benignantly upon the earth' (op. cit. ad fin.).
LITERATURB. Art. ' Lord's Day ' in HDB (N. J. D. White),
EBi (Deissmann), Smith-Cheetham's IX' A (A. Barry), art.
' Festivals and Fasts (Christian) ' in ERE (J. G. Carleton),
art. ' Sonntagsf eier ' in PRE* (Zbckler) ; Bingham, Antiquities
of the Christian Church, Oxford, 1855, bks. xx., xxi. ; Duchesne,
Origines du culte chretien*, Paris, 1909 (Eng. tr., Christian
Worship*, London, 1912), also Early History of the Christian
Church, vol. i., Eng. tr. from 4th ed., do. 1909 ; J. A. Hessey,
Bampton Lecture on Sunday, London, 1860; Th. Zahn,
Skizzen aus dem Leben der alien Kirche%, Leipzig, 1898,
no. 5 : ' Geschichte des Sonntags vornehmlich in der alten
Kirche.' J. S. CLEMENS.
LORD'S SUPPER. See EUCHABIST.
LOT (At6r). Lot, the nephew, and for a time
the companion, of Abraham, is thrice over called
'righteous' in 2 P 2 7 - 8 . With all his faults, of
which the spirit of compromise was the most con-
spicuous, he was relatively Spates, i.e. in com-
parison with the citizens of Sodom among whom
he made his abode. The Vulg. and Erasmus
assume that in v. 8 he is designated ' just in seeing
and hearing' 'aspectu et audit u Justus' but it
is better to read, ' in seeing and hearing he vexed
his righteous soul.' The active voice (4/3a,ff&vifev)
implies that while he was no doubt continually
vexed beyond measure by the conduct of the people
around him, his troubles were ultimately of his
own making. ' It was precisely his dwelling there,
which was his own deliberate choice, that became
an active torment to his soul' (H. von Soden in
Handkom. zum NT, iii., Freiburg i. B., 1899, p. 203).
LOTS. 1. Definition. The art. DIVINATION in-
dicated how at an early period men felt it to be
their duty and for their advantage to get into and
maintain friendly relations with their divinities.
There gradually grew up, on the one hand, methods
by which the deities revealed their will to men ;
and on the other, methods by which men could
learn the desire or decision of the deities. Among
the latter, one of the most primitive and most
widely diffused was kleromancy (K\%>OJ + fjtavrela),
divination by lot. While the efficacy of klero-
mancy in modern civilized life depends on the elim-
ination of all possibility of human interference, in
the lower culture it depends and depended on the
certainty of Divine interference, the untrammelled
exercise of the Divine will. This end was attained
by (a) the use of certain things through which,
according to tradition, the divinities could express
their will. There were many such, as ' a rod ' (/ki5os,
"?ED, hence papSo/j-avreia, 'rhabdomancy'), 'arrows'
(^Xos, f n ; hence peXofMvria, ' belomancy '), knuckle-
bones (dffTpdya\os ; hence curTpaya.\6(MVTis, ' astra-
falomant'), and many others, as pebbles (\j/rj(f>os,
nia), beans, etc. ; (b) the reverent manipulation of
sacred things through which the deity had indicated
his pleasure to make known his will, a good ex-
ample of which is the use by the Hebrew priests
of ' the Urim and the Thummim ' ; (c) the select-
ing of a method by which the deity was perfectly
free to express his will without human interference,
a good example of which is seen in the action of
Jonathan (1 S 14 9 ' 13 ). This latter use approaches
very closely to the omen or the ordeal and to some
kinds of rhabdomancy.*
2. Diffusion. Kleromancy is a universal religious
practice. It was resorted to by the Romans t and
Greeks.? It prevailed throughout the Semitic
world. In the form of belomancy it was used by
the Babylonians (Ezk 21 21 W) ; ' he shook the arrows
to and fro.' It was employed by the sailors of
the ship of Tarshish (Jon I 7 ), by the Arabs,!! and
Assyrians (HDB iii. 152 b ), while the Persians re-
sorted to it as a means of finding out lucky days
(Est 3 7 g 24 ' 32 ). It flourishes in China and Japan
and in all uncivilized countries to-day. In every
case it is in close connexion with the worship of
the deities, and often takes place in their pre-
sence or in their temples, and always under their
'Among the Hebrews in the oldest times the
typical form of divine decision was by the lot, or
other such oracle at the sanctuary.' If Later on,
kleromancy was largely and regularly employed
with the sanction of Jahweh, so that, apart from all
human influence, passion, bias, or trickery, He
might be able to dictate His will : ' The lot 'ra?' p'rts
but the whole decision thereof comes from Jahweh '
(Pr 16 33 ).** This means not ' that the actual dis-
posal of affairs might be widely different from
what . . . the lot ... appeared to determine'
(Fairbairn, Imperial Bible Dictionary, ii. 118), but
the exact opposite ; hence it was clearly established
that ' the lot causeth contentions to cease, and
parteth between the mighty' (Pr 18 18 ). We have
a conspicuous example of rhabdomancy in the
budding and fruit- bearing of Aaron's rod (Nu 17 1 " 8
[16-23]),tt and the practice is also referred to in
Hos 4 12 , and probably in Is 17'. We find klero-
mancy practised in the form of belomancy in 2 K
* See James Sibree, 'Divination among the Malagasy,' Folk-
Lore, iii.  193 ff.
t F. Granger, The Worship of the Romans, 1895, p. 180 ;
Cicero, de Dieinatione, ii. 86, etc. ; W. Smith, Diet, of Greek
and Roman Antiquities, 1875, artt. ' Oraculum,' ' Sortes ' ;
Thomas Gataker, Treatise of the Nature and Use of Lots*, 1627,
and A just Defence of certain Passages in [the preceding]
Treatise, 1623, p. 75.
I W. R. Halliday, Greek Divination, 1913, ch. x. ; Smith, toe.
ett., art. ' Dicastes' ; The Martyrdom of Poly carp, vL
g The Qur'an (sura v. 4, Sale's Prel. Disc, v.) prohibits the
procuring of a Divine sentence by drawing a lot at the sanctuary
with headless arrows.
|| W. Robertson Smith, ' Divination and Magic in Dt 1810- U,'
in JPh-nw.  277.
U W. Robertson Smith, ib.
** Sw' may mean (a) ' cast into,' or O) ' cast about in ' (HDB
iv. 840). p<n may mean the bosom of (<x) a person ; (/3) a gar-
ment ; (y) a thing, as a chariot or altar, hence mijfht possibly
mean an urn (Smith's DB ii. 146). The meaning is almost
certainly that under (ft).
ft W. R. Smith, RS*, 1894, p. 196, and comment thereon by
G. B. Gray in Com. on Numbers (ICC, 1903).
1315-19 * Under the form known as the Urim and
the Thummim it was or became a mode used only
by the priests, t Kleromancy had, of course, its
largest sphere in acts directly connected with
Jahweh. The decision as to which goat should be
for sacrifice to Jahweh and which to Azazel was
determined by lot (Lv 16 s " 10 ). A war was the war
primarily not of Israel but of Jahweh, and that
specially if it was for the punishment of wrong-
doing ; hence the members of a punitive expedition
were chosen by lot (Jg 20 9 ), hence also the spoil
taken in war (Jg 5 30 ), whether captives (2 S 8 2 ,
Nah 3 10 , Jl 3 3 ) or sections of a conquered city
(Ob "). The services of the sanctuary were sacred ;
hence the priestly functions were assigned to the
orders by lot (1 Ch 24 6 - 7 , Lk I 9 ), Shemaiah the
scribe writing out the lots in the presence of a
committee consisting of the king, the high priest,
and other functionaries (1 Ch 24 6> S1 ). The musi-
cians (1 Ch 25 8 ), the custodians (1 Ch 26 18 - "), and
the persons who should bring the wood and other
offerings to the temple (Neh 10 34 ), were all chosen
by lot. So sacred was this procedure that a special
official was entrusted with 'superintending the
daily casting of the lots for determining the
particular parts of the service that were to be
apportioned to the various officiating priests'
(E. Schurer, HJP II. i. 269, 293). It was even
maintained by some Jews in later times that the
high priest had been chosen by the same method
(Jos. BJ iv. iii. 7, 8 ; c. Ap. ii. 24). As the king
was the official representative of Jahweh, Saul was
chosen by lot (1 S 10 19 " 21 ). Godless or indiscriminate
work is where no lot is cast (Ezk 24 6 ). When the
D^rj or ban had been pronounced and violated, then
the guilty person was detected whether the D-in
was permanent (Jos 7 14 ' 18 ) or temporary (1 S 14 41 ' 42 ),
in both cases presumably by the Urim and the
Thummim. As the Semites regarded the land
inhabited by a nation as the possession of the god
of the nation, Palestine belonged, as an allotment,
to Jahweh (Dt 32 9 ) ; hence it was His right and
duty to put His people into actual possession
(Ps 105 11 , 1 Ch 16 18 ), which He did (Ps 78 s5 135 12 ,
Ac 13 19 ), and to divide it up by kleromancy into
allotments to the various tribes (Nu 26 s5 - ^ 33"
36 2 ). This accordingly was done in regard to the
nine and a half tribes (Nu 34 13 , Jos 14 a 15 1 16 1
17 1 - "" Ps 78 55 ), to the conquered land, to the
land still unconquered after the first great effort
(Jos 18 6 ' 11 19 1 " 40 ), and at the death of Joshua (Jos
13 6 ) ; also in regard to the towns for the Levites
(Jos 21 4 , 1 Ch 6 s4 ; Jos 21 5 , 1 Ch 6 61 ; Jos 21 6 , 1 Ch
6 62 ; 1 Ch 6 s3 ; Jos 21 8 , 1 Ch 6 s5 ). This was done
'before Jahweh' (Jos 18 6 ) and under the direction
of a committee consisting of the high priest, the
political chief, and the heads of the fathers' houses
of the tribes (Jos 14 1 ' 2 ).
In course of time the procedure which had been
primarily and essentially sacred was applied to
secular affairs such as the selection of people
to inhabit, and guard a city (Neh II 1 ). A study
of the Old Testament reveals how kleromancy
coloured the thought and the theology of the
Hebrew thinkers and poets.
See also Ps 91.
t As was the ephod (1 S 1418) ; LXX and J. Wellhausen,
Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 1885, p. 133 ; HDB iv.
838, with the literature there mentioned, and v. 662*>.
J 1 S 1441-42 as amended from LXX by A. Kuenen, The Re-
ligion of Israel, i.  98 ; A. R. S. Kennedy, HDB iv.
839* ; G. B. Gray, in Mansfield College Essays, 1909, p. 120 ;
S. R. Driver, Text of the Books of Samuel, 1890.
Ezekiel's ideal division of the land was by lot (Ezk 4T 22
48- u )- It was the intention of Antiochus, after subduing
Palestine, to plant colonies in the land, dividing it among them
by lot (1 Mac 336). Josephus (BJ m. viii. 7) saved his life by
inducing his soldiers to agree that the order in which they
should kill each other should be decided by lot. He adds this
comment, ' whether we must say it happened BO by chance, or
whether by the providence of God.'
3. In the New Testament. At the Crucifixion
of Jesus we see its secular and Roman use when
the soldiers divided His upper garments among
themselves by lot.
After the suicide of Judas it was decided that
a successor should be appointed. The procedure
(Ac I 21 " 28 ) was as follows. From the mass of the
followers of Jesus, numbering about one hundred
and twenty, those only were declared eligible who
had proved their steadfastness by keeping in con-
stant contact with Him from His baptism. From
this short leet they appointed (Z<rT7]o-ai> ; not ' put
forward ') two. Neither the parties who did this
nor the method of doing it are mentioned. Then
prayer was offered to Jesus* for His decision.
The next step is not quite certain. If the words
ZOWKO.V icXripovs at/rots, which is the correct reading,
mean ' they gave the lots to them,' then that
indicates that to each of the two there was given
to place in the proper receptacle a tablet with
his name or mark, and he whose tablet was first
shaken out was held to be Divinely elected. But
the phrase is not the classical nor the NT expres-
sion for casting lots, and if rendered ' they gave
lots for them,' a quite legitimate rendering, then,
as Mosheim hekt.t the election was by ballot.
This, of course, is not in harmony with Jewish
practice, as seen in the selection of the goats
(Lv 16 8 ). From the result being indicated by the
words ' the lot fell ' and not ' the Lord chose,' it
has been argued that the election was unwarranted
and that the Divine intention was that St. Paul
should fill the place of Judas. This is a piece of
pure imagination. Nor is there a shadow of proof
that the eleven were in any special manner led
either to appoint a successor or to appoint him
by this method. The fact that the election took
place before Pentecost has no vital significance.
The act, in the face of the enemies of the Church,
was, like the auctioning of the camp of Hannibal
by the Romans, a boldly prudent step, a declara-
tion to all that the Church was neither cowed by
the death of her Lord nor dejected by the suicide
of the traitor, but was girding herself for a forward
march. When St. James was martyred there was
no occasion for such an act, and no successor was
appointed. Hence this remains the only official
use of the lot in the Apostolic Church.:}: Klero-
mancy has left its mark on the thought, and
specially on the soteriology, of the Apostolic Age.
K\ijpos is used in the secondary sense which it
gradually gained as something assigned to man
by a higher power. Judas had received rbv K\TJPOI>
in the ministry carried on by Jesus (cf. II. xxiii.
862 ; Ac I 17 ), and his successor was to take not rbv
K \r,pov (K C 3 E), but only his rbirov, ' place ' (ABC*D ;
Ac I 25 ), while in it Simon Magus had neither /uepis
oi/5 K\r)pos, neither a share, a limited portion, nor
an allotment (Ac 8 21 ). The irpeo-fivrtpoi must not
exercise lordly mastery (cf. Ps 9  5 ) over what
is not theirs, but ruv K\i)puv, allotments made to
them (1 P 5 3 ). Ignatius prays for grace eis rb rbv
K\rjp6v (j.ov dvefjiirodlffTus 6.iro\afteiv t 'to cling to my
lot without hindrance to the end ' (Epistle to the
Romans, i.). K\t)povofj.ia has its original sense of
an allotment made by a higher power. Abraham
went out from Ur into a r6irov, a district in which
he was promised an allotment (He II 8 ), but in
H. P. Liddon, The Divinity of our LordU, 1885, p. 375 ; A.
Carr in Expositor, 6th ser. i.  389 ; and various Conimen-
aries in loco.
t J. L. Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, 1868, p.
20, note 3.
J J. Binirhara, Origineg Ecclesiasticce, 1840, iv. 1. 11 ; J.
Cochrane, Discourses on Difficult Texts of Scripture, 1851, p.
297 : J. B. Lightfoot. Epistle to the Philippians^, 1870, p. 246 ;
F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 4th ser., 1874, p. 117; F. Kendall,
Expositor, 3rd ser. vii.  357 ; HDB iii. 305, and literature
there mentioned. The Didache (15) contains no reference to
the method of electing bishops and deacons.
which he actually got none (Ac 7 s ), the allotment,
and all its accompaniments, resting on nothing
legal, but on a mere promise (Gal 3 18 ). Similarly
the called of God still receive only the promise of
an allotment which is eternal (He 9 15 ).
The transmission of an allotment was regulated
by certain customs. A holder could convey it to
another, as Isaac did to Jacob, and such transfer-
ence could not be cancelled or altered (Gn 27 33 , He
12 17 ). It was recognized that the son of a female
slave could not share an allotment with the son of a
free-born wife (Gn 21 10 , Gal 4 30 ). Hence gradually
the children, just because they were the children,
of the possessor (Ro 8 17 ) claimed the allotment on
the death of the possessor as a thing to be divided
amon them (Lk 12 13 ). Because a child came to
be looked upon as the holder of the KXijpos, and
when he attained the proper age (Gal 4 1 ) entered
on possession, K\i}pov6(j,os (K\rjpos + vtyonat, 'hold')
came to mean what we call an 'heir '(He II 9 ).* In
this sense the word is used proleptically in the
expression, ' This is 6 K\ijpov6fj.os, let us kill him
and the K\ripoi>o/j.ia. will become ours ' (Mt 21 88 , Mk
12 7 , Lk 20 14 ). Similarly the higher things of life
came to be looked upon as something the K\rjpos of
which a man could hold. Noah became the holder
of the K\ijpos of righteousness (He II 7 ). Very sig-
nificant as attaching excellency to a name, as a
condensed form of the whole personality, is the
expression that the Eternal Son diatpopwrepov KeK\ripo-
v6/j.i}Kev 6vo(M, had allotted to Him a more excellent
name (He I 4 ), and thus became the One to whom
all things were allotted (He I 2 ), KXrjpov t>ij.ov ir&vruv.
Salvation, whether as promised or bestowed, is,
in its ultimate eschatological form, something
allotted. St. Paul's mission to the Gentiles was to
open the eyes that they might receive K\f)poi>, an
allotment, a thing falling to their lot, among them
that are sanctified (Ac 26 18 ). God, who is able to
give them a K\ripovofj.Lav among all them that are
sanctified (Ac ^O 32 ),! Himself causes them to be-
come partakers rov K\^pov, of the allotment of the
saints in light (cf. Ps 15  8 , Col I 12 ), the dppa^v,
the arles of the allotment, being the gift of the
Holy Spirit (Eph I 14 ), and the ministry of the
angels (He I 14 ). The promises of God are given
as an allotment to those who exhibit faith and
patience (He 6 12 ), and Christian graciousness to
others (1 P 3 9 ) ; while to him who overcomes
temptation there is given as an allotment the
blessing that only God can give (Rev 21 7 ), and to
those who comport themselves rightly to the home
circle there is given as a recompense the allotment
(Col S 24 ). The saints in this way become, as Israel
of old (Dt 4 20 Q 26 - 29 32 9 ), the allotment which
belongs to God (Eph I 11 ), iv < /ecu ^KXrjpwffrjfj.ei' (N
BKLP), and, being the riches of His glory (I 18 ), are
the heirs of all the promises (He 6 17 ). Just as the
earth is an allotment made to the meek (Mt 5 5 ),
and eternal life an allotment to those who have
left houses, etc. (Mt 19 M , Mk 10 17 , Lk 10 28 18 18 ,
Gal 5 21 ), so there is a Kingdom in which the un-
righteous (1 Co 6 9>1 ), in which flesh and blood
(1 Co 15 80 ), in which fornicators, etc. (Eph 5 s ),
cannot receive an allotment ; for it is an allotment
prepared only for the blessed of the Father (Mt
25 s4 ). It is therefore a spiritual allotment, incor-
ruptible, undefiled (1 P I 4 ). This possession passes
to men not through force of a legal enactment,
but through their showing themselves heirs to it
by their ethical and spiritual conduct. Thus the
allotment of this world, promised to Abraham,
passes to those linked to him not by flesh and
blood, but only by the righteousness of faith (Ro
* Cf. the remarks on feudal tenure in J. Hill Burton, The
Scot Abroad, 1898, p. 4.
t Cf. Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, xii. : ' det vobis
sortem et parteui inter sanotos suos."
4 13 - 14 ), and only those who are thus in Christ are
Abraham's progeny, and K\rjpov6/j.ot. according to
the promise (Gal 3 s9 ). They are the heirs of
eternal life, according to hope (Tit3 7 ), and because
they have loved their Lord (Ja 2 5 ). Hence it is
that the Gentiles equally with the Jews are avv-
K\ijpov6fjLoi, fellow heirs (Eph 3 6 ), and wives are aw-
K\ijpov6fj,ois, joint heirs of the grace of life (1 P 3 7 ).*
The conception of salvation as something allotted
to man may have tended to obscure the necessity
for diligence and earnestness in the pursuit of the
Christian ideal, and this again may account for
the absence of the idea from the writings of the
Apostolic Fathers. In actual life at least we are
not unfamiliar with something similar.
While kleromancy, it is true, ' appeared to take
the responsibility of decision out of the hands of
man and vest it in the presiding deity,' t yet, in
reality, its tendency is not to exalt the Divine will
but to enervate the human mind. It thus tends
to destroy our sense of responsibility, and the
duty of patiently permitting God to enlighten our
minds as to what is right. It thus robs us of the
moral and spiritual discipline of acting according
as conscience, enlightened by Him, dictates, and
besides opens up infinite possibilities of trickery
and fraua. Through the action of the eleven, and
age-long influences, Jewish and pagan, kleromancy
continued to be practised in the Church. Augus-
tine held that divisory lots were lawful in common
things but not in disposing of ecclesiastical offices
and lives of men,J and similar views continued to
prevail till near the end of the 17th century.
Jeremy Taylor still thought it 'not improbable,
and in most cases to be admitted, that God hath
committed games of chance to the Devil's conduct.' ||
Wesley believed in Divine guidance being given by
lot,1T and in 1738 a journey to Bristol was finally
decided on, after various appeals to the Sorles
Sanctorum, by kleromancy. ** Among the Moravi-
ans, whose first ministers were chosen by lot, in
1467, and whose church life was at first completely
regulated by kleromancy, its sphere was steadily
and gradually limited, and it is now scarcely recog-
nized.ft Though down to the end of the 16th cent, it
was frequently practised,^}: and the prevailing view
was that ' lots may not be used, but with great re-
verence, because the disposition of them cometh im-
mediately from God,' yet the arguments of Gata-
ker that such Divine interposition was ' indeed
mere superstition,' and that ' lots were governed
by purely natural laws,' gradually influenced
educated men. Among the more illiterate sects
kleromancy long lingered, and the scene in Silas
Marner (en. 1) was true to life. Pious but ignorant
people still resort to it in one form or another.
The rule that when a lower type of religion is
absorbed or superseded by a higher the ceremonies
of the former finally become games, and then
children's games, is illustrated by the fact that
the casting of lots, once sacred and solemn, is
now totally confined to games.
LITERATURE. This has been indicated in the foot-notes.
P. A. GORDON CLAEK.
Ct the slave made co-heir (Hennas, ii.).
t J. E. Carpenter, Comparative Religion, 1913, p. 178.
t Bingham, xvi. 5. 3.
Bingham, iv. 1. 1. For the connexion between KArjpos and
clergy' see Li^htfoot, p. 245, and E. de Pressens6, Christian
Life and Practice in the Early Church,, 1880, p. 62.
| Ductor dubitantiurn, 1660, iv. 1.
U Life oj Wesley, by Robert Southey (Bonn's edition, 1864), pp.
80, 81, 110, 111, 119, note 27.
** Journal of John Wesley (Everyman's edition), i.  175.
ft Primitive Church Government in the Practice of the Re-
formed in Bohemia, with notes of John Amos Comenius, 1703,
pp. viii, 23 ; H. Kline-smith, Divine Providence, or Historical
Records relating to the Moravian Church, Irvine, 1831. p. 482.
tt See, e.g., Johnson's Life of Cowley (Nimmo's edition).
Thomas Oataker, Treatise of the Nature and Use of Lots,
pp. 91, 141.
LOVE. 1. Linguistic usage. Two verbs are
used by the NT to designate religious love dyawdv
and <j>i.\elv. In the LXX a third term, tyav, occurs,
but only once sensu bono, viz. Pr 4 6 (love of wisdom),
once in a neutral sense, viz. Est 2 n (the king loved
Esther), everywhere else as a figure of idolatry or
political theocratic unfaithfulness (Jer 22 20 ' 22 , La
I 19 , Ezk 16 33 - 38 - 87 23 s - 9 - 22 , Hos %> 10 - 12 - 13 ). That
the NT does not employ Ipdv at all is probably due
to the sensual associations of the word. In regard to
the difference between dyairdv and <f>i\ew the follow-
ing should be noticed. The etymology of dyairdv
is uncertain, but it seems to be allieoT to roots ex-
pressing ' admiration,' ' taking pride in,' ' taking
pleasure in.' This points to the conclusion that
dyairdv is the love of selection and complacency
based on the perception of something in the object
loved that attracts and pleases. This element of
selective attachment shows itself in the fact that
dyairdv can mean 'to be contented with,"' 'to
acquiesce in,' ' to put up with,' and also in this,
that dyairdv is not used of the love of mere compas-
sion. On the other hand, QiXftv seems to have as its
fundamental root-meaning the intimacy of bodily
touch, fondling,' ' caressing,' whence it can signify
' to kiss ' ; it therefore denotes the love of close as-
sociation in the habitual relations of life love be-
tween kindred, between husband and wife, between
friends (Mt 6* 10 37 23, Lk 20 46 , Jn II 3 ' 86 12 28 15 19 ,
1 Ti 6 10 [<pi\apyvpid], 2 Ti 3 4 [>Xij5<5i'oj], Tit 2 4 [0ft-
avSpos'], Ja 4 4 [<pi\La rov /c<5<r/*oi>]). In Latin diligere
corresponds to dyairdv, amare to <f>i\eiv, except
that amare covers a wider range, corresponding
also to the Greek ipav. From this distinctive and
fundamental meaning the fact may be explained
that in biblical Greek dyawdv is used exclusively
where man's love for God comes under considera-