6 (e), 7).
4. The Fatherhood of God.-We now pass to the great developments made by the Christian doctrine of God. In the OT it had been freely taught that God was Father; but the conception scarcely went further than a fatherhood of the chosen people. ‘Israel is ray son, my first born.… Let my son go that he may serve me,’ is Jahweh’s message to Pharaoh (Exo 4:22). The Deuteronomist goes no farther (Exo 8:5, Exo 32:6, and especially Exo 14:1 f.: ‘Ye are the children of the Lord your God … for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth’). The restrictive words of Psa 103:13 are very significant: ‘Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.’ The prophets made no advance on this. To Judah and Israel God says: ‘Ye shall call me, My father’ (Jer 3:19; cf. Isa 63:16; Isa 30:1; Isa 30:9, Mal 1:6); ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt’ (Hos 11:1).
The NT greatly develops this doctrine. It teaches that God is Father of all men, though in a special sense Father of believers. But, above all, God is the Father of our Lord in a sense quite unique.
(a) The Father of our Lord.-Jesus ever makes a difference between the Father’s relationship to Himself and to the rest of the world. The striking words of the twelve-year-old Child; ‘Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?’ (or ‘about my Father’s business,’ ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, Luk 2:49) are the first indication of this. Jesus speaks of ‘my Father’ and ‘the Father’ and ‘your Father,’ but never of ‘our Father,’ though He teaches the disciples to use these words (Mat 6:9). In Joh 20:17 the Evangelist represents our Lord as using what would otherwise be an unintelligible periphrasis: ‘My Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’ This same distinction is kept up in the rest of the NT. Thus in Rom 8:3 St. Paul calls our Lord God’s ‘own Son’ (τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν), in a manner in which we could not be designated ‘sons’; we can only be ‘conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’ (Rom 8:29), while Jesus is ‘his own Son’ (τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ, Rom 8:32; cf. Col 1:13 : ‘Son of his love’). St. Paul exhibits a fondness for the phrase ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom 15:16, 2Co 1:3, Eph 1:3; cf. Col 1:3 ‘God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’), which is re echoed by St. Peter (1Pe 1:3), and in the Apocalypse (Rev 1:8 ‘his God and Father’). (On the other hand, in Eph 1:17 we read: ‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.’) In Rev 3:21 our Lord is speaking, and uses the words ‘my Father.’ This distinction is at the root of the Johannine title ‘Only-begotten,’ applied to our Lord (1Jn 4:9, Joh 1:14; Joh 1:18; Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18). See Adoption, Only-Begotten.
(b) The Father of all men.-This relationship is expressly affirmed by St. Paul in his speech at Athens (Act 17:28 f.). God has created us; ‘in him we live and move and have our being, as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.’ And he endorses this heathen saying by continuing: ‘Being then the offspring of God,’ etc. (Act 17:29). We may compare our Lord’s saying: ‘that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust’ (Mat 5:45); ‘he is kind towards the unthankful and evil’ (Luk 6:35). The same thought seems to be at the root of St. Paul’s saying that all fatherhood (πᾶσα πατριά) in heaven and earth is named from God the Father (Eph 3:14 ff; see Family). ‘There is one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all’ (Eph 4:6). ‘To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we unto him’ (1Co 8:6). In several passages in the Epistles where we read ‘our Father’ (Rom 1:7, 1Co 1:3, 2Co 1:2, Eph 1:2, Php 4:20, etc.), there is no special restriction to God’s relationship to Christians, such as we find with regard to the chosen people in the OT passages. St. James speaks of ‘the Father of lights’ (Jam 1:17), i.e. of the created heavenly bodies. And the writer of Hebrews refers to a universal Fatherhood due to creation. As contrasted with the ‘fathers of our flesh,’ God is ‘the Father of spirits’-the Author not only of our spiritual being but of all spiritual beings (Heb 12:9; see Westcott, Com. in loc.).
(c) The Father of believers.-Side by side with the doctrine of universal fatherhood is the special relationship of God to believers, not only as Saviour (1Ti 4:10) but as Father. Here the apostolic writers ascribe to Christians the prerogatives of the chosen people in the old covenant. This special fatherhood is brought out in the passages where St. Paul applies the metaphor of adoption to Christians (Rom 8:14-17; Rom 8:23, Gal 4:5 f., Eph 1:5; see Adoption; cf. also 1Pe 1:17, 1Jn 3:1 f, Joh 1:12, etc.).
(d) ‘The Father’ in general.-In many passages we find the absolute expression ‘the Father,’ comprehending any or all of the above meanings, as, e.g., 1Co 8:6, Gal 1:1, Eph 5:20 (‘give thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father’), Col 1:12, Jam 3:9 Revised Version (‘the Lord and Father’), 1Jn 2:13; 1Jn 2:15 f.; and 2Pe 1:17, 1Jn 1:2, where there is a special reference to our Lord.
The word ‘Father’ stands at the head of most Christian creeds, but it is probable that it was not originally in that of Rome. The Creed of Marcellus of Ancyra, an early Western specimen, though coming from an Eastern bishop, begins; ‘I believe in Almighty (παντοκράτορα) God’ (Epiphanius, Haer. lxxii. 3). The language of Tertullian (de Virg. Vel. 1-one of his later works) leads us to suppose that the creed used by him: began similarly; he speaks of ‘the rule of believing in one only God omnipotent, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ.’ But thenceforward it appears in the Western creeds (see Swete, Apostles, Creed, p. 19f.).
5. The Holy Trinity
(a) The technical terms by which the Christian Church has expressed the faith that it derived from the Scriptures were not invented for a considerable time after the apostolic period. Thus no one would expect to find the terms ‘Trinity’ and ‘Person’ in the NT. It is usually said that the word ‘Trinity,’ referred to God, was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (ad Autol. ii. 15; c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 180), as far as extant Christian literature is concerned. This is true, but the context shows that it was not then an accepted technical term. The first three days of creation are said to be ‘types of the trinity (τριάς), God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.’ Theophilus goes on to say that the fourth day finds its antitype in man, who is in need of light, so that we get the series: God, the Word, Wisdom, Man. Swete justly remarks that an author who could thus ‘convert the Divine trinity into a quaternion in which Man is the fourth term, must have been still far from thinking of the Trinity as later writers thought’ (Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 47). Or we should perhaps rather put it that Theophilus did not use the word ‘Trinity’ in the technical sense which immediately afterwards is found; as when Tertullian speaks of ‘the Trinity of the one God-head, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ (de Pudic. 21; cf. adv. Prax. 2), and as when Hippolytus says: ‘Through this Trinity the Father is glorified, for the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested’ (circa, about Noet. 14).
The words which we render ‘Person’ (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, persona) are of a still later date, and at first exhibited a remarkable fluidity of signification. Thus ὑπόστασις was used at one time to denote what is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what we should call the Divine ‘substance,’ at another it was used to distinguish between the Three; so that in one sense there is one ὑπόστασις in the Holy Trinity, in the other there are three. With regard to the word ‘Person,’ the student must necessarily be always on his guard against the supposition that ‘Person’ means ‘individual,’ as when we say that three different men are three ‘persons’; or that ‘Trinity’ involves tritheism, or three Gods. These technical expressions are but methods of denoting the teaching found in the NT that there are distinctions in the Godhead, and that, while God is One, yet He is not a mere Monad. These technical terms are not found in the apostolic or sub-apostolic writers; with regard to the second of them, it may be remembered that the idea of personality was hardly formulated in any sense till shortly before the Christian era; and its application to theology came in a good deal later.
(b) The name ‘God’ used absolutely.-In considering the distinctions in the Godhead taught by the NT, it must be borne in mind that, when the name ‘God’ is used absolutely, without pronoun or epithet, it is never, with one possible exception, applied explicitly to the Son as such or to the Spirit as such. It is, indeed, most frequently used without any special reference to the Person. But it is often, when standing absolutely, used in contrast to the Son or to the Spirit, and then the Father is intended. Instances of this are too numerous to mention; but we may take as examples Act 2:22 (‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved or God … by mighty works … which God did by him’), Act 13:30 (‘God raised him from the dead.’), Rom 2:16 (‘God shall judge the secrets of men … by Jesus Christ’), Eph 4:30 (‘the Holy Spirit of God’). This is sometimes the case also when ‘God’ is not used absolutely, as in Act 3:13 (‘the God of our fathers hath glorified his Servant [παῖδα] Jesus’), Act 5:30 (‘the God of our fathers raised up Jesus’), Act 22:14, Rom 1:8 (‘I thank my God through Jesus Christ’). In Rev 3:2; Rev 3:12 our Lord calls the Father ‘my God’; compare the similar Pauline phrases quoted above, 4 (a). See below, 8.
The one possible exception is Act 20:28 ‘to feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’ This is the reading of א B and other weighty authorities (followed by Authorized Version and Revised Version text), but ACDE read ‘the Lord’ instead of ‘God’. The balance of authority is in favour of the reading ‘God,’ and it is decidedly more difficult than the other variant. At first sight, to say the least, the word ‘God’ (if read) must refer to our Lord, and yet this usage is unlike that of the NT elsewhere, and a scribe finding θεοῦ would readily alter it to κυρίου because of the strangeness of the expression. Thus both because of superior attestation, and because a difficult rending is ordinarily to be preferred to an easier one, θεοῦ has usually been accepted here (so Westcott-Hort’s Greek Testament , ii  Appendix, p. 98). To get rid of the strangeness of the expression, it has been suggested that the reference is to the Father, and that ‘his own blood’ means ‘the blood which is his own,” i.e. the blood of Christ who is essentially one with the Father; but this seems to be a rather forced explanation. A somewhat more probable conjecture (that of Hort) is that there is here an early corruption, and that the original had ‘with the blood of his own Son,’ The beat reading of the last words of the verse, supported by overwhelming authority, is διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου: and this conjecture supposes that υἱοῦ has dropped out at the end (cf. Rom 8:32). However this may be, it would seem that the verse as we hate it in א B was so read by Ignatius, and gave rise to his expression ‘the blood of God’ (Ephesians 1)-a very early Instance of what later writers called the communicatio idiomatum, by which the properties of one or our Lord’s natures are referred to when the other nature is in question, because of the unity of His Person (see 6 (b)). Another early instance is perhaps to be found in Clement of Rome (Cor. ii. 1): τὰ παθήματα αὐτοῦ (‘his sufferings’), θωοῦ having just preceded; but the reading, though accepted by Lightfoot, is not quite certain. On these two passages see Lightfoot, Apostolic Father, ‘S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp2,’ 1889, ii. 29f., S. Clement of Rome,’ 1890, ii 13-16. Tertullian uses the expression ‘the blood of God’ (ad Uxor. ii.3).
(c) Trinitarian language.-In the NT teaching the Son and the Spirit are joined to the Father in a special manner, entirely different from that in which men or angels are spoken of in relation to God. Perhaps the beat example of this is the apostolic benediction of 2Co 13:14, which has no dogmatic purpose, but is a simple, spontaneous prayer, and is therefore more significant than if it was intended to teach some doctrine. The ‘grace of our Lord,’ the ‘love of God,’ and the ‘communion of the Holy Ghost’ are grouped together, and in this remarkable order. In many passages Father, Son, and Spirit are grouped together, just as the Three are mentioned together in the account of our Lord’s Baptism (Mat 3:16 f.), only in a still more significant way. Thus in Act 5:31 f. we read that God exalted Jesus to be a Prince and a Saviour, and gave the Holy Ghost ‘to them that obey him.’ Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, saw the glory of God, and Jeans standing at the right hand of God (Act 7:55). The Holy Ghost is in one breath called by St. Paul the ‘Spirit of God’ and the ‘Spirit of Christ’ (Rom 8:9). See also 1Co 12:3-6 (‘the Spirit of God … Jesus is Lord … the same Spirit … the same Lord … the same God’), Act 2:33, 1Pe 1:2 (‘foreknowledge of God the Father,’ ‘sanctification of the Spirit,’ ‘sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’), Tit 3:4-6 (‘the kindness of God our Saviour’ [the Father], ‘renewing of the Holy Ghost,’ ‘through Jesus Christ our Saviour’), 1Jn 4:2, and especially Jud 1:20, where the writer’s disciples are bidden to pray in the Holy Spirit, to keep themselves in the love of God, and to look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the greeting of all the Pauline Epistles but one, the Father and Son are joined together as the source of grace and peace; e.g. ‘Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom 1:7); the only exception being Col 1:2 Revised Version , which has ‘grace to you and peace from God our Father.’ And this Pauline usage is also found in 2Jn 1:3. It is difficult to conceive the possibility of this zeugma unless our Lord be God. With this compare St. James’s description of himself as ‘a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Jam 1:1), and many other passages such as ‘one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him’ (1Co 8:6; see above, 4 (b)); ‘in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus’ (2Ti 4:1); ‘fellowship with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ’ (1Jn 1:3); ‘he that denieth the Father and the Son’ (1Jn 2:22); ‘the same hath both the Father and the Son’ (2Jn 1:9); ‘the Lord God, the Almighty, and the Lamb are the temple thereof’ (Rev 21:22); ‘the throne of God and of the Lamb’ (Rev 22:1; Rev 22:3).
These expressions are the counterpart of our Lord’s words in the Fourth Gospel: ‘I am in the Father and the Father in me’ (Joh 14:10). We might try the effect of substituting for ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ the names of ‘Peter,’ ‘Paul,’ or even of ‘Michael,’ ‘Gabriel,’ to see how intolerable all these expressions would he on any but the Trinitarian hypothesis. St. Paul uses a similar argument in 1Co 1:13 : ‘Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’
These passages are taken from the NT outside the Gospels. The Fourth Gospel, which is full of the same doctrine, is here passed by. But one passage of the Synoptics must be considered. How did St. Paul come by the phraseology of his benediction in 2Co 13:14? Some would say that he invented it, and was the real founder of Christian doctrine (see below, 9). For those who cannot accept this position-and the Apostle betrays no consciousness of teaching a new doctrine, but, as we have seen (above, 1), professes to hand on what he has received-the only conclusion can be that the benediction is based on teaching of our Lord. In the Synoptics there is one passage (Mat 28:19) which would at once account for St. Paul’s benediction. According to this, our Lord bade His followers ‘make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name (εἱς τὸ ὄνομα) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ This passage has been criticized on three grounds. (1) It has been said not to be an authentic part of the First Gospel. This, however, is not a tenable position (see Baptism, § 4); but it is important to distinguish it from the view which follows. (2) It has been acknowledged to be an authentic part of Mt., but said to have been due to the Christian theology of the end of the 1st cent., to the same line of thought that produced the Fourth Gospel; and not to have been spoken by our Lord. (3) In support of this it is urged that as a matter of fact, the earliest baptisms, as we read in Acts, were not ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,’ but ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ or the like. But may there not be a mistake here on both sides? ‘It is quits unnecessary to suppose on the one hand that the passages in Acts describe a formula used in baptism, or, on the other, that our Lord in Mat 28:19 prescribed one. All the passages may, and probably do, express only the theological import of baptism (for authorities, see Baptism as above).* [Note: We are not here concerned with the meaning of ‘in’ or ‘into the name.’ The argument is independent of the disputed interpretation of these words.] It was not the custom of our Lord to make minute regulations, as did the Mosaic Law. He rather laid down general principles; and it would be somewhat remarkable if He made just one exception, in regulating the words to be used in baptism. (The justification of the Christian formula is the general consent of the ages, dating from immediately after the apostolic period.) Nor is it necessary to suppose that Mat 28:19 gives us-any more than the other Gospel records do-the ipsissima verba of Jesus. It is almost certain that such teaching, if given, would be much expanded for the benefit of the hearers, and that we have only a greatly abbreviated record. But that our Lord gave such ‘Trinitarian’ teaching in some shape on the occasion of giving the baptismal command is the only way of accounting for the phenomena of Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. This would explain not only the apostolic benediction, but also the whole trend of the teaching of the NT outside the Gospels.
Having now considered the general scope of apostolic teaching with regard to distinctions in the Godhead, we must consider in particular the doctrine with regard to the Godhead of our Lord and of the Holy Ghost.
6. The Godhead of our Lord.-In historical sequence the realization of our Lord’s Divinity came before the teaching which we have already considered. The disciples first learnt that their Master was not mere man, but was Divine; and then that there are distinctions in the Godhead.
(a) Jesus is the Son of God.-Of this the apostles were fully convinced. The passages are too numerous to cite, but they occur in almost every book of the NT, whether they give the title to our Lord in so many words, or express the fact otherwise (see above, 4 (a)). Before considering the meaning of the title, we may ask if the name παῖς (‘child’ or ‘servant’) applied to our Lord (Act 3:13; Act 3:26; Act 4:27; Act 4:30) has the same signification. Sanday points out (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 574, 578) that παῖς is taken in the sense of ‘Son’ in the early Fathers, as in the Epistle to Diognetus (viii. 9f.; c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 150?). This may also be the meaning of St. Luke in Acts; but it is equally probable that he refers to the OT ‘servant of Jahweh.’ This is clearly the meaning in Mat 12:18, whore Isa 42:1 is quoted: ‘Behold my servant whom I have chosen,’ etc.
But what is the significance of the title ‘Son of God’? It was not exactly a now title when used in the NT, though Dan 3:25 cannot be quoted for it (‘a son of the gods,’ Revised Version ; Authorized Version wrongly, ‘the Son of God’). It is probable that Psa 2:7 was the foundation of the Jewish conception of Messiah as Son.* [Note: We are not here concerned with the connexion between the thought of Israel as Son and Messiah as Son.] . And therefore the title ‘Son of God’ had probably a different meaning in the mouth of some speakers from that which it had in the mouth of others. Thus when the demoniacs called Jesus the Son of God (Mar 3:11; Mar 5:7, Mat 14:33, Luk 4:41), they would mean no more than that He was the promised Messiah, without dogmatizing as to His nature. The mockers at Calvary would use the word in the same sense. ‘If thou art the Son of God’ is the same as ‘If thou art the Christ’ (Mat 27:40). The Centurion, if (as seems probable) his saying as reported in Mar 15:39, Mat 27:54 is more correct than that given in Luk 23:47, where ‘a righteous man’ is substituted for ‘the Son of God,’ would have borrowed a Jewish phrase without exactly understanding its meaning, and thus St. Luke’s paraphrase would faithfully represent what was passing in his mind.
But Jesus gave a higher meaning to the title, and this higher meaning is the keynote of the teaching of His disciples. It is true that in Luk 3:38 the Evangelist calls Adam a [son] of God (for ‘son’ see Luk 3:23), as being created directly by God; but this is not the meaning in the NT generally. There seems to have been a suspicion in Caiaphas’ mind of the higher meaning given to the title by Jesus, when he asked Him whether He was ‘the Christ, the Son of God’ (Mat 26:63). There is almost an approach here to the Johannine saying that the Jews sought to kill Him because He ‘called God his own Father, making himself equal with God’ (Joh 5:18). To the disciples the confession that Jesus was the ‘Son of God’ (Joh 11:27, Martha) or ‘the Holy One of God’ (Joh 6:69 Revised Version , Simon Peter) meant the belief that He partook of the nature of God, This, indeed, might have meant only that Jesus was a Divinely inspired man. But the teaching of Jesus lifts the title to the highest level (Mat 11:27, Joh 5:19-26; Joh 9:35, etc.; for St. John’s own teaching see, e.g., Joh 3:35 f.). In this sense there is only one ‘Son of God,’ who is the Only-begotten, the Beloved (μονογενής and ἀγαπητός are both translations of יָחִיד; see Only-Begotten). And so in the Epistles the title expresses the Divinity of our Lord. The apostolic message was to preach that Jesus is the Son of God (Act 9:20, Joh 20:21). While the first Christian teachers proclaimed the true humanity of the Lord (e.g. Rom 1:3 : ‘concerning his Son who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh’), they also proclaimed His true Godhead (Rom 1:4 : ‘declared to be the Son of God with power’). The saying of Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 22) exhibits no advance on apostolic doctrine: ‘The Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner’ (ἰδίως).
The Arians distinguished ‘Son of God’ from ‘God,’ and denied that the ‘Son’ could be in the highest sense ‘God’. The Clementine Homilies (which used to be thought to be of the 2nd or 3rd cent., but are now usually, la their present form, ascribed to the 4th [Journal of Theological Studies x. (1908-09) 457]) make the same distinction (xvi. 16). St. Peter is made to say: ‘Our Lord … did not proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe.’ Simon [Magus] replies that he who comes from God is God; but St. Peter says that this is not possible; they did not hear it from Him, ‘What is begotten cannot be compared with that which is unbegotten or self begotten.’ Sanday (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 577b) refers to this passage as an isolated phenomenon; but now that the book has been with much probability assigned to the later date, we may say that the teaching just quoted was not heard of, as far as the evidence goes, till the 4th century.
(b) Jesus is the Lord.-The significance of this title (ὁ κύριος) in the Apostolic Age is not at once apparent to the European of to-day. The name ‘Lord’ seems to him applicable to any leader of religious thought. To the present-day Greek κύριε is no more than our ‘Sir,’ and ὁ κύριος is the way in which any gentleman is spoken of, as the French use the word Monsieur. But to the Greek-speaking Christian Jew of the 1st cent., ὁ κύριος had a much deeper signification; deeper also than the complimentary Aramaic title ‘Rabbi’ (lit. [Note: literally, literature.] ‘my great one’). For the Jews habitually used the word ‘Lord’ as a substitute for ‘Jahweh.’ That sacred name, though written, was not pronounced. In reading the Hebrew OT, ‘Adonai’ was substituted for it. And so the Hellenistic Jews, in reading their Greek translation of the OT, found ὁ κύριος where the original has ‘Jahweh.’ When, then, St. Paul declares that ‘no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit’ (1Co 12:3), or bids the Roman Christian ‘confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord’ (Rom 10:9 Revised Version ; cf. Php 2:11), he does not mean merely that Jesus is a great teacher, but he identifies Him with ‘the Lord’ of the Greek OT, that is, with Jahweh. St. Peter uses the same identification when he says: ‘Sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord’ (1Pe 3:15 Revised Version ; the Authorized Version reading is not supported by the best authorities); here he quotes Isa 8:13 Septuagint (κύριον αὐτὸν ἁγιάσατε), actually substituting τὸν Χριστόν for αὐτόν. (C. Bigg [International Critical Commentary , 1901, in loc.] renders ‘sanctify the Lord, that is to say, the Christ,’ but this does not affect the present argument.) This identification is frequent in the NT. The title ‘the Lord’ is used both of the Father and of the Son. A remarkable passage is Jam 5:4-15, where we read in quick succession of ‘the Lord of Sabaoth,’ ‘the coming of the Lord,’ ‘the Lord is at hand,’ ‘the prophets spake in the name of the Lord,’ ‘the Lord shall raise (the sick man) up’; ‘the Lord’ means here sometimes the Father and sometimes the Son (in Jam 3:9 Revised Version it is explicitly used of the Father). With this compare the way in which in Jam 4:12 God is said to be the one ‘lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and to destroy,’ while in Jam 5:9 Jesus is the judge who ‘standeth before the doors.’ The passage 1Co 10:9 would be still more striking if we could be sure of the text. According to the Authorized Version and Revised Version margin, St. Paul speaks of the Israelites who sinned against Jahweh in Num 21:5 ff. as ‘tempting Christ’; but the reading τὸν Κύριον is not quite so well attested as τὸν Χριστόν. Another identification of Jesus with Jahweh is to be seen in the taking over of the expression ‘the day of the Lord’ (‘the day of Jahweh’) from ‘the OT (cf. Amo 5:18, etc.) and the using of it to denote the return of Jesus, in 1Th 5:2, 2Pe 3:10, which have ‘the day of the Lord,’ and 1Co 5:5, 2Co 1:14, which have ‘the day of [our] Lord Jesus.’
Again, Jesus is in the NT called ‘Lord’ in a manner which is equivalent to ‘Almighty,’ i.e. ‘all ruling’ (see above, 3 (a));, e.g. Act 10:36 (‘he is Lord of all’), Rom 14:9 (‘Lord of the dead and the living’), Php 3:20 f. (‘the Lord Jesus Christ … is able even to subject all things unto himself’), 1Co 2:8 (‘crucified the Lord of glory’-an approach to the cammunicatio idiomatum [see above, 5 (b) ]), Rev 1:5 (‘ruler of the kings of the earth’), Rev 17:14; Rev 19:16 (the Lamb, the Word of God, is ‘Lord of lords and King of kings’-a phrase used in 1Ti 6:15 of the Father); cf. Heb 1:3 f., 8 (‘the Son … upholding all things by the word of his power’) and Rom 9:5 (‘who is over all’), God is commonly addressed by the disciples as ‘Lord,’ as in Act 1:24 (but see above, 3 (c)) Act 4:29 (explicitly the Father; see Act 4:30) Act 10:4; Act 10:14; Act 11:8; and this is the way in which Saul of Tarsus and Ananias address the Ascended Jesus in their visions (Act 9:5; Act 9:10; Act 9:13 [see Act 9:15 f.] Act 22:8; Act 22:10; Act 22:19; Act 26:15; cf. Mat 25:11, etc.).
The title ‘our Lord’ for Jesus, which became the most common designation among the Christians, is not very common in the NT. In Rev 11:15 it is used of the Father (‘our Lord and his Christ’). In Rev 11:8 Authorized Version it is used of Jesus, but all the best Manuscripts here have ‘their Lord.’ It is, however, found in Jam 2:1 (our Lord Jesus Christ’) [the Lord] of glory’) and in 2Co 13:14, 1Ti 1:14, 2Ti 1:8, Heb 7:14; Heb 13:20, 2Pe 3:15, etc.
(c) Our Lord’s Divinity stated in express terms.-Many of the passages about to be given in this subsection have been keenly criticized, but it is impossible to pass over the whole of them. This passage or that may possibly be explained otherwise than is here done, or in some cases the reading may be disputed; but the cumulative effect of the whole is overwhelming. Yet it must be remarked that the doctrine of the Godhead of our Lord does not depend merely on a certain number of leading tests. The language of the whole of the apostolic writings is inexplicable on the supposition that their authors believed their Master to be mere man, or even a created being of any sort, however highly exalted.
In Rom 9:5 St. Paul says that Christ is ‘over all, God blessed for ever.’ Such is the interpretation of the Authorized Version and Revised Version (Revised Version margin mentions the translations of ‘some modern interpreters’), adopted ‘with some slight, but only slight, hesitation’ by Sanday-Headlam in their exhaustive note (International Critical Commentary in loc.). The alternative interpretations insert a full stop, and make the latter part of the verse an ascription of praise to the Father.
In 2Co 4:4, Col 1:15 Christ is called the ‘image’ (εἰκών) of God; with this we must compare the remarkable passage, Heb 1:3 ff., where the Son is called ‘the effulgence (ἀπαύγασμα; cf. Wis 7:26) of his glory and the very image of his substance’ (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ), and is declared to be higher than, and worshipped by, the angels, and to have eternal rule; the quotation from Psa 45:6 f., beginning ‘Thy throne, O God,’ is referred to the Son. It is remarkable that whereas no Epistle emphasizes our Lord’s humanity be strongly as Hebrews, its beginning should dwell so forcibly on His Divine prerogatives. The meaning of these expressions ‘image,’ ‘effulgence,’ is seen by studying the passage Col 1:15 ff. with Lightfoot’s notes (Colossians3, 1879, in loc.). Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation’ (see First-Born for Patristic interpretations). But our Lord is not the’ imago’ of God in the same way as all men are (1Co 11:7, Jam 3:9, Gen 1:26; Clement of Rome uses χαρακτήρ in the same sense [Cor. xxxiii. 4] though he quotes Gen 1:26 with εἰκών). Christ is the revelation of the invisible God because He is His ‘express image.’ He is the ‘firstborn of all creation, as being before all creation, and having sovereignty over it (Lightfoot). There can be little doubt that St. Paul here refers to the pre-incarnate Christ as the earlier Fathers, and eventually the later Greek Fathers, held. he adds that ‘in him all the fulness (πλήρωμα) dwells’ (Col 1:19), and that ‘in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col 2:9): the totality of the Divine power and attributes (Lightfoot) are in the Incarnates Jesus.
In Php 2:6-8 St. Paul says that our Lord ‘being (ὑπάρχων) is the form of God, counted it not a prize [a tiling to be grasped at] to be on an equality with God, but emptied (ἐκένωσε) himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man.’ This passage, which has given rise to the word ‘Kenotic, is elaborately treated by Lightfoot (see his Philippians4, 1878, p. 111f., and especially his appended Notes, pp. 127-137). It espressos Christ’s pre-existence, for He ‘emptied himself.’ Of what He emptied Himself is seen from the preceding words. He was originally (ὑπάρχων, denoting ‘prior existence,’ but not necessarily ‘eternal existence’ [Lightfoot] in the form of God, participating in the οὐσία of God. Yet He did not regard His equality with God as a thing to be jealously guarded, a prize which must not slip from His grasp.
We cannot lay great stress on Act 20:26, for which see above, 5 (b), because of the uncertainty of the reading; but by all grammatical canons (though this has been denied) Tit 2:13 must apply the name ‘God’ to our Lord: ‘our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (Revised Version ; τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), and this interpretation is borne out by the word ἐπιφάνεια (‘manifestation’) which immediately precedes, and by the whole context, which speaks of our Lord (v. 14). The phrase in 2Pe 1:1 is similar: ‘out God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (Revised Version text).
The explicit ascription of Divinity is found frequently in the Johannine writings. In 1Jn 5:20, indeed, the phrase ‘This is the true God’ may be applied either to the Father or to the Son (see above, 3 (c)); and in Joh 1:18 the reading is disputed (see Only-Begotten); ‘God only begotten ‘(μονογενής θεός) is somewhat better attested than ‘the only begotten Son’ (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) and is the more difficult reading; Westcott (Com. in loc.) judges both readings to be of great and almost equal antiquity, but on various grounds thinks that the former most be accepted. But, whatever view we take of these two passages, St. Thomas’s confession, ‘My Lord and my God’ (Joh 20:28), is quite explicit; and so is the preface to the Fourth Gospel: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (Joh 1:1), and so are our Lord’s words, ‘I and the Father are one’ (ἕν ἐσμεν, Joh 10:30), The Johannine doctrine of the Logos or Word, which cannot be altogether passed over even in an investigation which deals chiefly with the NT outside the Gospels (though the title ‘Word of God’ occurs only in Rev 19:13 outside the Fourth Gospel, for Heb 11:3 [ῥήματι θεοῦ] is no exception to this statement), is equivalent to the Pauline doctrine of the Image. The Logos is an eternally existent ‘Person’ through whom God has ever revealed Himself; who was in a true sense distinct from the Father, and yet ‘was God’ (Joh 1:1); who was incarnate, ‘became flesh and tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us’ (Joh 1:14). The Logos is identified with Jesus Christ, whose glory the disciples beheld.
(d) Pre-existence of our Lord.-This is stated frequently in the NT. Besides the passages just quoted in (c), we may notice Rom 8:3 (‘God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh’); 1Co 10:4 (the Israelites of old ‘drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ [note the past tense ‘was’: it is not a mere type]); 1Co 15:47 (‘the second man is of heaven’; the best Manuscripts omit ‘the Lord,’ but this does not affect the present point; Robertson-Plummet, however [International Critical Commentary , 1911, in loc.], think that the reference is to the Second Advent rather than to the Incarnation); 2Co 8:9 (‘though he was rich, for your sakes he became poor’ (ἐπτώχευσε)-if He had no previous existence, there never was a previous time when He was rich); Col 1:17 (‘he is before all things, and in him all things consist’ [hold together]: see above (c)); 1Ti 1:15 (Christ Jesus came into the world’); 1Ti 3:16 (‘He who was manifested in the flesh’: the reading θεός for ὄς [i.e. OC for OC], which would have made this verse an explicit statement of our Lord’s Divinity, has ‘no sufficient ancient evidence’ [Revised Version margin], but this ancient hymn, as it appears to be, is good witness for the pre-existence); 2Ti 1:9 f. (‘which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus’); Heb 1:6 (‘when he bringeth in the firstborn into the world’); 1Pe 1:20 (‘who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake’); 1Jn 3:5-8 (He ‘was manifested’); 1Jn 4:2 (‘Jesus Christ is come in the flesh’), See also below (e). Some of these expressions might have been interpreted, though with difficulty, of an ordinary birth; but such an interpretation is impossible when we compare them all together.
With these passages from the Epistles we may compare a few examples taken out of the Fourth Gospel. The Word was ‘in the beginning’ and ‘became flesh’ (Joh 1:1; Joh 1:4). Jesus speaks of Himself, or the Evangelist speaks of him, as ‘he that cometh from above, he that cometh from heaven’ (Joh 3:31), whom thou hast sent’ (Joh 17:8), as ‘be that descended out of heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven’ (Joh 3:13; the last four words are omitted by אB and some other authorities, and are thought by Westcott-Hort’s Greek Testament [Appendix, p. 75] to be an early but true gloss). Pre-existence does not in itself imply Godhead; but, on the other hand, if our Lord was not pre-existent, He cannot be God.
(e) Divine attributes ascribed to our Lord.-At the outset of the apostolic period St. Peter speaks of Jesus as the ‘Prince’ (or ‘Author,’ ἀρχηγός) ‘of life’; He could not be holden of death (Act 2:24. This resembles the sayings of the Fourth Gospel that Jesus has ‘life in himself’ (Joh 5:26, see below, 8), and that He has power to lay down His life and to take it again (Joh 10:18). Jesus ‘abolished death and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel’ (2Ti 1:10). He is ‘the first and the last, and the Living One,’ who ‘was dead’ but is ‘alive for evermore and has ‘the keys of death and of Hades’ (Rev 1:17 f.); He is the ‘Alpha and Omega’ (Rev 22:13), a title which had just before been given to the Father (Rev 1:8; Rev 21:6; see above, 3 (b)). The Lamb, as well as the Father, is the source of the river (Rev 22:1) which is the gift of the Spirit (see Swete, Com. in loc.; cf. Joh 7:38 f.). Christ, being the Living One, is called ‘our life,’ the giver of life to us, in Col 3:4 : cf. 2Ti 1:10 as above, and Joh 6:57 (‘he that eateth me, he also shall live because of mo’; see 8). And therefore He is ‘in us’ (Rom 8:10, etc.).
Our Lord is represented as receiving the worship of angels (Heb 1:6) and of the four-and-twenty elders (Rev 5:6 f.), and of the angels and living creatures and elders (Rev 5:11-14). He took part in the creation of the world (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2; Heb 1:10; Heb 3:3, 1Co 8:6, Rom 11:36, Joh 1:3). Both He and the Father are called ‘the Saviour.’ The ascription of this title to the Father is characteristic of the Pastoral Epistles (1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:3; 1Ti 4:10, Tit 1:3; Tit 2:10; Tit 3:4; cf. 2Ti 1:9) and is also found in Jud 1:25 Revised Version , Luk 1:47 (cf. Jam 4:12); but it is given to our Lord in 2Ti 1:10, Tit 1:4; Tit 3:6 (in each case just after it had been given to the Father), as it is given in Eph 5:23, Php 3:10, 1Jn 4:14, 2Pe 1:11; 2Pe 2:20; 2Pe 3:2; 2Pe 3:18, Luk 2:11, Joh 4:42, Act 5:31; Act 13:23 (cf. also Joh 12:47, Heb 7:25). His human name of Jesus was given Him with that very signification (Mat 1:21). It was the foundation of the gospel message that ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners’ (1Ti 1:15). It is in the same way that the Father is sometimes said to be the Judge, sometimes our Lord. The Father judges through the Son (Joh 5:22; cf. Jam 4:12 with Jam 5:9). He that sat on the white horse ‘doth judge and make war’ (Rev 19:11), though during His earthly ministry our Lord did not judge (Joh 8:15). These two considerations, that Jesus is Saviour and Judge, might not be so conclusive as to His Divinity, if it were not for another office ascribed to Him, that of the One Mediator (1Ti 2:5). He is Himself man (1Ti 2:6), or He could not mediate; and by parity of reasoning He is Himself God. A mediator must share the nature of both parties to the mediation. A mere man can only supplicate; God not incarnate can be merciful; but God incarnate alone can mediate.
The great attributes of God-love, truth, knowledge, holiness, righteousness (including justices)-are ascribed to our Lord. His love is spoken of in some of the most pathetic passages of St. Paul: ‘the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me’ (Gal 2:20), ‘the love of Christ which passeth knowledge’ (Eph 3:19; cf. Eph 5:25). The Apocalyptist declares that ‘he loveth us and loosed us from our sins by his blood’ (Rev 1:5). It is because of this Divine attribute of love that ‘Christ forgave’ sinners (Eph 4:32). His forgiving sins was a great scandal to the Jews (Mar 2:5-7; Mar 2:10). Well might they ask, from their point of view, ‘Who can forgive sins but one, even God?’ The forgiveness of sins by out Lord differs in kind, not in degree, from human absolutions pronounced by Christian ministers, who do not profess to be able to read the heart or to perform any but a conditional and ministerial action.-For the attribute of truth see Rev 3:7; Rev 3:14 (‘the Amen’) Rev 6:10, Rev 19:11 (in these Jesus is [ὁ] ἀληθινός, the ‘ideal or absolute truth,’ not merely ‘veracious’), Joh 1:14 (‘full of grace and truth’) Joh 14:6 (‘I am the way and the truth and the life’). Our Lord, then, is absolute Truth; and with this attribute is associated that of knowledge: ‘He knew all men … he himself knew what was in man’ (Joh 2:25); without this He could not be the Judge (see also 1Co 1:24; 1Co 1:30, Col 2:3).-Most emphatically is our Lord called holy. His is an absolute sanctity (Rev 3:7 : ‘He that is holy, he that is true’); not only the holiness of a good man who strives to do God’s will, but absolute sinlessness. This attribute is insisted on with some vehemence in 2Co 5:21, Heb 4:15; Heb 7:26 f. (‘holy’ [ὄσιος; see 3 (f) note], ‘separated from sinners’), 1Pe 1:19; 1Pe 2:22, 1Jn 3:5; note also Rom 8:3 (‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’). Sanday-Headlam justly remark (International Critical Commentary in loc.) that ‘the flesh of Christ is “like” ours inasmuch as it is flesh; “like,” and only “like,” because it is not sinful.’ For this attribute see also Act 3:14 (‘the Holy and Righteous One’) Act 4:27, Rev 6:10; and, in the Gospels, Mar 1:24, Joh 6:69, etc. Both the demoniacs in a lower sense and the instructed disciples in a higher one call our Lord ‘the Holy One of God.’ It was announced by Gabriel that from His birth Jesus should be called holy, the Son of God (Luk 1:35 Revised Version ).-Lastly, the attribute of righteousness is ascribed to our Lord, e.g. in Act 3:14; Act 22:14, 2Ti 4:8, Heb 1:9, Jam 5:6, 1Pe 3:16, (Rev 19:11, as in Joh 5:30. It is this attribute which assures a just judgment; but it includes more than ‘justice’ in She ordinary human sense; it embraces all that ‘uprightness’ stands for. (With the whole of this sub-section, cf. § 3 above.)
(f) Christ’s Godhead is not contrary to His true humanity.-In weighing all the above considerations, we must remember the great stress that is laid in the NT on the true humanity of Jesus (e.g. Act 17:31, Rom 1:3, 1Ti 2:5, Rev 1:13), though this does not come within the scope of this article. The apostles did not make their Master to be a mere Docetic or phantom man. Jesus really suffered in His human spirit as well as in His human body. But when we review all the passages given in the preceding paragraphs, and others like them, what-ever deductions we may make because of a doubtful reading here or a questionable interpretation there, we cannot doubt that the apostles taught that Jesus is no mere man, or even a created angel, but is God. See further below, § 9.
7. Personality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost.-Much is said in the OT of the Spirit of God, who from the first had given life to the world (Gen 1:2; Gen 2:7, Job 33:4). The ‘Spirit’ in Hebrew, as in Greek and Latin, is the Breath of God (רוּחַ, πνεῦμα, spiritus), who not only gave physical life at the first, but is the moving power of holiness. The Psalmist prays: ‘Take not thy holy spirit from me’ (Psa 51:11). But the OT teachers had not yet learnt what Christian theology calls the personality of the Holy Ghost (sec above, 5 (a)), though in the teaching about ‘Wisdom,’ which is in some degree personified in the OT, e.g. in Proverbs 8 and the Sapiential books of the Apocrypha, and also in the phraseology of such passages as Isa 48:16; Isa 63:10, they made some approach to it. In Christian times, while there has been on the whole little doubt about the Godhead of the Spirit (though in the 4th cent. the Arians asserted that He was a created being), yet men have frequently hesitated about His distinct personality, and have thought of Him merely as an Attribute or Influence of the Father. It is therefore important to investigate the apostolic teaching on the subject. We must first notice that the NT writers fully recognize that the Holy Spirit had worked in the Old Dispensation; He ‘spake by the prophets’ [the enlarged ‘Nicene’ Creed]; the words quoted from the OT are the words of the Holy Ghost (Act 1:16; Act 28:25, 1Pe 1:11, 2Pe 1:21, Mar 12:36 etc.). The Pentecostal outpouring was not the first working of the Spirit in the world. But the apostolic writers teach a far higher doctrine of the Spirit than was known in the OT.
(a) The Godhead of the Holy Ghost.-We hare already seen (above, 5 (c)) that the Spirit is in the NT teaching joined to the Father and Son in a manner which implies Godhead. The ‘Spirit of God’ (see below) must be God. When Ananias lied ‘to the Holy Ghost,’ he lied not ‘unto men but unto God’ (Act 5:3 f. cf. Act 5:9, where he and Sapphira are said to have ‘agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord’). With this we may compare Mar 3:29, where blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is said to have ‘never forgiveness’; the || Mat 12:31 f. adds: ‘Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man it shall he forgiven him.’ The inference is that if the Son is God, the Spirit is God.-Divine attributes are predicated of the Spirit, In particular, He is throughout named holy. We may ask why this epithet is so constantly given to Him, for it is obviously not intended to derogate from the Father or the Son. May not the reason be sought in the work of the Spirit? It is through Him that man becomes holy, through Him that God works on man. In this connexion we may notice two points. (1) In the OT we do not find the absolute title ‘the Holy Spirit,’ though the Spirit is called ‘holy’ in Psa 51:11 (‘thy holy spirit’) and Isa 63:10 f. (‘his holy spirit’). The use of the title ‘the Holy Spirit’ is a token of advance to the conception of personality; see below (b). (2) In the NT there is frequently a difference between the title when used without the article and when used with it, so that πνεῦμα ἅγιον (‘Holy Spirit’) is a gift or manifestation of the Spirit in its relation to the life of man, while the same words with the article (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον or τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα) denote the Holy Spirit considered as a Divine Person (Swete, The Holy Spirit in the NT, 1909, p. 396f.).-Again, knowledge of the deep things of God is predicated of the Spirit (1Co 2:10 f.). He is the truth (1Jn 5:7; cf. Joh 15:26). He is the Spirit of life (Rom 8:2), and immanent in man (Rom 5:5; Rom 8:9; Rom 14:11, 1Co 6:19 [cf. esp. 2Co 6:16] 1Co 7:40, Gal 4:6, Joh 14:17, etc.). He is eternal (Heb 9:14; but on this verse see Swete, p. 61).
(b) The Personality of the Holy Ghost.-This needs careful consideration. Is He but an Influence of the Father? The NT writings negative this idea; for, though they join together the Spirit with the Father and the Son, as above, 5 (c), yet they represent the Spirit as being in a read sense distinct from both. In Joh 14:15 our Lord says: ‘I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another (ἄλλον) Comforter.’ He is sent by the Father (Joh 14:26), proceeds from the Father (Joh 15:26), and is sent by the on from the Father (Joh 15:26, Joh 16:7). He is called by St. Paul in the same context ‘the Spirit of God’ and ‘the Spirit of Christ’ (Rom 8:6). The Father is not the same Person as the Son, and if the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of both. He must be distinct from both. This is seen also, though in not quite so close and striking a contest, in many other passages. He is called ‘the Spirit of God’ also in 1Co 2:10 f., 14; 1Co 7:40, Eph 4:30, Php 3:3, 1Th 4:8, 1Jn 4:2; 1Jn 4:13, as in Mat 12:28 (where the || Luk 11:20 has ‘the finger of God’ instead, the meaning being that God works through the Holy Ghost); He is called ‘the Spirit of your Father’ in Mat 10:20; and ‘the Spirit of Christ’ or ‘of Jesus’ or ‘of the Son’ in Act 16:7 Revised Version , Gal 4:6, Php 1:19, 1Pe 1:11; note especially Galatians 4; Galatians 6 : ‘God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.’ Again, that the Spirit is distinct from the Son is clear from Joh 16:7 (‘if I go not away the Comforter will not come onto you, but if I go I will send him unto you’) and Joh 16:14 (‘he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you’).
Personal acts are frequently predicated of the Holy Ghost. In Act 13:2; Act 13:4 we read; ‘They ministered to the Lord, and the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.… So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost,’ etc. In Act 15:28 the formula which became the common usage of later Councils is used: ‘It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.’ So we read that the Spirit wills (1Co 2:11), searches (1Co 2:10), is grieved (Eph 4:30), helps and intercedes (Rom 8:26), dwells within us (above (a)), and distributes gifts (1Co 12:11).
In the sub-apostolic period there is found tome confusion between the Son and the Spirit: e.g. Hermas, Sim. 1Co 12:6, ix. 1; pseudo-Clement, 2 Cor. ix., xiv.; Justin, Apol. i. 33. Thus Justin Says: ‘The Spirit and the Power which is from God must not be thought to be aught else but the Word who la God’s First-begotten.’ Hermas seems to identify the Spirit with the pre-existent Divine nature of Christ: ‘The holy pre existent Spirit which created the whole earth God made to dwell in flesh.… That Spirit in the Son of God.’ But the meaning of these writers seems to be merely that the pre-existent Logos was spirit and was Divine. Swete (Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 31) remarks of this period that ‘there was as yet no formal theology of the Spirit and no effort to create it; nor wan there any conscious heresy. But the presence of the Spirit in the Body of Christ was recognized on all hands as an acknowledged fact of the Christian life.’
8. Subordination.-This is the term by which Christian theology expresses the doctrine that there are not three sources in the Godhead, but that the Son and the Holy Ghost derive their Divine substance from the Father, and that, while they are equal to Him as touching their Godhead, yet in a real sense they are subordinate to Him. This, however, does not involve the Arian conception of a Supreme God and two inferior deities. It must be remembered that human language is limited, and unable to express fully the Divine mysteries; be that just as the technical terms ‘Trinity,’ ‘Person,’ may be misused in the interests of Tritheism, so ‘subordination’ may be misused in the interests of Arianism.
It is noteworthy that the ‘spiritual Gospel,’ as Clement of Alexandria calls’ Jn. (quoted in Eusebius, HE [Note: E Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.).] vi, xiv. 7), though it insists so strongly on the Godhead of our Lord, yet equally emphasizes the doctrine of subordination. It is the Father who, having ‘life in himself,’ gave ‘to the Son also to have life in himself,’ and ‘gave all judgment unto the Son’ (Joh 5:22; Joh 5:26). Jesus says: ‘I live because of the Father’ (Joh 6:57; cf. Joh 10:18). It has been disputed whether Joh 14:28 (‘the Father is greater than I’) refers to Jesus’ humanity, as the Latin Fathers ordinarily explain it, or to His Divinity, as the Greek Fathers interpret; if to the latter, we have here a striking instance of subordination (see Liddon, Bampton Lectures, 18668, 1878, lect. iv. p. 199f.). We find the same thing in St. Paul: ‘The head of Christ is God’ (1Co 11:3); ‘then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all’ (1Co 15:28); cf. 1Co 8:8, ‘of whom are all things,’ Subordination is also suggested by the frequent phrase ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ and the words ‘my God’ used by our Lord in Rev 3:12, Revised Version Rev 3:12, and especially in Joh 20:17, where Jesus distinguishes ‘my God’ and ‘your God’ just as He distinguishes ‘my Father’ and ‘your Father’ (above, 4 (a)).
Both the Godhead and the subordination of our Lord ore expressed by the phrases ‘God of (ἑκ) God,’ ‘Very God of very God of the Nicene Creed. The Father is the fount or source of Godhead, and there is none other.
The subordination of the Spirit is implied in much that has been quoted above. The very title ‘the Spirit of God’ denotes that He is subordinate to the Father and derives from Him. Note also Joh 16:13 f: ‘He shall not speak from himself, but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak … he shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you,’ with which we must compare Joh 15:15 : ‘all things that I heard from my Father I have made known unto you.’ This refers to the temporal mission of the Holy Ghost, and so, probably (at least in its primary aspect), does the saying that He ‘proceedeth from the Father’ (Joh 15:26). The procession of the Holy Ghost has been much discussed, and the controversy has been complicated by the addition of a word (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed by the Western Church; but most of those who have engaged in this theological warfare might probably agree in the statement that He who is ‘the Spirit of Christ’ proceeds, in eternity as well as in time, from the Father through the Son. In any case, procession involves what is meant by ‘subordination.’
9. The Divine unity.-Although the apostolic writers emphasize the distinctions in the Godhead, they at the same time reiterate the OT doctrine that God is One. They show no consciousness of teaching anything but the unity of God. The saying of Deu 6:4 (cf. Isa 44:8) that ‘The Lord our God is one Lord’ is repeated by the Master in Mar 12:29. ‘There is no God but one,’ says St. Paul (1Co 8:4 so 1Co 8:6); ‘There is one God,’ ‘the only God’ (1Ti 2:5; 1Ti 1:17). St. James makes the unity of God a common ground between his opponents and himself; even the demons believe [this] (Jam 2:19). As a matter of fact, Christianity was never seriously accused of polytheism. Aubrey Moore remarks (Lux Mundi5, 1890, p. 59) that at the present day polytheism has ceased to exist in the civilized world; every theist is by a rational necessity a monotheist. And this tendency had begun at the commencement of the Christian era. But the Jews of that day mode the Divine unity to be self-absorbed. The Divine attribute of love implies relations within the Divine Being; and hence the Jewish idea of God was a barren one, as is the Muhammadan idea to-day. The world needed a re-statement of the doctrine of God, and this was given by Christianity. The Christian doctrine steers its way between Tritheism, which postulates three Persons like there individuals, and Sabellianism, which teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are but three aspects of God. It does not profess to be ‘easy’; it was the desire for ‘easiness’ that led to Arianism and its cognates, which taught that the Son and the Spirit were inferior and created Divine beings; and, indeed, it was the same desire that led to all the old Christian heresies. But we need not expect that the ‘deep things of God’ (1Co 2:10), which cannot adequately be expressed in human language, will be readily comprehensible to our limited human intelligence.
To whom is this re-statement of the doctrine of God due? Was it made in sub-apostolic times, or by the apostles, or by our Lord Himself? Those who deny that St. Paul wrote any Epistles, or at least any that have survived, and who make the Fourth Gospel, and perhaps the First, to be 2nd cent. writings, may take the first view. Only it is difficult to imagine what unknown genius in the sub-apostolic age could have made such a revolution in thought. This view, however, may safely be passed over, as involving a thoroughly false criticism of the NT books. More attention must be paid to the view that the re-statement of doctrine is due to St. Paul; that he was, in reality, the founder of Christian doctrine, and that the ‘original Christianity is better represented by Ebionism.’ It has been well pointed out by Gore (Bampton Lectures, 1891, Appended Note 26, p. 254ff.) that this view is contrary to all the evidence. Those books of the NT which are most independent of St. Paul, such us the Second Gospel, the Epistle of St. James, and the Apocalypse, give the same doctrine that the Apostle of the Gentiles gives. There was no opposition on the subject of the Person of Christ between St. Paul and his judaizing opponents, as would certainly have been the case had Ebionism been the original Christianity. The re-statement of the doctrine of God was fully received at least within a generation of the Ascension. For example, Sanday points out (Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv, 573a) that the use of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ as theological terms goes back to a date which is not more than 23 years from that event (1Th 1:1; 1Th 1:10). It is impossible to account for such a rapid growth unless the re-statement came from Him whoso bond-servants the apostles loved to profess themselves. The concurrence of so many independent writers can only be due to the fact that ‘grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; God only begotten [or the only begotten Son], which is in the bosom of the Father, be hath declared him’ (Joh 1:17 f.).
Literature.-Out of a vast number of works it is not easy to give a small selection which will be useful to the reader; and therefore only English works are here mentioned, and only those which bear on the apostolio period. Reference may be made to J. Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed (first published in 1659; a monument of theological learning, of which the foot-notes, giving the Patristic quotations, are specially valuable); C, Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God (Bampton Lectures, 1891); H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Bampton Lectures, 1866); Lux Mundi5, 1890 (especially Essays iv., v., vi., viii.); H. B. Swete, The Apostles’ Creed3, 1899, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, 1909, and The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, 1912; R. L. Ottley, Aspects of the OT (Bampton Lectures, 1897) (especially Lecture iv. On the ‘Progressive Self-Revelation of God’); R. C. Moberley, Atonement and Personality, 1901; H. C. Powell, The Principle of the Incarnation, 1896; A. J. Mason, The Faith of the Gospel, 1887-89. Special reference must also be made to article ‘God’ and ‘Son of God’ by W. Sanday in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and ‘Trinity’ by C. F. D’Arcy in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels .
A. J. Maclean.
Consult other dictionaries:
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings, with the assistance of John A. Selbie, and John C. Lambert. 2 vols. 1916, 1918.