UBS Dictionary of the Greek New Testament

Sense 1: God

Semantic entry: 12.1

Semantic domains: Supernatural Beings and Powers

Subdomains: Supernatural Beings

Definition: the one supreme supernatural being as creator and sustainer of the universe

Notes: The componential features of θεός involve a basic, underlying ambivalence. On the one hand, θεός is regarded as unique to the exclusion of all other gods: οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ‘there is no God but one’ RV CO1 8:4 · LV CO1 8:4 · Read together CO1 8:4. This is strictly a monotheistic view of θεός. On the other hand, there occur such expressions as εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί ‘even if there are so-called gods’ (RV CO1 8:5 · LV CO1 8:5 · Read together CO1 8:5), and in the OT the Lord is described as being ‘far above all gods’ (RV PSA 97:9 · LV PSA 97:9 · Read together PSA 97:9), ‘the God of gods’ (RV PSA 136:2 · LV PSA 136:2 · Read together PSA 136:2), and the ‘great King above all gods’ (RV PSA 95:3 · LV PSA 95:3 · Read together PSA 95:3), which is essentially a henotheistic view of θεός. Fundamentally, however, the NT view may be most succinctly reflected in RV GAL 4:8 · LV GAL 4:8 · Read together GAL 4:8, τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς ‘those who by nature are not really gods.’ In other words, the gods of the pagans (see 12.22: θεός) are not to be viewed in the same category as θεός[a] .|A further semantic problem is involved in the use of θεός[a] in reference to Christ. In RV JHN 1:1 · LV JHN 1:1 · Read together JHN 1:1, the ‘the Word was God,’ the meaning of θεός may be described on the basis that all the componential features of θεός[a] are applied to the referent λόγος, which is in turn identified with ‘Christ.’ This is not to be interpreted as indicating that the two referents are identical (which was, of course, the position of those who maintained the so-called patropassian heresy), but that the distinctive features of θεός[a] are also fully applicable to another referent, namely, the λόγος or Christ; that is to say, it is legitimate to interpret RV JHN 1:1 · LV JHN 1:1 · Read together JHN 1:1 as ‘the Word was God’ but not as ‘God was the Word.’|Translational equivalents of ‘God’ are of three major types: (1) proper names, (2) descriptive titles, and (3) borrowed terms. There are a number of problems involved in each of these types of translational equivalents.|If translators wish to employ in the biblical text a proper name in the receptor language, it is essential that the characteristics of the referent of such a name be sufficiently close to those which characterize the biblical God, so that the message may not be unduly distorted. In fact, the equivalent should be sufficiently close that ready identification can be made. The essential features of such a receptor language term should include (1) benevolent disposition and behavior, (2) creative and sustaining activity in the world, and (3) supreme power. In most instances it has not been found necessary for such a term to refer to a strictly monotheistic view (that is to say, having an existence which precludes the existence of any other gods), but it is essential that the name apply to a referent who is regarded as supreme over all others.|There may, however, be a number of difficulties involved in the use of an indigenous expression for θεός[a], since the views concerning such a god may involve such factors as (1) psychological distance (the idea that such a god, though all powerful, is still very remote from mankind) and (2) the necessity for constant propitiation (as though such a god needs to be constantly entreated or sustained by means of gifts in order to make him favorably disposed toward mankind).|In some instances problems have arisen in the use of an indigenous term for God because such a name may be perfectly appropriate in one area in which a language is spoken, but have quite a different meaning or value in another part of the language area. For example, in one area of East Africa the name for ‘God’ in one tribe is the name for the devil in a nearby, closely related tribe.|Descriptive titles for God (which often become essentially names) may focus upon a number of different features or characteristics. In some instances such descriptive titles are traditional for certain receptor languages. In other instances they have been constructed by translators on the basis of indigenous models. The following are illustrative examples of various types of descriptive titles: ‘he who made us,’ ‘the supreme powerful one,’ ‘the one who performs miracles,’ ‘the owner of all,’ ‘he who is sufficient,’ ‘our great father,’ ‘the highest one,’ ‘the great spirit,’ ‘the unending spirit,’ ‘the commanding spirit,’ ‘the great chief,’ ‘the self-existing one,’ and ‘the truly sacred one.’|Some Bible translators have attempted to avoid semantic complications by borrowing a term from a dominant language. In Latin America, for example, many early missionaries borrowed the Spanish term Dios, but in explaining the meaning of Dios as the great and all-powerful creator, they simply provided another name for what people already understood to be the sun. The difficulty with borrowed proper names is that they are essentially zero in meaning, that is to say, they are words with a significant absence of meaning which must be filled in one way or another, and this is usually done merely by equating the meaning of such a zero term with already existing concepts. Hence, rather than avoiding wrong views of God, borrowed terms often perpetuate wrong views indirectly.|There may also be additional complications in the use of a borrowed term, since it may not provide a basis for certain syntactic or morphological modifications. For example, some missionaries have borrowed the term Allah for ‘God,’ but in speaking of ‘gods’ they have attempted to add a plural to the underlying form Allah. In most instances this procedure has resulted in something which is not only conceptually and grammatically impossible, but also highly offensive to receptors.|One special problem involving θεός[a] results from the occurrence of ‘God’ in expressions of possession, for example, ‘my God’ or ‘our God.’ In a number of languages one simply cannot say ‘my God,’ for one cannot ‘possess God.’ Rather, one must say ‘the God whom I worship’ or ‘the God in whom I trust.’ Similarly, it may be impossible to speak of ‘the God of Abraham’ without implying that such a God would only be an idol, that is to say, ‘the God that Abraham personally possessed.’ Under such circumstances it may be necessary to translate ‘the God of Abraham’ as ‘the God in whom Abraham trusted.’|Ideally, one should employ a well known receptor-language term for ‘God’ which would be applicable not only to the one supreme being, but could also refer to the ‘gods of the heathen,’ that is to say, a rendering of θεός[a] should be a generic expression which could be made particular and even exclusive by some such qualifier as ‘the’ or ‘the one’ or ‘the unique.’ Sometimes this can only be done by a qualifier such as ‘the great’ or even ‘the supreme.’

Sense 2: god

Semantic entry: 12.22

Semantic domains: Supernatural Beings and Powers

Subdomains: Supernatural Beings

Definition: any one of many different supernatural beings regarded as having authority or control over some aspect of the universe or human activity

Notes: Some translators have made a practice of trying to render the meaning of θεός[b] by terms which mean essentially demons or evil spirits, but this is a mistake, for though the gods of the ancient pagans may be regarded as having had no existence at all, nevertheless, the NT does not speak of them as being evil.|In those languages in which there is no contrast between ‘gods’ and ‘spirits,’ that is to say, in instances in which people believe only in indwelling spirits rather than in supernatural beings who have control over natural phenomena, it may be possible to distinguish ‘gods’ by speaking of them as ‘powerful spirits.’ In certain instances, therefore, the equivalent of ‘God’ (12.1: θεός) is ‘the all-powerful Spirit.’

Sense 3: goddess

Semantic entry: 12.25

Semantic domains: Supernatural Beings and Powers

Subdomains: Supernatural Beings

Definition: a female deity

Notes: In some languages it may seem quite strange to attribute female sex to a divine being. However, one can almost always say ‘a woman god’ or ‘a spirit like a woman’ or ‘a spirit thought of as being like a woman.’

Forms: θεά

Sense 4: Son of God

Semantic entry: 12.15

Semantic domains: Supernatural Beings and Powers

Subdomains: Supernatural Beings

Definition: (a title applied to Jesus, literally: son of God, parallel in semantic structure to phrases consisting of υἱός followed by the genitive of class or kind; compare 9.4: υἱός) one who has the essential characteristics and nature of God

Notes: Before adopting a translation of υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ such as ‘Son of God,’ one must always investigate the extent to which such an expression might already be used in a particular language. For example, in the Tarahumara language of Mexico mankind is divided into two classes: (1) ‘sons of God,’ who are Tarahumaras and (2) ‘sons of the devil,’ all other people. In these circumstances it is necessary in translating υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to use an expression which will identify ‘the unique Son of God’ or ‘the one who is truly the Son of God.’

Collocations: υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ