rendered by sòs [Theos], or feds, by which, in particular, they commonly translate [Elo

him].

The inspired penmen of the New Testament, when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures, translate Elohim by beds [Theos], also by ô cós: as in Rom. iii. 18. "There is no fear beo (Hebrew D, Ps. xxxvi. 1.) before their eyes;" and in Heb. i. 9. "God, thy God," i beòs, ô Osós σou (Hebrew D Ts, Psal. xl. 7).

Throughout the Old Testament, the words

Elohim, and] אלהים Eloahl, and] אלוה,[/E] אל

throughout the New, the word beòs [Theos], are, in all the English versions, with less propriety than is at first apparent, uniformly translated "God;" and this without any regard being paid to the presence or absence of the emphatic [He] in the one, or of the Article in the other. The word "God," though now used with us as a proper name, in the language of our forefathers meant good. Is this the real sense of Elohim? If not, the word God is not a translation of, but a substitute for, the Hebrew term.-Let us briefly examine this point.

אֱלוֹהַ or אֱלֹהַ Some etymologists contend that

,Elohil] אֱלֹהֵי Elohiml, and consequently] אֱלֹהִים

[Eloah], (for these are the same word); and also

which differ only in form, being used only when in regimine; are derivatives: others, that they

are compounds: and some maintain, that even [El] is a derivative.

According to Hutchinson and his followers,

אָלָה meaning] אלה Elohim] is derived from] אלהים

Alah] to swear, to curse. They maintain that mx [Eloah] means, "The accursed one"-" the "second person in the Trinity, the Son of God, "who was made a curse for us." They make DN [Elohim] a plural--" The denouncers of a "curse: a name (says Parkhurst) usually given "to the ever-blessed Trinity, by which they

"

represent themselves as under the obligation "of an oath to perform certain conditions; and as having denounced a curse upon all men and "devils who do not conform to them."

To this derivation Michaelis, with great reason, objects, that it is more natural to conceive the verb [Alah, he sware] as designating the one who has affirmed by [Ell, than as being itself a root. There are other and strong reasons against such a derivation. The Hutchinsonians assume [Eloah] to be a participle passive, "accursed,"-but, as remarked by Dr. Sharp,' there is no participle passive of

met with in all the bible; and, as

[Alah] to be

observed by

another learned writer, Dr. Hales, "the word

'Sharp's Works, Vol. iv. p. 37.

2 Dissert. on the principal Prophecies, p. 134.

66

"mb [Eloah], in the sense accursed,' does not "once occur throughout the whole Hebrew 'Scriptures, though often employed as a name "of the Deity." And, farther, it may be remarked, that if Elohim mean those who are "under the obligation of an oath," then it will follow, that the witnesses in a court of law, and all who take oaths of office, are in fact Elohim. And, farther, in opposition to the Hutchinsonian doctrine, it may be remarked, that those who perform whatever obligation they come under by an oath, are, in the very nature of things, exempted from* the punishment, or penalty, or execration; for this can only fall on him who violates his engagement. But who would be so hardy as to predicate this of the HOLY ONE who fulfilled all righteousness?-of him who suffered, THE JUST for THE UNJUST, when he bare our sins in his own body on the tree. Because of this death he is said to have been " made a curse for us;" and the Apostle, to prevent himself from being misunderstood, immediately adds, "for it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." The curse denounced against sin was death: Christ died that he might redeem us from this curse, and the species of death which he suffered was that which the law called accursed. The Apostle is here explaining law phrases, which have no relation to the etymological derivation of a name.

It is a perversion, an absolute abuse of Scripture language, to apply the term "accursed," to the Son of God. "No one speaking by the Spirit of "God calleth Jesus accursed." [1 Cor. xii. 3]. By him, who is the first born from the dead, All THINGS WERE CREATED [Col. i. 16. 18]; and THE CREATOR is BLESSED FOR EVER, [Rom. i. 25.]—Jesus Christ, THE BLESSED and only potentate [1 Tim. vi. 15], GOD BLESSED FOR EVER [Rom. ix. 5].

Even were mix [Eloah], allowed to be a derivative from [Alah], it might be, not from the verb in Kal, but, from the Hiphil conjugation, and so would signify those who adjure or cause others to swear, and not those who swear or bind themselves by the oath. Accordingly, some, before Hutchinson, held [Eloah], to mean a Judge,

אלה the Hiphil of האלה deriving the word from

[Alah].

Despairing to find the root in the Hebrew, some etymologists have had recourse to the Arabic, originally the same language as that spoken by the common parent of Isaac and Ishmael, in which the Deity is designated by ALAH, and, with the prefixed article, ALALAH,—by contraction, ALLAH. Michaelis adopts the Arabic verb ALAH as the root, in the sense of benefacere alicui-benevolus fuit, from the Arabic noun ALI "good."

Dr. Geddes would prefer the noun ALI itself, if he could derive m [Eloah] from any single root. In this case he would call [E] not the root, but the abbreviation of [Alah] and pr [Elohim]: but he hesitates

whether to prefer

this etymon, or the first compound one to be noticed hereafter.

Latterly, the learned Dr. A. Clark, asserting that the root of Elohim "does not appear in the "Hebrew bible," has derived the word from the Arabic root" ALAHA, he worshipped, adored, "was struck with astonishment, fear or terror;”— "hence ILAHON, fear, veneration:"-True; but shall we add, "hence also the object of religious "fear, the Deity?" Is not Alaha an epithet more applicable to the worshipper than to the worshipped?

A priori, it is not very reasonable to suppose that the Hebrew scriptures do not exhibit, in its simplest form, the name, or epithet, by which the Creator was originally designated: and it is still less credible, that he can have a name derived from the acts or passions of creatures, who derive their powers,-their very existence, from himself. Were it even undeniable that his name imported the object of fear or terror, it would not follow that the noun was derived from the verb; for the converse is the order of Nature,