Lecture 13.

Revealed Theology. God And His Attributes.

Syllabus.
1. Give the Derivation and Meaning of the Names applied to God in the
Scriptures.
Turrettin, Loc. 3, Qu. 4. Breckinridges Theology, Vol. 1, p. 199.
Concordances and Lexicons.
2. What is the meaning of the term, Gods Attributes? And what the most
common Classifications of them?
Turrettin, Loc. 3, Qu. 5, &c. Dick, Lect. 21. Breckinridge, Vol. 1, p. 260, &c.
Hodge, Syst. Theol. Vol. 1, p. 369 to 372. Thornwell, Lect. 6, p. 162166 and
567, &c
3. What are the Scriptural evidences of Gods Unity, Spirituality and
Simplicity?
Turrettin, Loc, 3, Qu. 3 and 7. Dick, Lect. 17 and 18.
4. What the Bible-proofs of Gods Immensity.
Turrettin, Loc. 3, Qu. 9. Dick, Lect. 19.
5. What the Scriptural proof of Gods Eternity?
Turrettin, Loc. 3, Qu. 10. Dick, Lect. 57.
6. Prove from Scripture that God is Immutable.
Turrettin, Loc. 3, Qu. 11. Dick, Lect. 20. See on whole, Charnock on the
Attributes.
Infallibility of Scriptures assumed.
IN approaching the department of Revealed Theology, the first question is
concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures. This having been settled, we may
proceed to assume them as inspired and infallible. Our business now is merely
to ascertain and collect their teachings, to systematize them, and to show their
relation to each other. The task of the student of Revealed Theology, is,
therefore, in the first place, mainly exegetical. Having discovered the teachings
of revelation by sound exposition, and having arranged them, he is to add
nothing, except what follows by good and necessary consequence.
Consequently, there is no study in which the truth is more important, that with
the lowly is wisdom.
1. Gods Names reveal Him.
The New Testament, and still more, the Old, presents us with an interesting
subject of study, in the names and titles of God, which they employ to give our
feeble mind a conception of His manifold perfections. The names `` ` "N
`.N `"N 2`"N `L and `N2S `` in the Hebrew, and Qeo>v Ku>riov,
[Ufiftov, Pantokra>twr, in the Greek, give, of themselves, an extensive
description of His nature. For they are all, according to the genius of the
ancient languages, significant of some quality; and are thus, when rightly
interpreted, proof-texts to sustain several divine attributes. `` (J ehovah)
with its abbreviation, ` (which most frequently appears in the doxology, `
`"" ) has ever been esteemed by the Church the most distinctive and sacred,
because the incommunicable name of God. The student is familiar with the
somewhat superstitious reverence with which the later Hebrews regard it,
never pronouncing it aloud, but substituting it in reading the Scriptures, by the
word `.N . There seems little doubt that the sacred name presents the same
radicals with `` , the future of the substantive verb ` . This is strikingly
confirmed by Exo. 3:14, where God, revealing His name to Moses, says: `N
LN `N (I am that I am) is His name. For we have here, in form the first
person future of the substantive verb, and our Saviour, J oh. 8:58, claiming the
incommunicable divinity, says, imitating this place: Before Abraham was, I
AM.
f4
In Exo. 6: 2, 3, we learn that the characteristic name by which God
commissioned Moses was J ehovah. This is an additional argument which
shows, along with its origin, that the name means self-existence and
independence.
This the incommunicable Name.
Such a meaning would, of itself, lead us to expect that this name, with its
kindred derivatives, is never applied to any but the one proper God; because no
other being has the attribute which it signifies. A further proof is found in the
fact that it is never applied as a proper name, to any other being in Scripture.
The angel who appeared to Abraham, to Moses, and to J oshua, (Gen. 18: 1;
Exo. 3: 2-4; J os. 5:13; 6: 3,) was evidently J ehovah-Christ. When Moses
named the altar J ehovah-nissi, (Exo. 17:15,) he evidently no more dreamed of
calling it J ehovah, than did Abram, when he called a place, (Gen. 22:14,)
J ehovah jireh. And when Aaron said concerning the worship of the calf: To-
morrow is the feast of J ehovah, he evidently considered the image only as
representative of the true God. But the last and crowning evidence that this
name is always distinctive, is that God expressly reserves it to Himself. (See
Exo. 3:15; 15: 3; 20: 2; Psa. 88:18; Isa. 42: 8; 48: 2; Amo. 5: 8; 9: 6.) The chief
value of this fact is not only to vindicate to God exclusively the attribute of
self-existence; but greatly to strengthen the argument for the divinity of Christ.
When we find the incommunicable name given to Him, it is the strongest proof
that he is very God.
Other Names.
`.N Lord, is the equivalent of the Greek Ku>riov. Its meaning is possession
and dominion, expressed by the Latin Dominus, which is its usual translation
in the Vulgate, both in the Old and New Testaments, and, unfortunately, is the
usual translation of J ehovah also. Hence has arisen the suppression of this
name in our English version, where both are translated Lord; and J ehovah is
distinguished only by having its translation printed in capitals, (LORD.)
`L is also a pluralis excellenti, expressing omnipotence. Sometimes, as in
J ob. 5:17 it stands by itself; sometimes, as in Gen. 17: 1, it is connected with
"N (where it is rendered God Almighty.) This seems to be the name by
which He entered into special covenant with Abram. It appears in the New
Testament in its Greek form of Pantokra>twr, Rev. 1: 8.
``". is said to be a verbal form of the verb ". to ascend; and is
rendered in Psa. 9: 3, and 21: 8, Most High. This name signifies the
exaltation of Gods character.
`N2S hosts, is frequently used as an epithet qualifying one of the other
names of God, as `N2S `` J ehovah of hosts, (i.e., exercituum.) In this
title, all the ranks or orders of creatures, animate and inanimate, are
represented as subject to God, as the divisions of an army are to their
commander.
Communicable Names
We come now to what may be called the communicable names of God; the
same words are also used to express false and imaginary Gods or mighty men,
as well as the true God. It is a striking peculiarity, that these alone are
subjected to inflection by taking on the construct state and the pronominal
suffixes. They are "N expressing the idea of might, and `"N 2`"N
singular and plural forms of the same root, probably derived from the verb
"`N to be strong. The singular form appears to be used chiefly in books of
poetry. The plural, (a pluralis majestatis) is the common term for God, Qeov,
Deus, expressing the simple idea of His eternity as our Maker, the God of
creation and providence.
Gathering up these names alone, and comprehending their conjoined force
according to the genius of Oriental language, we find that they compose by
themselves an extensive revelation of Gods nature. They clearly show Him to
be self-existent, independent, immutable and eternal; infinite in perfections,
exalted in majesty, almighty in power, and of universal dominion. We shall
find all of God implicitly, in these traits.
The Scriptures give to God a number of expressive metaphorical titles (which
some very inaccurately and needlessly would classify as His Metaphorical
attributes, whereas they express, not attributes, but relations,) such as King,
Lawgiver, J udge, Rock, Tower, Deliverer, Shepherd,
Husbandman, Father, &c. These cannot be properly called His names.
2. Attributes what?
Identical with Essence?
Gods attributes are those permanent, or essential, qualities of His nature,
which He has made known to us in His word. When we say they are essential
qualities, we do not mean that they compose His substance, as parts thereof
making up a whole; still less, that they are members, attached to God, by
which He acts. They are traits qualifying His nature always, and making it the
nature it is. The question whether Gods attributes are parts of His essence, has
divided not only scholastics, Socinians and orthodox, but even Mohammedans;
affecting, as it does, the proper conception of His unity and simplicity. We
must repudiate the gross idea that they are parts of His substance, or members
attached to it; for then He would be susceptible of division, and so of
destruction. His substance is a unit, a monad. Gods omniscience, e.g., is not
something attached to His substance, whereby He knows; but only a power or
quality of knowing, qualifying His infinite substance itself. To avoid this gross
error, the scholastics, (including many Protestants,) used to say that Gods
essence, and each or every attribute, are identical; i.e., that His whole essence
is identical with each attribute. They were accustomed to say, that Gods
knowing is God, Gods willing is God, or that the whole God is in every act;
and this they supposed to be necessary to a proper conception of His
simplicity. This predication they carried so far as to say, that Gods essence
was simple in such sense as to exclude, not only all distinctions of parts, or
composition, but all logical distinction of substance or essence, entity and
quiddity, and to identify the essence and each attribute absolutely and in a
sense altogether different from finite spirits.
Objections.
Now, as before remarked, (Lect. 4, Nat. Theol.) if all this means anything more
than is conceded on the last page, it is pantheism. The charge there made is
confirmed by this thought: That if the divine essence must be thus literally
identified with each attribute, then the attributes are also identified with each
other. There is no virtual, but only a nominal difference, between Gods
intellect and will. Hence, it must follow, that God effectuates all He conceives.
This not only obliterates the vital distinction between His scientia simplex and
scientia visionis; but it also robs God of His freedom as a personal agent, and,
if He is infinite by His omniscience, proves that the creation, or His works, is
infinite. Here we have two of the very signatures of pantheism. But further:
this identification of the distinct functions of intelligence and will violates our
rational consciousness. There is a virtual difference between intellection,
conation, and sensibility. Every man knows this, as to himself; and yet he
believes in the unity of his spirit. It is equally, or more highly, true of God, The
fact that He is an infinite spiritual unit, does not militate against this position,
but rather facilitates our holding of it; inasmuch as this infinitude accounts for
the manifold powers of function exercised, better than our finite spirituality. It
will be enough to add, in conclusion, that the fundamental law of our reason
forbids our really adopting this scholastic refinement. We can only know
substance by its attributes. We can only believe an attribute to be, as we are
able to refer it to its substance. This is the only relation of thought, in which
the mind can think either. Were the reduction of substance and attribute
actually made then, in good faith, the result would be incognoscible to the
human intellect.
God is infinite, and therefore incomprehensible, for our minds, in His essence.
(J ob. 11: 7-9.) Now, since our only way of knowing His essence is as we know
the attributes which (in our poor, shortcoming phrase) compose it, each of
Gods attributes and acts must have an element of the incomprehensible about
it. (See J ob. 26:14; Psa. 139: 5, 6; Isa. 40:28; Rom. 11:33.) One of the most
important attainments for you to make, therefore, is for you to rid your minds
for once and all, of the notion, that you either do or can comprehend the whole
of what is expressed of any of Gods attributes. Yet there is solid truth in our
apprehension of them up to our limited measure i.e., our conception of
them, if scriptural, will be not essentially false, but only defective. Of this, we
have this twofold warrant: First, that God has told us we are, in our own
rational and moral attributes, formed in His image, so that His infinite, are the
normae of our finite, essential qualities; and second, that God has chosen such
and such human words (as wisdom, rectitude, knowledge,) to express these
divine attributes. The Bible does not use words dishonestly.
Are the Separate Attributes of Infinite Number?
Another question has been raised by orthodox divines, (e.g., Breckinridge,)
whether since Gods essence is infinite, we must not conceive of it as having
an infinite number of distinct attributes. That is, whatever may be the
revelations of Himself made by God in word and works, and however
numerous and glorious the essential attributes displayed therein, an infinite
number of other attributes still remain, not dreamed of by His wisest creatures.
The origin of this notion seems to be very clearly in Spinozism, which sought
to identify the multifarious universe and God, by making all the kinds,
however numerous and diverse, modes of His attributes. Now, if the question
is asked, can a finite mind prove that this circle of attributes revealed in the
Scriptures which seem to us to present a God so perfect, so lotus teres et
rotundus, are the only distinct essential attributes His essence has, I shall freely
answer, no. By the very reason that the essence is infinite and
incomprehensible, it must follow that a finite mind can never know whether
He has exhausted the enumeration of the distinct qualities thereof or not, any
more than He can fully comprehend one of them. But if it be said that the
infinitude of the essence necessitates an infinite number of distinct attributes, I
again say, no; for would not one infinite attribute mark the essence as infinite?
Man cannot reason here. But the same attribute may exhibit numberless varied
acts:
Classification of Attributes.
In most sciences, classification of special objects of study is of prime
importance, for two reasons. The study of resemblances and diversities, on
which classification proceeds, aids us in learning the individuals classified
more accurately. The objects are so exceedingly numerous, that unless general
classes were formed, of which general propositions could be predicated, the
memory would be overwhelmed, and the task of science endless. The latter
reason has very slight application, in treating Gods attributes; because their
known number is not great. The former reason applies very fairly. Many
classifications have been proposed, of which I will state the chief.
Into Communicable and Incommunicable.
(a.) The old orthodox classification was into communicable and
incommunicable. Thus, omniscence was called a communicable attribute;
because God confers on angels and men, not identically His omniscience, or a
part of it, but an attribute of knowledge having a likeness, in its lower degree,
to His. His eternity is called an incommunicable attribute, because man has,
and can have nothing like it, in any finite measure even. In some of the
attributes, as Gods independence and self-existence, this distinction may be
maintained; but in many others to which it is usually applied, it seems of little
accuracy. For instance, Gods eternity may be stated as His infinite relation to
duration. Mans temporal life is his finite relation to duration, and I see not but
the analogy is about as close between this and Gods eternity, as between
mans little knowledge and His omniscience.
Into Relative and Absolute.
(b.) Another distribution, proposed by others, is into absolute and relative.
Gods immensity, for instance, is His absolute attribute; His omnipresence, His
corresponding relative attribute. The distinction happens to be pretty accurate
in this case, but it would be impossible to carry it through the whole.
Into Natural and Moral.
(c.) Another distribution is into natural and moral attributes; the natural being
those which qualify Gods being as an infinite spirit merely e.g.,
omniscience, power, ubiquity; the moral, being those which qualify Him as a
moral being, viz., righteousness, truth, goodness and holiness. This distinction
is just and accurate, but the terms are bungling. For Gods moral attributes are
as truly natural (i.e., original,) as the others.
The distribution into negative and positive, and the Cartesian, into internal
(intellect and will) and external, need not be more than mentioned. Dr.
Breckinridge has proposed a more numerous classification, into primary, viz:
those belonging to God as simply being: essential, viz: these qualifying His
being as pure spirit; natural, viz: those constituting Him a free and intelligent
spirit; moral, viz: those constituting Him a righteous being; and consummate,
being those perfections which belong to Him as the concurrent result of the
preceding. The general objection is, that it is too artificial and complicated. It
may be remarked, further, that the distinction of primary and essential
attributes is unfounded. Common sense would tell us that we cannot know God
as being, except as we know Him as spiritual being; and dialectics would say
that the consideration of the essentia must precede that of the esse. Further, the
subordinate distribution of attributes under the several heads is confused.
Best Classification.
The distribution which I would prefer, would conform most nearly to that
mentioned in the third place, into moral and non-moral. The Westminster
Assembly, in this case as in many others, has given us the justest and most
scientific view of this arrangement, in its Catechism: God is a spirit, infinite,
eternal and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justness,
goodness and truth, This recognizes a real ground of distinction, after which
the other tentative arrangements I have described, are evidently groping, with a
dim and partial apprehension. There is one class of attributes, (wisdom, power,
purity, justice, goodness and truth,) specifically and immediately qualifying
Gods being. There is another class, (infinitude, eternity, immutability,) which
collectively qualify all His other attributes and His being, and which may,
therefore, be properly called His consummate attributes. God is, then, infinite,
eternal and immutable in all His perfections. In a sense, somewhat similar, all
His moral attributes may be said to be qualified by the consummate moral
attribute, holiness the crowning glory of the divine character.
Unity of God.
3. What we conceive to be the best rational proofs of Gods
unity and simplicity, were presented in a previous lecture on
Natural Theology
we gave the preference to that from the convergent harmony of creation.
Theologians are also accustomed to argue it from the necessity of His
excellence (inconclusively,) from His infinitude (more solidly.) But our best
proof is the Word, which asserts His exclusive, as well as His numerical unity.
Deu. 6: 4; 1Ki. 8:60; Isa. 44: 6; Mar. 12:29-32; 1Co. 8: 4; Eph. 4: 6; Gal. 3:20;
1Ti. 2: 5; Deu. 32:39; Isa. 43:10-11; 37:16, &c.
He is a Spirit.
The spirituality of God we argued rationally, first, from the fact that He is an
intelligent and voluntary first cause; for our understandings are, properly
speaking, unable to attribute these qualities to any other than spiritual
substance. We found the same conclusion flowed necessarily from the fact,
that God is the ultimate source of all force. It is implied in His immensity and
omnipresence. He is Spirit, because the fountain of life. This also is confirmed
by Scriptures emphatically. (See Deu. 4:15-18; Psa. 139: 7; Isa. 31: 3;
J oh. 4:24; 2Co. 3:17.) This evidence is greatly strengthened by the fact, that
not only is the Father, but the divine nature in Christ, and the Holy Ghost, also
are called again and again Spirit. (See, for the former, Rom. 1: 4; Heb. 9:14.
For the latter, the title Holy Ghost, Pneu~ma, everywhere in New Testament,
and even in Old.) We may add, also, all those passages which declare God,
although always most intimately present, to be beyond the cognizance of all
our senses. (Col. 1:15; 1Ti. 1:17; Heb. 11:27.)
His Simplicity.
The simplicity of God, theologically defined, is not expressly asserted in the
bible. But it follows as a necessary inference, from His spirituality.
Our consciousness compels us to conceive of our own spirits as absolutely
simple; because the consciousness is always such, and the whole conscious
subject, ego, is in each conscious state indivisibly. The very idea of dividing a
thought, an emotion, a volition, a sensation, mechanically into parts, is wholly
irrelevant to our conception of them; it is impossible. Hence, as God tells us
that our spirits were formed in the image of His, and as He has employed this
word, Pneu~ma, to express the nature of His substance, we feel authorized to
conceive of it as also simple. But there are still stronger reasons; for
(a.) Otherwise Gods absolute unity would be lost.
(b.) He would not be incapable of change.
(c.) He might be disintegrated, and so, destroyed.
We are well aware that many representations occur in Scripture which seem to
speak of God as having a material form, (e.g., in the theophanies) and parts, as
hands, face, &c., &c. The latter are obviously only representations adapted to
our faculties, to set before us the different modes of Gods workings. The
seeming forms, angelic or human, in which He appeared to the patriarchs, were
but the symbols of His presence.
Immensity and Omnipresence.
4. The distinction between Gods immensity and
omnipresence has already been stated.
Both are asserted in Scriptures. The former in 1Ki. 8:27, and parallel in
Chronicles; Isa. 66: 1. The latter in Psa. 139: 7-10; Act. 17:27-28; J er. 23:24;
Heb. 1: 3. It follows, also, from what is asserted of Gods works of creation
and providence, and of His infinite knowledge. (See Theol. Lect. 4th.)
5. Gods eternity has already been defined, as an existence
absolutely without beginning, without end, and without
succession; and the rational evidences thereof have been
presented.
As to the question, whether Gods thoughts and purposes are absolutely
unconnected with all successive duration, we saw, when treating this question
in Natural Theology, good reason to doubt. The grounds of doubt need not be
repeated. But there is a more popular sense, in which the punctum stans, may
be predicated of the divine existence, that past and future are as distinctly and
immutably present with the Divine Mind, as the present. This is probably
indicated by the striking phrase, Isa. 57:15 and more certainly, by Exo. 3:14,
compared with J oh. 8:58; by Psa. 90: 4, and 2 Peter, 3: 8. That Gods being has
neither beginning nor end is stated in repeated places as Gen. 21:33;
Psa. 90: 1, 2; 102:26-28; Isa. 41: 4; 1Ti. 1:17; Heb. 1:12; Rev. 1: 8.
6. I mmutability.
That God is immutable in His essence, thoughts, volitions, and all His
perfections, has been already argued from His perfection itself, from His in
dependence and sovereignty, from His simplicity and from His blessedness.
This unchangeableness not only means that He is devoid of all change, decay,
or increase of substance: but that His knowledge, His thoughts and plans, and
His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. This immutability
of His knowledge and thoughts flows from their infinitude. For, being
complete from eternity, there is nothing new to be added to His knowledge.
His nature remaining the same, and the objects present to His mind remaining
forever unchanged, it is clear that His active principles and purposes must-
remain forever in the same state; because there is nothing new to Him to
awaken or provoke new feelings or purposes.
Our Confession says, that God hath neither parts nor passions. That He has
something analogous to what are called in man active principles, is manifest,
for He wills and acts; therefore He must feel. But these active principles must
not be conceived of as emotions, in the sense of ebbing and flowing accesses
of feeling. In other words, they lack that agitation and rush, that change from
cold to hot, and hot to cold, which constitute the characteristics of passion in
us. They are, in God, an ineffable, fixed, peaceful, unchangeable calm,
although the springs of volition. That such principles may be, although
incomprehensible to us, we may learn from this fact: That in the wisest and
most sanctified creatures, the active principles have least of passion and
agitation, and yet they by no means become inefficacious as springs of action
e.g., moral indignation in the holy and wise parent or ruler. That the above
conception of the calm immutability of Gods active principles is necessary,
appears from the following: The agitations of literal passions are incompatible
with His blessedness. The objects of those feelings are as fully present to the
Divine Mind at one time as another; so that there is nothing to cause ebb or
flow. And that ebb would constitute a change in Him. When, therefore, the
Scriptures speak of God as becoming wroth, as repenting, as indulging His
fury against His adversaries, in connection with some particular event
occurring in time, we must understand them anthropopathically. What is meant
is, that the outward manifestations of His active principles were as though
these feelings then arose.
Gods immutability, as thus defined, is abundantly asserted in Scriptures.
(Num. 23:19; Psa. 102:26; 33:11; 120: 4; Isa. 46:10; Mal. 3: 6; J am. 1:17;
Heb. 6:17; 13: 8.)
Objections Answered.
This attribute has been supposed to be inconsistent with the incarnation of the
Godhead in Christ; with Gods work done in time, and especially His creation;
and with His reconciliation with sinners upon their repentance. To the first, it
is enough to reply, that neither was Gods substance changed by the
incarnation; for there was no confusion of natures in the person of Christ, nor
was His plan modified; for He always intended and foresaw it. To the second,
the purpose to create precisely all that is created, was from eternity to God, and
to do it just at the time He did. Had He not executed that purpose when the set
time arrived, there would have been the change. To the third, I reply, the
change is not in God: but in the sinner. For God to change His treatment as the
sinners character changes, this is precisely what His immutability dictates.